goodsource,
You hit the nail on the head. The real disadvantage of DAC direct is the poor results with the digital volume control at high attenuation. This is the equivalent of cutting the bits drastically, such as from 16 bits at no attenuation to 4 bits at 72 dB (72 = 12 x 6) of attenuation for CD’s. Say that at no attenuation the SPL is 90 dB, so to hear very low SPL of 18 dB, you only get 4 bits of resolution. With only 4 bits, a sine wave will look like a jagged jerky mess, so this explains how the sound at low levels is unnatural. I had forgotten about this point, and thanks for pointing this out.
My experience has been with analog sources and analog volume controls, so I found that eliminating an extra gain stage from a line stage yields more transparency. I have been impressed with the transparency of the Christine preamp, which alters the transparency very little.
If WC presented moderately loud music at very low levels, with large attenuation, the DAC direct would undoubtedly have less clarity/purity vs using the added preamp for volume control. However, if he presented very soft music with the DAC at little attenuation, then the weakness of the digital volume control would be greatly lessened. In this case, the DAC direct connection might be superior to adding the preamp, for clarity/purity. Therefore, the added preamp will have more clarity/purity if there is large attenuation, but possibly less clarity/purity at low attenuation.
Practically speaking, most people who are going DAC direct use their volume controls at middle settings, where there is significant attenuation, chopping off lots of bits. If they used the DAC with no attenuation but used the analog volume control with the appropriate attenuation, I agree that in most cases using digital volume controls, DAC direct would show less clarity/purity. |
Techno,
Reasonable point that Be is a metal and resonates. Ribbons are usually aluminum, also a metal. But the Maggie ribbon is one of the top HF tweeters around, and mostly everyone regards it as smooth and detailed. An electrostatic membrane is plastic mylar tightly controlled by the metal stators on both sides of the mylar. Ceramic tweeters are also excellent. I think all materials resonate in different modes. The issue is how good the diaphragm is controlled by magnetic or electric fields.
Most tweeters are excellent performers, even cheap ones with inferior designs. Glare is caused by integration problems with midrange drivers, crossover electronics, box resonances, etc.
|
Jetter,
Good question. I use my Benchmark DAC1 with attenuation of roughly 10-20 dB with my Bryston amp gain of 29 dB, but with att of 4-14 dB when the Bryston gain is 23 dB to yield the same SPL. I have not noticed any difference in resolution or tone quality either way, but I really should set the att to 0 where the rotary volume control (VC) is fully clockwise, and use the VC on my analog EQ. Too bad the weak link of my Rane EQ is a small rotary low quality VC. Mrdecibel suggested upgrading the VC on the Rane.
Having been enlightened by goodsource's info, I now believe that the best way to obtain highest resolution and tonal purity for most people is to set the DAC VC to zero att where all the digits are used for maximum resolution, then use the analog VC on the preamp which is high quality. But analog VC's have problems at the lower part of the range, which is high att, and you get the smallest steps at the high part of the dial, which is the lowest att. I see that the Rossini DAC has options for output of 2V, 4V, 6V, so that the VC of the preamp may be used with different att. It all depends on the efficiency of the speakers and your listening SPL. However, I don't know whether the 2V setting is already attenuated by a factor of 3 for voltage, which is a factor of 9 for power, or about 9.5 dB. If it is attenuated, then that is a disadvantage by throwing away bits, so I still say that the 6V setting would be better for resolution. On the other hand, if the 2V setting is the one for no att and the 6V setting is actually including 9.5 dB gain, then that is another gain stage which is unwanted when you have a better quality gain stage in the analog preamp added.
Maybe WC can shed light on this if he has tried the 2V setting in the Rossini with a higher gain in the preamp, vs the 6V setting in the Rossini with a lower gain in the preamp, for the same SPL.
|
Jetter,
You said, "I thought so myself, and then realized I was wrong." About what regarding Tektons?
|
WC,
OK, but was 2V better for clarity/detail while being anemic and less full than 6V? The differences were probably slight, right?
I wish all serious DAC's would dispense with the volume control, which is flawed as goodsource explained. In principle, taking a microphone signal which is analog, converting it to digital, and then back again to analog should not have any gain. A DAC could be dedicated to just the D/A, as in the Esoteric I believe. Then let the dedicated analog preamp do the best job of amplifying, with the analog volume control.
It is bad enough that the microphone needs its own preamp, and the mixing board is a nest of electronics. All this circuitry is a big reason why there is a big gap between live sound and recordings.
|
Techno,
The problem with Be tweeters in most speakers is not the tweeter, but the fact that the lower freq drivers are slower with more distortion than the tweeter, so the overall sound could be discontinuous and incoherent. But that's why I like the design of the Paradigm Persona model B, which uses a Be driver for midrange and bass down to about 50 Hz. It also makes the tweeter array concept for the Tektons very appealing. Those tweeters handle the midrange down to 300 Hz for the double array, and 600 Hz for the single array. Listeners to Tektons note their coherence. I imagine that the coherence will be just as good with the Be tweeters, but with even better resolution across the whole freq range above 300 or 600 Hz. Many people are eagerly awaiting the experiences of people who have compared Be and stock tweeters on Tektons.
|
WC,
I will listen for myself. It is not an issue of money. Tube lovers or euphonic SS lovers who like soft sound will prefer those amps to the Mephisto, whether cheap or expensive. The lover of that type of sound won't think he/she is stupid. Tube lovers of that type of sound will say that SS lovers who don't hear the "magic or naturalness of tubes" are stupid. |
kps25sc,
You said, "Why has this thread also become a magnet for people with obvious psychological problems, if you are lonely and suffer from sleeplessness, low self esteem or OCD please join a support group."
