Jay,
A reader has to interpret what any reviewer says, for a few reasons. Aside from the commercial bias, the review is only as good as his ears, experience and understanding of music. Who says a reviewer is any more qualified than any listener? In your case, you have good ears, because you accurately and objectively describe what you hear. However, at times I disagree with your interpretations of what you hear.
For example, although I have never heard the Dag S250 or the Momentum 400 mono amps, you described the S250 as more euphonic than the Momentum. As a more dedicated circuit, I would expect the Momentum to be more accurate, and would probably agree with your objective assessment if I heard both Dag's. In my experience, when a product is more accurate and detailed than another, it is cooler in tonality and has thinner images with more focus. I learned this over the years with many products I owned. So that reviewer said, "the Dag had more color, bigger images than with the Rossini solo, a soundstage larger in all directions and set farther back, and the strongest bass." Now, I'll interpret what he said. Bigger images (as opposed to smaller more focuses images), a soundstage set further back, and stronger bass, are all caused by rolloff of HF with more prominent bass, and result in less fine detail. He is entitled to like that, and it is better for him, but anyone who priorities detail and accuracy would say it is not better, but actually worse. Next, he said that the Benchmark LA4 "proved the least colorful and engaging of the lot, with recessed highs and a rather flat presentation." I haven't heard the LA4, but the AHB2 I heard at home for a month showed those characteristics except it had extended HF, not recessed HF. He may have a hearing problem. But it is true that accuracy is associated with less color and a relatively flat presentation. For those people who are familiar with live unamplified music, I have said that COLOR is in the live music itself, and should not have overlay of COLORATION from electronics. Also, the "relatively flat" presentation is characteristic of something with more HF detail and lack of artificial inflation and bloating of images and depth.
The most authoritative views on the Benchmark LA4 are from yyzsantabarbara, who owns it and also values accuracy and lack of coloration.
Lastly, money is the least important criterion of judging any audio electronics. In the detail/accuracy camp, there are the Boulder, Mephisto, Benchmark, my Bryston 2.5B SST2 and Mytek Brooklyn AMP+ products. In the euphonic/pleasant camp, are the ARC, Pass, Rowland, Luxman, etc. In each camp, prices vary greatly. The "levels" are merely money, but not necessarily quality. At each price level, the number of euphonic products greatly exceeds the number of accurate products. BTW, although you don't venture into turntables and cartridges, my experience in this area has also shown only weak correlation of price and sound quality. |
Jay,
Your Alexia 2 speakers are one of the best, but all speakers, including mine, have much more distortion and coloration than even midlevel electronics. Many flawed speakers are still good enough to tell lots of differences between electronics and cables, but confusion about which electronics sound more real is largely due to the large deviations of all speakers from reality. A lot of this discussion is akin to debating which lipstick looks better on a pig (the speaker).
This is a meaningless discussion from all sides. Kren0006 is correct in saying listening is more important than discussion (to paraphrase). Spend a little money (less than $3K for the Benchmark LA4), and then tell us objectively what you hear. You've spent more than that on shipping costs, and gas and wear/tear on your car traveling to pick up heavy amps and such. Your net loss after selling it will be maybe $1K, but maybe you will be surprised at how good it is, so you can recommend it to high performance/dollar clients.
I say again that my Mytek Brooklyn AMP+ beat the other much more expensive class D amps I heard at home for focus, clarity, neutrality. If you doubt my honesty about the Mytek or others' honesty about what they heard with the Benchmark LA4, you can spend a little money to prove your assertions that cheap things cannot possibly compete with expensive things. Don't say that WE should spend the money for what we already know.
|
Jay,
I would be happy to recommend classical music that is not violin-centric, and which has a variety of instruments of all dynamics and freq ranges, with ensembles, large and small. The problem is that without a reference of live unamplified music, any assertions of what is neutral or natural are questionable. Most followers here have little exposure or listening experience to natural instruments to appreciate this. Instead of accusing and ratting against me, they would do better by opening their minds. Classical music has a much larger range of sounds and sound spaces than any music you have presented. I have listened to many varieties of music with an open mind and ear, but classical needs more time to appreciate, and the rewards are worth the time needed to understand it. It takes more time to learn to be a pilot than to drive a car, but the rewards are greater.