I don't know why you continue to denigrate me and others with that statement. I have tried to engage in dignified discussions with you, but you don't do the same with that statement you just made. And, "mediocre low cost equipment?" How would you know? You haven't done the listening to the equipment I own, so your accusations are pure speculations, to put it mildly.
My posts of this AM are reasoned discussions free of any emotional baggage. Your last post is far from that.
|
WC,
Getting back to the Rossini with its choice of output settings, I read all the reviews of Rossini and Vivaldi, and company info, and couldn't find info about at what level the DCS analog circuitry attenuates or boosts the output. The only listening comment was from Chris Thomas in Hifi Plus from 2013, where he said that the 2V setting showed "more musical integrity" (whatever that means), and the 6V setting showed "more drive." This is consistent with your observation. Based on my knowledge of the recording industry, 1V is the standard full scale output, perhaps 2V for XLR, I forgot. Most CD players without volume controls have a fixed 2V analog output, which could be XLR. Lacking further info from DCS, I am merely guessing that using the 2V max output level, there is no attenuation, but using the 6V max output level, there is an additional 9.5 dB amplification circuit used. This is highly speculative on my part, because there is no mention of a fixed output without any attenuation or boost. So if I am correct, then the extra circuitry for the 9.5 dB boost would explain your observations that the 6V provides more oomph and fullness, and my guess that the 2V would provide more detail by having less analog circuitry in the path. I suspect that the 2V/6V differences are minor. |
WC,
In your terms, viber6 = music + sonic precision without regard to price. It just so happens that my Mytek Brooklyn Amp+ from $2500 is superior for precision to the Merrill 114 at $15K which I heard. Since your Merrill 118 (close to the 114) is superior to most other amps you have heard for sonic precision, judging from your comments, I will extrapolate and say that the Mytek is most likely superior for precision to most of your far more expensive amps.
But the Mephisto is a possible exception, which could very well be superior in precision to my Mytek and Bryston amps. I don't have a monolithic view that all cheap things are better than all expensive things. Probably the average expensive amp is better than the average cheap amp. But even you correctly said that audio myth #1 is that more expensive means better, as with the Accuphase integrated amp. Well, the Accuphase at $22K is not what you consider in the expensive category, but this example shows that you shouldn't laugh at people who say that the $4K McIntosh is better for them than the much more expensive Mephisto. FWIW, for me, the Mephisto would be better than any tube amp, cheap or expensive.
|
Jay’s YT channel is valuable in its unique way of presenting sonic differences among highly prized components. This thread has unique value in allowing people to elaborate on their views in much greater detail than YT comments can. You can search people’s comments and see some of their systems. The key to the continued success of this thread will be mutual respect from everyone here. Also, a thread is a center of learning when there is respect. A teacher who insults the students doesn't accomplish anything because the students don't want to listen, but the teacher who just objectively presents valuable information is much more effective.
|
rbach,
Just ignore me if you don't find my writing useful to you. No need to bash, rbach.
|
I agree with grey9hound that he is not here to criticize Jay or anyone else. He seeks truth only. He happens to believe that tubes offer a uniquely natural quality that eludes SS. In my early days with SS, I thought they were unnatural, and I found tubes more lifelike. I loved the Theta and ARC SP6B tube preamps. I think that SS has made great strides, and now think that the best SS has overall advantages over tubes, but I respect where grey is coming from. He probably would love to hear the $150K VAC 452 mono tubes, and so would I. He might admit that he prefers them to his present more modestly priced tube amp. But maybe not, the VAC may be too SS-ish for him, and decide that his present tube amp is best for him, regardless of price. |
WC,
It is totally respectable that your mission here is to evaluate gear, not music. When I am considering a component, I use particular recordings to evaluate the component. I listen to certain tracks endlessly for this purpose. I spend much less time listening to music. But then I switch gears, and listen and enjoy my recordings. The ultimate payoff is when I listen to the recordings I have had for 50 years, and get so much more enjoyment from the music now that my equipment is so much more revealing. I think you do some of what I do with your music. You often speak about how you enjoy the music. You value detail and clarity, and enjoy discussing audiophile terms like soundstage depth and slam, but you also value your overall enjoyment of the music, with its "soul" and after a few drinks.
I think you agree that both gear and music are enjoyable. They support each other back and forth. That's what grey9hound is saying.
|
goodsource,
Thanks, but I am confused. When I did recording onto DAT in 1995, it would clip at 2V. Have the media changed so they can accommodate much higher levels? 2V input into a power amp with 29 dB of gain will produce 400 watts output into 8 ohms. If the amp has a great power supply, that is 800 watts into 4, 1600 watts into 2. 6V input will produce 3600 watts into 8 ohms, 7200 into 4, 14,400 into 2. If the 6V setting is used on the Rossini, then there should be no need for an additional preamp for more gain if you want more dynamics or more power than 3600, 7200, 14K watts. Something sounds fishy. I would think the 2V input would work great.
Do you happen to know if the Rossini has a built in analog preamp stage for more gain? If modern recording media have maximum capacity of 6V, then maybe the Rossini doesn't have any analog circuitry for gain, but either uses a digital volume control, or an analog attenuator. Poster justmetoo wrote that good modern DAC's do the attenuation via an analog volume control rather than bit-stripping. If that is the case, then all you need is a volume pot rather than additional analog gain circuitry, so DCS is doing it the way I like. I still think that a DAC should just do the D/A without any analog circuitry, and connect to a dedicated analog preamp for the gain and attenuation.
|
mahgister,
There are many manifestations of clarity, as you say. Simply put, clarity is the accurate transmittal of anything you evaluate. If the visual is an impressionist scene, then if the camera picture of it removes the fog and changes it into a collection of sharp edges, that is not clarity--it is just distortion. Clarity, or high fidelity to the impressionist scene would preserve the exact nature of it, as closely as possible.