For readers with impaired reading comprehension, I know what Benchmark sounds like because I heard it for over 1 month, and I know that it outperforms most electronics at much higher prices. Many other educated listeners have noted the same. So if you want to open your mind to what it offers, you can spend the money. But if you feel that Benchmark is not your thing, without hearing it, that shows that you are mainly following your pre-conceived agenda. Perhaps Boulder amps will be found to be somewhat euphonic compared to the Mephisto. You don't know until you listen. There is a reasonable possibility that the Benchmark has more clarity and neutrality than the Boulder, but you won't know it until you listen.
|
I love it. BIG BIG improvement--brilliant clarity and detail across the freq range, most notably in upper midrange and HF. I don't know what it is--Boulder preamp/amp, or new speaker. My guess is the speaker, although Boulder could contribute.
You can go big, but I have demonstrated similar types of improvements just boosting HF with my modest Rane EQ. Anyone who ridicules this statement--that's their loss for not trying EQ.
|
kren0006,
I think we heard the same things, and I agree with your guess of Magico speakers. But maybe Jay is toying with us to say we are wrong? Or right?
|
Jay,
I like the concave time alignment of the MTM (midrange-tweeter-midrange) drivers. This is suggestive of the Wilson Chronosonic time alignment. Draw lines perpendicular to each of the MTM drivers, and they will meet at a certain distance where the time alignment is perfect. That is the best seat for midrange-HF coherence, clarity and focused imaging. Other distances won't be bad, due to the good dispersion of each of the MTM drivers. This concave time alignment could explain how this larger speaker images better than the Alexia 2, as you said.
It appears that there is no means to adjust the angle of the MTM drivers. It would be an improvement if they did that, because then you could choose to sit at different distances to get the midrange-bass balance you want and maintain the ideal sweet spot for midrange-tweeter balance, clarity, coherence and imaging.
|
Since you love Be tweeters, the other speaker type to consider is the Tekton Moab, Encore or Ulf with Be tweeters going down to 270 Hz. Why doesn't Focal use Be midrange drivers? Their cabinetry is more sophisticated than Tekton. But the Stellas are not going anywhere due to their weight, and being the best speaker you have ever owned. Will you keep the Stellas until your 50th birthday, or even a year? LOL. |
From Jay's comments, some listening by me to Jay's VAC videos, it seems like VAC is still warm tubey sound. The ultimate for tube technology is probably Atmasphere (Ralph Karsten) products, possessing the highest clarity for tubes. In a VAC vs 725 + Mephisto Mono comparison, we all know what to expect, but Atmasphere vs Mephisto would represent the most informative comparison. Acquiring Atmasphere at an attractive price is probably difficult, however.
|
speedbump6,
I'm with you on Tekton Moab/Ulf with all Be tweeters, which are probably SOTA for dynamic box speakers, for $14K/$21K. For finishing touches, ricevs could come for a few days to do his mods. It only remains for Eric to get you the stock Moab and Ulf you ordered, so you can actually report on how great they might be.
|
speedbump6,
Good, so how do the Tekton Ulf's compare to your Wilson?
All,
I mentioned Tekton again because of Jay's statement about the benefits of Be tweeters in the Focal Stella. The patented tweeter array of Tektons also lets the Be tweeter driver cover much of the midrange, down to 270 Hz. I don't know why Focal hasn't used Be for their midrange drivers. Often a company has established relationships with suppliers, and it is natural to want to fully develop the non-Be driver. But why has the modestly priced Paradigm Persona line developed Be midrange drivers, which are also used down to about 50 Hz in their cheapest model B for $7K?
Remember that the speaker is the most critical component. Since Jay has found much greater resolution in the Stella vs Alexia 2, I won't be surprised if he finds greater resolution using the Parasound JC1+ with the Stella, compared to Mephisto with the Alexia 2.
|
speedbump6, Thanks for your feedback so far. Can you play a 2 channel audio recording thru your HT player? If not, it won't be physically demanding to insert a CD player to play audio CD's. Of course, your HT electronics are probably not of the quality as in your 2 channel audio system with Wilson, but I think the basic character of the Tekton Ulf should be able to be compared with that of Wilson. Tonal balance, HF detail, focus, etc., even if the HT room has different acoustics from the audio room. |
The 1st most important step is speedbump6's comparison of the Tekton Ulf flagship with his Wilson.
|
Techno,
No, in the world of beryllium, it's Focal with a single Be tweeter going down to about 2000 Hz vs Tekton with multiple Be tweeters going down to 270 Hz. As speedbump6 suggested, the top Tektons with all Be tweeters would cost $30-40K if sold through dealers. But for the bargain of half that, you are protected by a return guarantee, although their weight assures that only serious buyers go for them.
|
Jay,
Agree about beryllium. I recall the video with the Focal Scala being better and even cheaper than Sasha DAW, probably largely due to the Be tweeter. I would think you would be curious about the all-Be tweeters in Tekton Moab/Encore/Ulf covering down to 270 Hz. The prices are modest (cheap by your standards) due to the direct sales model. There is a facebook group where you can search for local owners who love to demo them. You could at least hear the versions with stock tweeters, which are commonplace. although it might be difficult to find an all-Be version.
Still, the only way you know anything is by having them in your room with your equipment. Moab is the outstanding value for $4500 stock, $14K for all-Be. The 145 lb Moab is child's play for you, since you are used to much heavier items. There is a high probability that you will want to keep them as a cheap reference to replace the 20.7, but you are protected by the money back guarantee. Certainly I respect your integrity about not wanting to take advantage of manufacturers. However, my guess is that the worst that will happen is that you will say that a Tekton is superb value for every sonic criterion, and that it challenges almost any speaker much more expensive. The designer, Eric Alexander says that, so he would probably appreciate your endorsement like that. And a possible outcome is that you find it to be the best and not just at its price point.
|
Jay,
The Tekton Sartori Be tweeter retails for almost $500, and the designer charges $500 for it, which includes installation. If you want to swap the regular tweeter for the Be version, or replace tweeters, you can do it yourself without the hassle of shipping. This is fair. Why does Magico charge $2400 for their Be tweeter, which is a Scanspeak product? Add the cost of shipping the whole speaker back and forth, so Magico is much more expensive. Is it worth it? Maybe Magico's way is purer and more structurally sound.
In the end, Be tweeters and implementations with crossovers are all different, so any speaker must be auditioned to draw conclusions. I just like the tweeter array concept of Tektons, so even the cheap stock tweeter array may have more resolution than larger drivers covering the middle/upper midrange.
|
Jay,
I appreciate your honest assessment of Boulder vs Pandora preamps. If a Boulder amp has similar characteristics of the preamp, I know that Boulder is not for me, which rounds off the bite of a guitar pluck, in contrast to the Pandora which preserves it. So even at this high level, Boulder is euphonic compared to Gryphon. Mephisto is still the king for truth telling, which I speculate you will confirm if you get the Boulder amp.
Years ago, you said the ATI 6005 was nothing special, in opposition to all the glowing reviews about it. You saved me a back injury so I didn't have to try it or the ATI 6002 stereo version. Same goes for Boulder--you saved me a back injury AND money. This is why I continue to follow you and why I ask lots of questions. THANKS.
|
Jay,
Your latest video with the Pandora and Mephisto is instructive. The 2 selections starting at 7:08 illustrate needed tradeoffs. At 7:08, the voice is crisp, "standing on the platform.." but some people may not like the sibilance. But the background soft piano is very clear. On previous videos with this song, the piano was muddy, but now the HF resolution of the Be tweeter clarifies it so you can hear the piano hammers softly striking the strings, plus some ambience. Excellent.