An example of deliberate vagueness was Furtwangler's (F) opening of the Beethoven Ninth Symphony. Toscanini (T) and others took the score literally, with the soft tremolos, but F wanted the strings to be NOT uniform. An audio system playing the F recording would not be accurate if it sounded like T, and vice versa.
So for audio, I prefer the concept of "accuracy" to "clarity." In other matters of life, I want conversations to be well thought out and expressed without uncertainty or ambiguity. This is hard to do, so editors function to help the writer express more clearly what he is trying to say. There can never be too much clarity in these matters.
Live music is wonderful of course, but most listeners are not in the best seat. Even the compromised seat is a unique experience, but I have found that the best seat makes a big difference for maximum appreciation of the music. I hope you listen to those Mercury recordings which were designed to give the most clear perspective that is better than any seat. A great audio system playing these Mercury recordings is wonderful.
|
Keith Don't Go is the best I have ever heard it in the latest video. I went back to the 20.7 videos but couldn't find any with the Mephisto playing this song. I only found the 20.7 video of Aug 11, but with the Dag amp on the stand playing Keith Don't Go. This sounds a little muffled and lacking some snap in the midrange, compared to the Alexia 2 + Mephisto. This leads me to think that the Mephisto is in another world of neutrality and clarity compared to the other amps, which now helps the Alexia 2 beat the 20.7 with the other amps for what i like--clarity, snap. What a surprise!
|
I can't judge anything from this recording. I know you are just beginning with this teaser #1. Most informative will be using the same recordings you have played without the stand. My favorites are Q&A, Baby I love your way, Keith Don't go. The best recording for natural sound was Perhaps Love, but too bad you only played it on 1 video so far. I know you are unlikely to go back and forth with and without the Critical Mass stand--too many difficult logistics, and by the time you are physically tired doing the heavy lifting, your ears are tired also. My best listening is just after I wake up, feeling refreshed.
|
WC,
No, I was very impressed with the Artesania stand with the Dag S250 amp, even on my stock iMac audio. Since the Mephisto is far more revealing than the Dag amp, I expect to be impressed by the Critical Mass stand as well, even with my mediocre computer audio. Of course, using the same songs as you have already presented, this will be evident.
But you never know until you listen to a variety of music. Most top companies are proud of their work, and deny that accessories make an improvement to their products. I know that you have said that you don't like power conditioners used for power amps, but some people have found more purity from some power conditioners on power amps even if dynamics may be reduced. Who knows whether a massive amp like the Mephisto will benefit from a stand. We will all do the comparative listening using previous videos.
|
goodsource, Thanks for your response. To me, the general definition of "dark" is rolled off HF. I have had dark tube preamps/amps with rolled off HF compared to other tube preamps/amps which I would label as less dark. I have had dark SS amps where the same applies, although the general spectrum of tubes is darker than SS even if there is some overlap. You may have answered my question in the past about CH Precision amps--sorry I forgot. Mike Fremer in his review of the M1.1 said there is an adjustment of the amount of negative feedback (NF) used. He said that maximum NF yielded "cold" tone, but minimum NF yielded "warm" tone. For most of his review, he chose a setting with a little NF, making the sound on the warm side. What did you find with varying amounts of NF? I have not heard either the Mephisto or the CH. My general extrapolations from WC's and my experience with other amps is that the Mephisto is the most neutral and least warm of all the amps WC has tried. That's why he didn't like the Nordost Odin1 cables with the Mephisto, but liked them with other amps which are warmer in tone. Have you A/B'ed Mephisto vs CH Precision? |
That's beautiful. Also, I got a hint from your remarks comparing the Pandora with the Christine, is that it is more relaxed and more detailed than the Christine at the same time. My position is that more relaxation is usually associated with less clarity. Mrgray had an interesting statement, "the sheer resolution of the Mephisto system sort of is challenging and cerebral whereas that Arc plus Merrill sound just delighted in a more visceral way I feel." From my listening to the songs on your videos, I agree with this statement. That was with the Christine, which when driving the Mephisto, makes it perhaps more cerebral and detailed than the Pandora driving the Mephisto (we haven't yet heard the Pandora/Mephisto). It is clear that you LIKE the Pandora/Mephisto combo better than the Christine/Mephisto combo, finding it more relaxed. Things like Nordost Odin 1 are more detailed than other cables, but you don't like Nordost with Mephisto.
This suggests that you slightly prioritize relaxation over clarity. It also suggests that there is no monolithic Gryphon sound. Mephisto is about ultimate detail and clarity, but as you said, Essence and Antileon have different tonalities. Gryphon VIP cables are slightly on the soft side, and now you find that Pandora is slightly on the soft and relaxed side. Perhaps the Pandora will change with break in.
With mediocre recordings, you seem to prioritize relaxation over clarity. But I suspect with better, more natural recordings, you might put more emphasis on clarity/detail. I know you have another super preamp coming. It will be interesting to see how this super preamp balances relaxation with detail. I loved the detail of the Christine/Mephisto, and also found it natural.
|
kren0006,
I wasn't twisting WC's remarks in any way. This is YOU twisting my remarks--"That is you adding euphonic misrepresentation to his statements that Pandora was immensely better sounding than Christine." And, "Let WC describe it and stop trying to rewrite it the way you would like it to be." Further negativity from you, "There, b4 I could even finish posting WC also rebukes V’s misleading characterization."