Next at 9:08, "Man on the Moon" illlustrates similar things, with the crisp jangle of the HF percussion and guitar, again which some might not like. The voice is clear. With these processed, artificial recordings, one has to accept the recording for what it is, and enjoy the increased content of the total music. Just play it at reasonable SPL's, as you did on this video. The alternative is to choose euphonic electronics which decrease the sibilance, but which muddy the bulk of the musical content. I like what you have.
|
Adding to mrdecibel's comments, things like Nordost cables reveal all freq better as the overall design approach is clarity, so the complete tone of any instrument is better revealed. HF's are more apparent, but so is the rest of the freq range. Perhaps the same can be said of the Furutech outlets in improving everything. The music is served. The conventional a-phile notion that "musical" means reducing unpleasantness by rolling off HF is incorrect. True musicality means revealing more information in all freq ranges which serves better appreciation of the music from more insightful information delivery.
|
Jay,
No, it's not about price, but about intelligent design. I praised the Stella design and pointed out the deficiencies of large panels like 20.7. Try the intelligent design of the Tektons. I'll let you know soon about the latest GTA speaker that Steve should have received by now. Last week, I visited audiotroy and was impressed by the clarity of the tiny Jern 18 EH speaker whose cast iron cabinet goes a long way towards reducing colorations of boxes. Audiotroy will get a sub for these.
I have said how my Mytek Brooklyn and Bryston 2.5B SST2 exceed the clarity of some much more costly amps we both have tried. At every price level, truly excellent amps that are designed for neutrality and clarity are rare. The Mephisto is probably the only amp you have owned that I would love to hear myself. Still, I would admit that the low chance of an expensive amp sounding neutral and clear is greater than the even lower chance of a cheap amp doing this.
|
Jay,
I compared 20.7 and Stella speakers on the videos both using Pandora + Mephisto, on the song, "Man in the Moon." The Stella is much clearer on the voice and guitar. Perhaps the Stella is adjusted to bring midrange/HF into more prominence relative to the bass. Or perhaps the large 20.7 panel is causing bloating in the midrange. I like the Stella design where the tweeter and midrange drivers have their own smaller enclosures which focus the sound well. For lower freq instruments, the large driver in its large cabinet gives the fullness which those instruments have naturally.
Feel free to sell the 20.7 which doesn't compete at all. I hope you have an opportunity to get a Tekton speaker which has those innovative tweeter arrays. For now, it will be tough to beat the Stella.
I just ordered the CD of Acoustic Live which has "Man in the Moon" and "Keith Don't Go." Thanks for introducing me to this music, and I'll see how it sounds in my system.
|
Ricevs made important points about how one single factor doesn't determine the overall sound. I like the theoretical advantages of beryllium, but I heard audiotroy's Jern cast iron speaker beat the all-Be Paradigm Personal B for clarity. The Jern uses a non-Be tweeter. Maybe the totally rigid cast iron enclosure is a bigger factor for its sound quality. Maggies have mediocre construction, but the open baffle nature of panels is in their favor. Everything is on the table. An open mind is most important.
|
sciencecop,
I absolutely agree that fine products deserve a careful setup. However, I was bitten by the hifi bug at age 12 when my engineer father bought Altec Voice of the Theater drivers, constructed his mono corner 7' tall enclosure, bought parts and built his own tube amp. He didn't have money for fine interconnects and such. His speaker enclosure was not at the level of Focal, Magico, Wilson. He did finish the basement to make a dedicated room, one of the most important things. He later admitted that today's SS amps are better than his tube amp, but he got the basic things right--speakers and room are the most important. His Altec horns were commanding.
He died recently, and I am looking for a good home for his stuff. I don't need the money, and would be rewarded if someone in the Phoenix local area just took them and re-lived the happiness I had with them.
|
Thanks to all for their condolences. My father's greatness inspired me to continue on, both in music and in medicine. After he built his Altec Voice of the Theater pretty wooden cabinet, he showed me the 1964 cover of the Audio Engineering Society issue picturing stereo Altec horn speakers with concrete cabinets, headlined, "a ton of sound." Jay's knuckle raps on his new Magico M3 reminds me of that.
Kren0006, did you try having your son play his music on your system?
|
OK, a change of pace with low fi recordings. You could have a million dollar MSRP system and they would still sound lousy and ultra processed. But even the Wilson Chronosonic system video you recently posted played a mediocre processed recording and sounded ho-hum. The voice was bloated which has nothing to do with the intimate reality of hearing the voice live in a real space, unamplified. This relates to the issue of why someone who has plenty of money and a love of music would spend lots of money to hear mediocre recordings. Music lovers want to hear live, unamplified music, and 2nd choice, natural, unprocessed recordings. If the recording is artificial, the experience doesn't rise to the level of reality, but remains in the pastime category, so there is a limit to the amount of money one would spend for this mere "virtual" reality.
On the other hand, even though I am not into high performance cars, I can respect the thrilling REAL experience someone gets from that. That REAL thrill is greater than the virtual enjoyment from a video showing it. I had a great experience in a hot air balloon years ago. The 3D changing panorama in the Colorado mountains was on another level from watching a 3D movie in a great theater. The $300 balloon ride was well worth it. |
Jay,
I look forward to hearing your usual decent recordings on the Magico. How about the best sounding recording you played, "Perhaps Love."
My favorite music are those recordings made by the great master violinists of the 1930's. I don't listen to them on my system, but on youtube. This way I enjoy the music and forget about judging the sound quality. As kren0006 said, great sounding recordings of mediocre performances don't thrill me. Most of my recordings are of good, and some great performers, in good sound. A few are recordings of great performers in great sound.
|
Thanks faxer. They sound clear and crisp. I love the slender main driver, which appears about 7-8" wide. This probably helps focus the sound.
Jay--imagine how they would sound with your ultra-revealing Mephisto + Pandora + DCS Rossini.
|
Jay,
I have experienced what you describe, and I conclude it was due to bad power quality at the time. The next day or so, the problem goes away. I don't have special outlets. The odds are that after you break in the Furutech outlets and their accoutrements, whatever the new F sound is, it will still change unpredictably due to bad power quality.
|
grey9hound
The cool violin parts at the beginning and then later in the song, "Do a Thing" are an example of 12 tone music. By 1900, classical music had explored all the pleasing chords like octaves, thirds, fifths, sixths, and pleasing dance rhythms like the waltz. These patterns fit common pleasurable emotions and had clear, simple mathematical correlates. After 1900, composers wanted to do something different. The academics were pleased, but the average music lover couldn't take the harsh, illogical dissonances. Here is a good video explaining this. Early 20th century composers like Schoenberg, Berg, Webern followed this new style. You might like it.
|
Listening to "Man in the Moon," the Stella has the greatest clarity on voice and guitar, followed by 20.7, and the worst, Magico M3. The voice is not well recorded and is mushy compared to the excellent intimacy/clarity of the guitar. The voice is muddy and chesty on the M3, better on the 20.7, and reasonably clear on the Stella. So there is little correlation between quality and money. The most expensive Stella is the best, and the still expensive M3 is the worst, with the 20.7 at least representing good value sound for the money.
Someone said that the Stella tweeter is grainy and unnatural. I completely disagree. This "Man in the Moon" song has little bass, but the entire range from upper bass to HF is clearer on the Stella than the other speakers, so all the drivers in the Stella are top notch and well integrated to produce the best sound of the 3 speakers.
|
Excellent analysis by ron17. I also listen on my stereo iMac desktop computer. The built in speakers have decent HF response. They are good enough that I appreciate the general superior sound Jay has in his room. Whatever deficiencies in bass from the iMac speakers are not relevant to the song, "Man in the Moon." I don't like even great headphones, which are deficient in HF, compared to the free air openness of good speakers. If I use headphones, I hold them away from my ears by up to 1". This allows open space, although the bass is cut. Headphones on the head are like speakers too close to walls. |
Also, FWIW, John Atkinson reviewed a Vimberg speaker for $31K and hinted that they have more HF air than the Magico M2 he reviewed a few months before that. Putting the M3 on the dedicated pods will improve the sound, but when the 20.7 for 15% the price beats the M3 as is, I'd say forget it, Magico.
|
All true, but Atkinson is a basshead. He starts all his reviews talking about bass, and usually gives discussion about HF as a brief footnote. He just retired as editor of the magazine, and as such is a political/business creature. On the reasonably natural acoustic guitar and voice recordings of Nils Lofgren, there is no doubt that the Focal Stella is laughably superior to Jay's other speakers in every important way. I don't care what the measurements indicate. My musically educated ear takes precedence. 60 years of musical experience as a violinist, 50 years as an audiophile.
|
sciencecop,
I am "only" 67 years old. I mention this to illustrate that my exposure to music was from a very early age. I said my first words at the age of 3, so music was my first understood language, and English second. It is true that I have some age-related HF hearing loss. Too bad lots of young rock musicians have severe hearing loss. Not me, I was never a full time orchestra player. I have demonstrated to people that when I play loud chords on my violin, as forcefully as possible, I can generate 120 dB peaks at a distance of 1 foot, but I am careful when I practice not to do this much at all. Trumpet players tell me they practice with their mouthpieces instead of blasting away indoors.