But unlike your vicious remarks, WC doesn't "rebuke" me or my characterization, but just takes the high road and clarifies further with his post, "It's not that the pandora is on the relaxed sound but rather that it evens out the tonality of the Mephisto. It takes the incoming signals and balances out all frequencies. Nothing is too tilted or too relaxed.
Everything seems spot on. The bass is deep with zero overhang and nothing jumps at you."
It is still early in WC's listening to the Pandora, and things could change. Everyone knows that. But words have subtleties that seem to escape you. On the video, he describes the Pandora as relaxed, and now says that "nothing is too relaxed." There is no contradiction on his part, because he is still feeling his way with the Pandora. So let's say the Pandora has some bit of relaxed feeling at present. This is close to my rephrasing of it with the synonym of "soft." Perhaps the Pandora is "softer" but better balanced than the Christine for what WC likes.
Instead of denigrating remarks from you with knee-jerk verbal attacks, it would be best if you take time to think about subtleties and pose reasonable questions to help clarify things that are said. Oh, but you think clarity of thought as with sound is not so important. I accept people who don't have clarity of thought, but lack of respect from them is not to be tolerated.
If you really disagree with my observations, simply say, "I don't agree" and leave it at that, without the insults. That would be OK.
|
kren0006,
No, WC didn't call me wrong or correct me. He just elaborated on what he said about the Pandora, which is helpful info. Aside from that, WC never says anyone's views are wrong, but just that they have different preferences.
The person who is wrong is YOU, not for your sonic preferences, but for your misreading of my remarks which were an intelligent discussion of audio parameters, and morally wrong because of your character assassination. You still rebuke me in your latest post to me, 10/10/20 at 5:38 PM. I won't tolerate your insults and will call you out on any future infractions of the basic moral code here.
|
I am not involved with streaming services or servers. Is it possible to post links or just name the songs and artists on those recordings? If this is too much work, you can choose just a few. I liked Nils Lofgren songs you used in the past, so I bought the CD, Acoustic Live, which had other nice songs on it. Thanks.
|
This is a great discussion on the distinctions among various Gryphon amps. There is probably variability in the tonal character of the various Gryphon preamps as well as cables. This may be a good idea from the Gryphon management team of different engineers. Customers have slightly different preferences but all want the high quality of Gryphon products. They can go for various combinations depending on their tonal preferences. One engineer with a particular tonal preference himself may create a product for a particular customer, and another engineer who has a different personal tonal preference can design another product for another customer.
There are many, many gradations of "dark." Over the last 100 years, electronics have evolved to the point that all have near zero distortion, and tonal characteristics are not that much different in top level electronics. Speakers are much more variable in their sound. My lifetime experience playing over 1000 violins has shown great variability in each violin's tone. The greatest violin maker, Antonio Stradivari, made 600 violins in his long lifetime. I played 13 of them, and they were all so different. It also makes a big difference in which player plays any particular violin. Some players have a quick bow stroke with more precision in their right hand bow attack and left hand finger technique. The result is that a particular violin may sound dark or bright depending on the violin player.
I enjoy this variety of natural sounds from live unamplified instruments and voices--dark, bright, and everything in between. But I believe that electronics should not impose its own personality on the natural sound. Let the tonal colors of natural instruments speak for themselves. I want to look through a clear glass and see the natural colors. The alternate approach of audio system coloring to me is like looking through many different layers of colored glass--all very interesting, but ultimately not true to the character of the natural music. I mentioned the rose colored sunglasses which make the blue sky more beautiful, but rob the green grass and trees of their green beauty. |
Good. How about a YT video--"The best playlist for music and sound." You could give a few examples, such as, "listen at 1:52 for big soundstage and depth" then "1:31 for clarity" then "3:05 for deep bass" and so on.
|
carey1110, goodsource, WC,
All good points. But when carey says I prefer a "coloration" of brilliance and sweetness, that is true to some extent, but it depends how you define "coloration." My problem with audio systems is mainly the weakest link, the speaker, followed by the choices of the recording engineer and production team. How can a speaker made of boxes or other mechanical parts like different transducers re-create the liveness of real music? Real instruments are made of completely different materials--brass, wood, strings of catgut wound with other materials, fleshy vocal cords, etc. Real instruments are struck, banged, blowed, plucked, messaged, all of which create deliberate vibrations which make the sound. In contrast, the ideal speaker is supposed to be inert, and not move. Footers and stands try to do this. It is remarkable that artificial speakers sound anything at all like live music. I have to play games with electronics to get my system to capture the liveness of natural live music. Perhaps one day speakers will get better, so the transducers will more closely resemble live instruments, and then I won't have to do as much "coloring" of the electronics as I do.
Choices of recording engineers that I don't like, require me to undo their work by using EQ. There are some recordings I like, from some engineers who have in mind the naturally real sound I go for. Then I don't find myself doing as much manipulation.