In any case, I have found that what people think of as HF harshness is really upper midrange anomalies around 5K or so. The maximum sensitivity of the human ear is at 3-4K, which explains this. So if the Focal tweeter has anomalies at 25K, this is totally irrelevant to human perception of harshness. It is audibly smooth in the important 5K region, although measurements may not reveal this or correlate with what we hear. Many people just don't like brilliance of sound, seek tube electronics and warm sounding speakers, etc. They like to sit 50 or more feet away in the concert hall where HF are greatly attenuated. But those of us who want to hear everything and also know that most recordings are made with close mikes, value components that reveal as much as possible. The Stella is both a revealing and natural sounding speaker, very lifelike.
|
Hi Guido.
Just for you, I searched my post. I said "Guido and almarg (sadly deceased)...." I should have written, "Guido and almarg (the latter sadly deceased)" to indicate that only almarg was deceased. I thought I was clear at the time, but I wasn't clear enough. I apologize if this insufficient clarity led to confusion and hurt.
More generally, this is one example of why clarity is paramount in all realms of life, and in particular, for music expression and its reproduction.
|
sciencecop,
I follow your reasoning about breakup of tweeters at very HF causing total loss of control down into the very audible range, but it is a matter of degree. On recordings, there is very little amplitude of 25 kHz information. Played at sensible SPL, there is very little 25 kHz info in most music. Maybe the tweeter could handle low amounts of 25 kHz energy, but would breakup with large amounts of input energy. In the case of those gentle recordings of "Man in the Moon" and others, there is negligible content and amplitude of 25 kHz, so this factor is not applicable. Most likely, a certain listener just may not like brilliant, crisp sound in the upper midrange and lower HF at even modest volumes.
|
Right, speedbump6. Rosin is used on violin bow hair to increase the stickiness and grip, which increases HF output. Nowadays I let the rosin get used up so the sound is less harsh. I can protect my ears better. When the bow is rehaired, there is no rosin--no sound! We have to apply just enough rosin to make some sound, but not too much. If I practice for long periods, I use a mute on the bridge of the violin. I have mutes of different materials, which exhibit different tone colors.
|
Jay,
I hope you include some of the old favorite musical selections on the 1st video, so we can compare with the Stella. Also, say what resistor settings you decide to use for the 3 freq ranges. This is one method of EQ, and it will be interesting to see how the sound varies with different resistor settings--many combinations! Are the small enclosures for the 3 upper drivers adjustable? If not, then true time alignment is set for a particular distance from your ears, and that distance will exhibit the best sound. |
Right. Technical experts from a speaker company don't necessarily have better ears than you. You have all the info from the manual that you need. It is more important to take plenty of time to do this, than the mission to continue your journey. The smartest expert is not going to live with you for months, but you do need patience to be on your own. If you want help from us, post videos of the same music but with different resistor settings and different alignment positions for different distances you sit away. Of course, keep the microphones on a stand exactly at your ear positions.
|
Great review of Fremer's Alexx. He implies that when the music ensemble size is small, the Alexx sounds appropriately small, and when the size is large, the Alexx is properly large. I also like how Fremer gives the measurements guy hell for not caring to listen. Notably, Fremer prefers it to the much more expensive Alexandria in his room for nearly all of the important musical criteria, although leave it to the basshead Atkinson to say he misses the Alexandria's looser low bass. In this case, more expensive = worse.
I don't know if the Stella has adjustable angles and forward/backward adjustments for time alignment the way the Alexx does. If not, this is a major advantage of the Alexx. The question is whether the possibly better driver characteristics of the Stella outweigh their lack of time alignment adjustability. Only listening will tell. |
Several of the Alexx reviews I read don't say what resistor settings are used for the 3 upper drivers. This is a big reason why the reviews are different and should not be taken literally. This is basically EQ of the drivers, so the sound will be very different depending on the settings. I know this because of my experience with the Rane EQ with different speakers. I can make the bass of a speaker sound boomy and full, or tight and lean, with different EQ settings. Same for midrange and HF. Different rooms and recordings will benefit from different settings. Do your own settings by ear instead of being a blind (or deaf) slave to measurements. This ability to tailor the sound is a very intelligent design of the Alexx.
|
grey9hound,
I hope you explore 12 tone 20th century "classical" music. The brief passage in the strings you mentioned also has interesting sound effects which enhance the eerie feeling. I assure you that you won't be bored by these early 20th century composers. They are intellectual musical puzzles that I think you will enjoy. Herbie Hancock gave it in small doses, so here is your opportunity to go whole hog.
As for me, I am not an intellectual musical connoisseur of these things. Guido D Corona is more knowledgeable than I about this music. He personally met Stockhausen, a leading composer of such music, which came to be known as avant garde in "classical" circles. I never understood Schoenberg's 12 tone music, but I still love his best known early piece, "Transfigured Night" which is a transition from his late 19th century romanticism to the 12 tone style.
This leads me into a post to thezaks, addressing the relationship of musicality to understanding.
|
thezaks,
The music I listen to is very complex and subtle. To get full appreciation of it, I must concentrate to a similar degree which is required to watch a detective movie or Shakespeare play with its complex language. You can listen/watch these art forms in a relaxed state, but you will only get a limited and superficial level of enjoyment by doing that.
No, I’m not talking about analyzing the freq response of the music and other technical details. I defy the super brain of superman to "read’ the grooves in the LP or the digits in the CD and come away with an understanding of the music. I am talking about having a musical understanding from keen, insightful listening. Accurate, detailed audio components make this easier--you can more easily hear musical strands using such components compared to euphonic ones. Once the accurate component reveals the musical information, you can go back to the euphonic component and hear the details, but if you listen to the euphonic one first, you won’t hear it, and you won’t know what you are missing.
Even simple music such as a slow soft guitar accompanying a singer should be listened to carefully to appreciate the nuances. When I tune my violin, I play a single note of A 440 Hz and then fifths with the D and E strings softly and carefully, listening and thinking for a few seconds about what I hear. The general principle is that no matter what music you listen to, it should be done with the goal of hearing more of its details, which will make the sensory experience richer. Everyone savors a sip of wine slowly--nobody should swig it down the throat like water. They should do the same with their music, whatever it is.
Talking about whether MY definition of "musical" is subjective or not really is a comparatively trivial endeavor. I do criticize the conventional a-phile definition of "musical" as merely being a pleasurable combination of sounds subtracting the harsh aspects. Someone who finds these sounds to be harsh, I may not. Provided that the SPL is not too loud, they are not harsh, but they are part of the complete musical content. So if anything, logically speaking, the conventional a-phile definition of "musical" sound is actually un-musical to a certain extent, meaning that some of the musical information in such audio systems is missing.
|
Blah, blah, Mark Levinson. I had the original ML 2's which put him on the map. New, they were dry bones sterile. Quickly they turned into syrupy warm euphonic crap. Even ARC tube amps at the time were more exciting and neutral. Later no. 20 was still quite euphonic. Then about 10-15 years ago, the tall upright ambitious class D (no 53?) appeared at about $50K/pair, and got terrible reviews.
Let's hear more of your Mephisto monos in shootouts, etc.
|
chayro,
As a violinist, I also did recording of classical ensembles on an amateur level, still with top Neumann mikes, Bryston mike preamp, etc. I'll take your word that in rock/pop/jazz, the mastering engineers tailor the production sound to what they think will work well in typical audio systems. All this is processed sound on many levels, so the concept of seeking high fidelity on playback is lost. These listeners cannot say whether one component is more accurate than another, so they naturally choose whatever components please them the most.