To summarize, I would put it another way, and say I like the live music qualities of brilliance and sweetness. These are the "colors" of live music, not "colorations." The term, "coloration" applies to electronics, and speakers that have electronic crossovers in them, and I admit that I use the EQ as a "coloration" tool. I would rather not do it, and hope for the day when speakers will be much more true to life, and more recording engineers would try to recreate natural sound, rather than process it with all kinds of manipulations. It is harder to undo junk once it is in the source. It can be undone with EQ, but only partially.
|
carey1110,
These are difficult, mysterious questions we are trying to answer, regarding what are colorations, and are we able to eliminate or even minimize them? Despite my vast live music experience as a performer and concertgoer, and lesser experience doing live recording, I still don't know what any given recording sounded like to the engineers and production staff. I don't know precisely how commercial recording pros operate. Some of them sit distantly away in a control room, and hear the live mike feed played back on questionable monitor speakers. But when I did my recordings, I sat in the 1st row, near my mikes. I would take my headphones on and off as I compared the live sound to the mike feed heard through my headphones. In effect, I was transplanting my head onto the mike stand, which was the closest anyone could get to being in the chosen position of the mikes. I used only 2 Neumann KM184 cardioid mikes whose diaphragms were separated a little wider than my head, but I used no supplemental ambience mikes and did no mixing or processing.
So even though I tried to hear the live mike feed, I was handicapped by the huge colorations of my headphones as well as the lesser colorations of the best mike preamp and mikes that I had. I never knew what my recordings really sounded like, but what I did know was the live sound I heard from my close 1st row center seat.
I accept your definition of coloration as a deviation from the original recording. However, since the original recording sound is unknowable, the coloration is also unknowable. You're right about my other definition of coloration, which is a deviation from live sound. I believe my definition is more practical than yours. Then there are the huge colorations of various speakers. One SOTA speaker has a vastly different sound from another SOTA speaker. To overcome my uncertainties about all this, I take a practical approach of learning about a wide variety of live sounds in halls and outside in nature. What I try to do with my audio system is to recreate the approximate tonal characteristics and snap of real instruments and voices that I know from live experience. I know what a violin sounds like in various rooms, halls, and under my ear. I have learned what the common features of the violin are, despite having differences in the various environments. The same goes for other instruments, and combinations in various ensembles. I am interested in the direct instrument sounds heard close, where the main mikes are, not heard from a distance, which are a mess of reverberation, hall effects, and severely rolled off HF. I'll take the sound of my car radio appropriately EQ'd, rather than the live audience sound of 100 feet away. I've done that comparison, driving to a concert hearing a recording in the car, and being disappointed at how muddy the sound of similar music was in the hall from my distant seat.
|
tjassoc,
What are the revealing cables you sell? Can I read anything on them before trying? It is nice that we have the same goal of neutrality and using live sound as the reference for building audio systems. BTW, with The Listening Room in Scarsdale, I go way back with them in the late 70’s when it was owned by Marcel Whitman, and later Stuart Clayman.
My last few posts have made a distinction between colorations of systems and the natural colors of real live music. I suspect you would agree with me that audio coloration means deviation from the live sound. This relates to a discussion about whether "sterile" electronics are subtracting harmonic information. My position is that people who describe certain electronics as sterile, are desiring warmth and less detail. There is no doubt that some live instruments have a certain amount of warmth in certain freq ranges, esp in midrange tonality and bass fullness in certain halls and rooms. However, this live warmth does not subtract detail. Rather, it provides full harmonic information which is made possible by all the detail.
But the kind of warmth in some audio systems is different. HF info is rolled off to an extent, and some detail is lacking. As a consequence, the relative warmth of middle and lower freq is emphasized. This warmth has a psychoacoustic effect of fooling the listener into thinking he is hearing more harmonic information, but in reality the relative lack of detail is obscuring true harmonic info. I call it "veiling." The "sterile" perception of more detailed electronics is actually due to something else, often the many layers of processing in recordings which is better revealed by the "sterile" components and smoothed over by "warm" electronics. This correlates with WC’s and many other people’s experiences of preferring "warmer" components with mediocre recordings. But with more natural recordings, the more accurate and detailed component will often be preferred.
If you get the opportunity, go to a concert in Boston Symphony Hall and compare to Carnegie Hall (of course after covid peters out). Sit close in both. The sound of Carnegie is warmer than Boston, due to the plush seats and carpeting in Carnegie which absorb more of the sound, than the bare seats and lack of carpeting in Boston. Some might describe Boston as sterile compared to Carnegie. I know what they mean, but the greater neutrality of Boston lets you hear more variety in the tone of all the instruments. Carnegie is more like rose colored sunglasses, which warms up everything and actually distorts the true and greater harmonic information heard in Boston. Boston is crisper than Carnegie, with a fuller spectrum of harmonics in Boston vs some roll off of HF harmonics and an emphasis of lower freq harmonics in Carnegie. That’s what I heard.
|
techno,
Really, I support your alternative viewpoints to those of WC. I agree with WC in some areas and disagree in others. So do many readers here, who may be silent. The reality is that we both are not in the market for uber-expensive items like Mephisto or Pandora, even if I believe that I probably would enjoy hearing them. I just like to learn what they sound like, watch the videos, and make my own judgments based on what I hear.
But we both like products with great performance that are not too expensive. So I recommend that you purchase the Benchmark LA 4 preamp which you can try for 60 days from Music Direct, or 30 days from Benchmark. Although I have not heard your Mac preamp or the Luxman preamp you may have heard, I would bet good money that the LA 4 is more detailed and neutral than any preamp you have owned or heard. I have not heard the LA 4 either, but I almost bought the AHB2 power amp for its detail and neutrality, which unfortunately didn't work out because it shut down with my crazy impedance electrostatic speakers and electrostatic tweeters in parallel. If the LA 4 has the same characteristics as the AHB2, I would win this bet. I would also place a bet on the fact that the AHB2 is preferable to your Luxman M900u, for what I value in sound. I have placed much more risky bets buying blue chip stocks.
Unless you absolutely love euphonic electronics, you would do extremely well to get the combo of the LA 4 preamp, and the AHB2 amp. Merely $6K MSRP for the combo. You and I don't play in WC's sandbox, but you can then proudly boast about how the Benchmark combo kills most electronics at multiples of the price. Many reviewers and customers who seek neutrality/clarity would agree with this. |
carey1110,
I agree with everything you just said. As a slight aside, The Absolute Sound had an entertaining early 80's review of the world's most famous concert halls. I ate it up, and soon after, I went to the number 1 rated hall, the Musikverein in Vienna, while there for chamber music fun. (Our tour guide arranged for us to play string quartets in one of the Esterhazy palace's ballrooms, just like 200 years before. Very cool experience, but the reverberant sound listening to my friends play was AWFUL.) The reviewer said that every seat in this hall was great. Naive that I was at the time, I went 3 times, each in different seats. The 3rd row seat was indeed wonderful. Row 12 was moderately muddy, and row 25 was grossly awful--messy reverberant, and the solo cello sounded like it was amplified on a crappy PA system. So much for trusting reviews!!!
In that good 3rd row seat, the sound was the best concert hall experience I ever had. The sound was slightly sweeter than Boston Symphony Hall I went to many years later. The Absolute Sound review said that the Boston Hall design was modeled on the great Musikverein. Both Boston and Vienna halls were more live and crisp than the warm Carnegie. But especially in live halls, you must sit very close to avoid the smearing from reverberation sitting further away. I loved both the slightly cooler Boston and the slightly sweeter Vienna halls. FWIW, Vienna was ranked #1, Carnegie #2, Boston #3.
Who cares what ranking the reviewer made. You would enjoy listening for yourself in many locations in any hall, and wherever you travel, go to different halls. At home, you can save money by hearing student concerts in your nearby halls. Get your own experience, and draw your own conclusions. While traveling, listen to people playing on the street and all kinds of places.
|
mr_gray,
You're right that great appearance adds to our overall positive feelings. Sometimes physical beauty can carry over into liking the sound more. I have to admit that my overwhelming pleasure in the Vienna hall was increased by the sheer beauty of the tall slender gold statues lining the sides, and the gorgeous ceiling with chandeliers. It is possible that it affected my tonal perceptions. If you want to see this beautiful hall, you can see the hall every New Years Day when the traditional New Years concert from the Musikverein in Vienna is broadcast.
Similarly, the whitish lighting in the Boston hall may have contributed to my perception of a cooler tonality. Boston has a utilitarian look compared to Vienna. Still, when I tried amps, if I didn't like the sound, I didn't care that it was beautiful in appearance. Conversely, the amps I bought because I loved the sound, had utilitarian appearance which didn't bother me. In fact, I came to appreciate the utilitarian appearance because I knew that the money was spent on the electronics, not the cosmetics.
The Mephisto has the best sound with a utilitarian appearance, in contrast to the overpriced Dag stuff where more emphasis is placed on the cosmetics.
|
techno,
Take note of yyzsantabarbara's post above. Audio pursuits should be about the sound or lack thereof, regardless of price. Based on WC's comments in the latest video about the absolute neutrality and transparency of the Mephisto, and that it is his GOAT (greatest of all of them), it may very well be better for these qualities than the Benchmark AHB2 or my amps. The issue is moot for you and me. Just buy the Benchmark preamp and/or the amp, and you will have either the best electronics or second best right behind the Mephisto. Then when you declare Benchmark to be the best ever in your listening, comparable to the experiences of yyz and me, you won't care to send it to WC. You don't need to bother him to confirm what you know from your own listening.
I respect WC's strongly held belief that a person doesn't know anything unless he buys something and lives with it for a while. I modify that, because I have been able to make decisions with 30 or 60 day trials without losing any money, except for return shipping. Before the days of online shopping, I used to do this over a weekend, picking up something when the store closed Sat afternoon, and returning it Mon AM. If you decide to pursue detail and neutrality, Benchmark is the clear choice and one of few options for a reasonable amount of money. But if you continue to go for euphonic things like Mac and Luxman, there are so many amps to listen to, and all you will be doing is trading 1 flavor of the month for another, an endless and unsatisfying pursuit at all price levels. The Mephisto is one of the few gems at high prices, and the Benchmark is the same at low prices. And the word, "benchmark" means reference standard.
Re-read and re-read yyz's 3rd and 4th paragraphs above, for the most important words of wisdom on this subject.
|
Jay,
You and I are basically in agreement about the ideal of going for neutrality and transparency. We only differ in our discomfort thresholds for "bright" sound with things like Nordost Odin cables. I won't deny that you feel discomfort with Odin with Mephisto, just like I won't deny that my patient feels pain himself even if it is not apparent to me. Over the years, your tastes have changed--you used to love euphonic things like Constellation, Dag, Luxman, Rowland, Pass, ARC and Mac tube amps, but now you prefer Mephisto to even the fairly neutral Coliseum, let alone those other euphonic amps. It is possible that you eventually might appreciate the highest clarity of the Odin + Mephisto and not consider it unpleasantly bright. Of course, initially the Odin/Mephisto was a shock because it opened up new worlds you couldn't yet enter. Outside of music, often revolutionary new ideas are rejected at first, then slowly accepted, and finally embraced. You are even reconsidering the neutral Boulder, despite your negative experience with it years ago.
Everyone agrees that more detailed, clear components often also exhibit brightness. Some would prefer the Coliseum or even Pass-type stuff to the Mephisto, because they are highly sensitive to brightness. In my case, I hear the brightness, but it is real sounding to me, because I listen to natural, relatively unprocessed recordings at reasonable SPL's, and my perceptions of the real world of live, unamplified music and random sounds of nature show me that there is indeed a certain amount of brightness out there in some instruments and voices. Goodsource has confirmed my observations.
|
Jay,
Twoleftears made a great suggestion. This is a LONG LONG piece that you may not be ready to take in at this point. Someday if you give if a chance, you will realize it is among the top pieces for drama and pathos. The name, Pathetique, tells all, full of feeling. I have heard it 1000’s of times over my lifetime, and still am both devastated and excited every time I hear it. I recommend listening for a few minutes starting at 10:15. There is a storming harmonic climax at 13:30 to 32 which would wake anyone up.
This recording is laid back in sound quality. I prefer other recordings that are more upfront. I want to hear the brass bite. But it is a beautiful interpretation. I know you don't like funeral music, but the last section starting at 36:01, going on for 10 minutes is a catharsis. Near the end, you hear the deep string bass section dying away. It is a great test for bass accuracy and extension at low levels. For music like this, no audio system does it justice, and it must be experienced live to appreciate the full range breadth and dynamic range from soft to very loud.
But I've just given you a supreme challenge to see if you can build a system that honors this type of music. Classical music has such a wide range of emotions that change on a dime. If you get exposure to it, I promise you a ride that competes with the thrills from fast cars. Additionally, you will open yourself up to classical music listeners with real money that you can cultivate. |
Carey1110, Jay, Yes, I love Quad 57's. I gave that short violin piece to illustrate the beauty of the melodies. and this particular violinist's artistry. Many musicians have devoted themselves to other instruments whose sounds they like. There are great artists on all instruments, and great singers. We need diversity so all the great musicians on different instruments can create many combinations to make things interesting. Often the beauty of music which is written for string instruments is rearranged for other groups of instruments, because these other instrumentalists want to express the music on the instruments they play. Composers of orchestral music usually sketch their ideas on the piano first, and we often have both versions to listen to and admire. We learn more about the music by having both versions. Also, the fundamentals of melody, harmony and rhythm (timing) apply to all genres of music. I enjoy the voices of pop singers as well as operatic singers. Classical is a difficult language to adopt because of its complexity. But often multilingual people develop more appreciation of each language they know, so it is worthwhile to give patience to classical and learn at your own pace. At shows, classical is played as well as pop, rock, jazz. The presenters of classical may not know that much about classical, but they know enough to appreciate what it offers. Classical listeners can appreciate what a product does for their music, just as listeners to other music do the same. |
twoleftears,
I agree that a full symphony orchestra represents the greatest challenge to any audio system. The minimonitor small speaker may be more accurate and satisfying for small scale music like chamber music and solo or duo groups, but only a large system can possibly hope to do justice to big scale music like symphonies. There is the Mahler 8th symphony which calls for 1000 performers. Did you ever hear that live, and did you ever hear an audio system that comes close to that? I doubt it. The ideal solution is 2 systems. A small scale one for chamber music and other small groups in a small/medium sized room, and a large system in a large room for the big stuff. You need a large home with 2 dedicated rooms.
I have struggled with these issues for a long time. I loved my 1st serious speaker, the Maggie Tympani 1D for its huge wall of sound for big orchestral pieces. But then I got the little Rogers LS3/5a for its more intimate sound for smaller pieces. I never had 2 dedicated rooms, so I had to make a choice. My current Audiostatic electrostatic is a happy medium between these 2 extremes. It has 2 panels which make it more suited to large scale music, but I only use 1 panel which gives me more focus for the smaller scale music I mostly listen to.
|
Maybe, but the more likely possibility is that the system is already satisfying but Jay just wants to make it even better. Many perfectionists keep striving to be even better. This is the noble human condition, and is actually a good thing, as perfectionists are humble enough to want to do better.
If you heard student musicians at top conservatories, you would think that their playing is perfect already, so why are they wasting money and time on further education? The reason is that it could always be better. Competition is so keen that they must always strive to do better.
|
rsf507,
I also heard the Christine sounding clean, but it is hard to compare on computer audio. Getting a used Christine for $6K is very worthwhile. You still might want to try a new Benchmark LA 4 preamp for $3K on a no risk 30 or 60 day trial.
goodsource,
Any preamp whose output impedance is less than 10% of the input impedance of the power amp should work well. Even if Jay likes the combo of Pandora + Mephisto, another listener might prefer Christine + Mephisto, and so on.
|
speedbump6,
I think your Ferrari and Formula One analogies are reasonable, but up to a point. Cars are cars, but music is music. Although I have never really heard the Mephisto, from Jay's comments and our hearing of it on his videos, I estimate that the M and my 2.5B SST2 have similar characteristics. I have tried various interconnects, power cords, various digital and analog sources with the Bryston as well as more euphonic amps. No matter what ancillary components I have used, the Bryston is always more enjoyable to me than the euphonic amps. I seek maximum clarity with information retrieval, and the Bryston gives me that. However, someone else who goes for mixing and matching of flavors may say that the Bryston would be more difficult to work with. Amp differences are much greater than cable differences, so the euphonic mixing and matching people would hate the Bryston and would never be able to get the Bryston to sound euphonic enough for them.
From Jay's comments about the Pandora + M vs Christine + M, my preference would be the Christine + M. Just as the Gryphon amps are different, with perhaps the M being the most neutral, the Pandora might have a slightly euphonic character like the Antileon amp, so Jay personally likes Pandora + M the best.
|
speedbump6,
Agree with much of what you say. I have had a few different Bryston models over the years, and what you say is true, with the notable weird exception of my little 2.5B SST2. This is in a class by itself, with its detail and coolish tonality. I found the Krell 2250e to be almost as detailed as my Bryston, but other Krells were much less detailed, and more euphonic. I have no experience with Soulution. From reviews, the Soulution 500 series is more euphonic than the 700 series. When I told Bryston about my experiences, they didn't understand it, and kept to their statement that all the SST2 models sounded the same, except for different power ratings. The 4B is their most popular amp with its medium high power rating. Many people go for Bryston for its high watts per dollar value, reliability and relatively light weight. I bet that much fewer low power units were sold, and Bryston is too busy selling products to do the comparative listening I did.
Euphonic is a relative term. Relative to the Mephisto, the Coliseum, Antileon and maybe the Essence are euphonic, according to reviews and Jay's findings. But things like Dag, Constellation, Luxman, Pass, Rowland are much more euphonic.
Analogies describe some things in common, but cars, planes, bikes, guns are all different enough from each other, so analogies ultimately fall apart. Amplifiers have differences, but nowhere near the extent of differences between natural musical instruments. I can easily put amps into general camps of bright/cool/detailed vs dark/warm/less detailed. However, violins have a kaleidoscopic variety of tonal characteristics so I can't say which violin is brighter, more detailed, quicker in response, or many other subtleties of tonal complexity than another violin. I can't make good analogies when comparing violins for this reason.
|
Audio systems and live music can be enjoyed without preparation, but the rewards are greater by listening carefully with concentration. But sports can be dangerous without concentration, although there are no hazards with casual listening to music.
|
When do your Tektons arrive?
|
Jay,
In the army, I don't know how the guys kissed and made up after hurting each other over the candy infraction. Well, maybe not kissing, but not continuing to be angry at each other is hard for me to understand. Doing tough pushups is unpleasant, but you don't get hurt as you would with black eyes. Young guys don't know how eye blows can injure the retina which is serious. Damaged teeth cost a fortune to correct properly, and many medical problems develop from bad dental care.
I don't know how you do it financially, but it will be a blast to hear full Boulder vs full Gryphon, and 2110 + Mephisto vs Pandora + M, Pandora + Boulder amp vs Pandora + M. If you need to sell the M to afford the B stuff, it will be difficult to do these tests, because memory is flawed.
Dag Relentless will probably be another euphonic amp like other Dag stuff, overpriced due to cosmetics and Dag's marketing prowess, and a big step backwards from the neutrality and resolution of the Mephisto. Don't waste the money. Block Audio is more "reasonable" but it is still euphonic compared to M, according to your previous findings. M is in a class by itself, so I don't think anything except possibly the Boulder will challenge it.
|
Jay,
OK, you never tried the Block line stage, as I recall. That would be worthwhile to try. Don't be impressed by the fancy features of 3 power cords, temperature sensing of Block monos, etc. The basic circuitry is the only thing that counts, which accounts for 99% of the sound. I would take my simple Mytek over any power amp you have discussed, with the possible exception of the Mephisto.
At the time, you thought the Block mono amps were the best you had used. Then you thought the Merrill 118 was the greatest amp for everything, which dethroned the Rowland 925. But then lately Mephisto you said was by far the greatest amp you had used. All these other amps were on the euphonic side, but you reached a milestone by declaring the Mephisto as the greatest for its neutrality and clarity, as well as overall quality. So by extrapolation, I surmise that Block is euphonic, but only in comparison to Mephisto, maybe Coliseum, Merrill 118.
|
Cool to the max. If you also find the sound cool, learn from it and accept it. Boulder knows what they are doing. Let them be your teacher.
|
Great strategy. You are actually slowing down and being more thorough than in the past. Also, your choices at this level have narrowed considerably. The only major next step would be to see what advances will occur in class D, but this will take time.
In the meantime, speakers, speakers, speakers. They are still the weakest link.
|
Jay,
Another thing to do with certain recordings that have etched HF moments, is to turn down the volume for those recordings. If you use things like Odin 1 at lower volume, there will be no pain, but you will get more out of the music at 80 dB than with a rolled off cable at 85 dB. Then with other more natural recordings, you can get everything with Odin 1 at 85 dB and higher. But beware of high SPL on any music. There are also significant benefits of slightly lower SPL. Suppose at 85 dB there is a little blurring and mush. Back off to 82 dB and the blurring will go away and focus will improve.
|
Analogies are interesting but weak. I like a proper amount of HF "sizzle" which is the audio equivalent of hot peppers. But not too much of any of these things. Then there is the portion size, which is like the SPL (Satiety from Portion overLoad). You would enjoy the hot sauces with smaller portion sizes. You can get acid reflux from eating too much of even bland foods. More important, your recordings are highly processed, which adds the sting with accurate components. Let's see what happens with Boulder. I have had the same sonic preferences for 50 years. The reality of natural unamplified unprocessed music has been with me for that length of time. |
keithr, Which tube electronics today have the detail and absence of euphonics of the best SS amps? Stereophile's Mike Fremer loved the VAC 452 iq for its excellent detail and RELATIVE absence of euphonics, but if you read carefully, he still found it somewhat forgiving compared to his reference CH Precision. You have likely no knowledge of my Bryston 2.5B SST2 because you probably haven't heard it, although you may have heard other Bryston models which I agree are not SOTA. As a tube lover, you probably find any neutral SS to be gritty, etc. You are entitled to like the VTL Hybrid more than the DCS Vivaldi, but that is your euphonic taste. |