But there is very little, if any, processing in classical recordings. Most of it remains confined to multi-mike recordings of complex large ensembles on large stages. Even as a performer sitting in the violin section of the orchestra, I experience how instruments close to me sound crisp and clear, but instruments and voices in the back of the stage sounded muddy, with excessive reverb. So I understand the benefits of multi-mike techniques, which do clarify more of the instruments and voices, although the spatial perspective is not natural. Mercury Living Presence classical recordings are the best and most natural ever made, with no processing and few mikes used.
For the rock/pop listener, an accurate amp like Mephisto may well be paired with warm, forgiving components for the reasons above. However, if the goal is highest accuracy and fidelity such as in classical recordings, it is desirable to have every component dedicated to the same goals of accuracy. This is easy to understand. One end of the spectrum involves having all components forgiving, so there are 10 veils of sound clouding the transparency. The opposite end, a system with complete transparency, involves ZERO veils. Nobody has a completely transparent system, but we can achieve perhaps 1-2 veils, and then hear much more of the music coming through. This is done by having all components devoted to accuracy. Yes, some people think of the Mephisto as exposing flaws, but on a positive note, it has the highest accuracy and transparency for revealing more musical content.
Jay stated himself that the Mephisto mono is the best amp he has owned. Why? He finally realized he is bored with the homogenization from other amps. With those amps, all music sounds decent, but not at the cutting edge level he now wants. If he seeks the same from other components, he will attain the highest cutting edge level, coming closest to complete transparency.
|
Jay,
I realize that many people with more experience than I have recommended various better outlets. But even with the best outlets, there is still the power quality coming in, which Mike Fremer wrote about as what nearly killed his excellent system. I predict you will still experience these frustrations unless the power quality is fully addressed. I have been only partly successful with my Shunyata Denali 6000, original version. Ricevs probably has the best knowledge in this area. You could get the Goal Zero Yeti battery/inverter models, or the Stromtank big guns offered by Dan D'Agostino. Lots of clutter from all these units, but they are probably the best solution to this perennial problem.
|
There will be much greater differences between the Boulder and Gryphon systems than any cables or accessories. It would make more sense to see which system you prefer, and then do the cable trials. I know the Boulder amp has not yet arrived, but the most productive thing to do now is experiment with the Alexx, so much more to do with it. The optimum setup of the speaker is still the most critical factor.
|
Jay,
I certainly respect your need to monetize your research, and you don't have time to post music videos of every combination. I would suggest short music videos of just 1-2 basic songs that we all know, such as Nils Lofgren's "Keith don't go" and "Man in the moon." We still haven't heard much of the Alexx on common songs.
BTW, I love his Acoustic Live CD containing those songs. For pop music, it is a fairly natural recording. I like many more of the tracks on it, for the subtle guitar artistry and sounds. It is also interesting that the recorded level is much higher than on my usual classical recordings. That is because the dynamic range of pop music is greatly reduced compared to the much wider dynamic range of classical music. A comfortable listening level for the voice of Nils is about 10-15 dB lower on the volume control than the voices on classical recordings.
|
Most interesting at the highest level will be Boulder 3010 + 2160 vs 2110 + 3060. All are highest quality neutral/revealing components. As I understand the Boulder line, the 3060 has more power into class A than does the 2160. But how close does the 2160 come to the 3060 amp at lower power where both would be fully in class A? Assuming that the preamp is THE most important, I predict that 3010 + 2160 will be superior to 2110 + 3060 at low power, probably also at high power, for at least resolution/transparency, maybe even at high power full dynamics. Maybe even the 3010 + affordable 1160 will beat the 2110 + 3060.
|
chayro,
Thanks for informing me about the shenanigans of RCA engineers. RCA recorded the top artists like Heifetz, Rubinstein, Guarneri Quartet, but I hated the sound quality for the latter two artists. The sound was excessively warm and dull--they made choices in the EQ and other techniques to get that type of sound. Heifetz was a brilliant player, and the 60's recordings of him were brilliant, which suited his playing style. In the 80's, the Guarneri switched to Philips, and their recorded sound was more brilliant and lifelike.
You're right that all recording engineers doctor up the sound to their tastes. Most audiophiles prefer laid back sound, so Reference Recordings give them that. In the late 70's when I began, audio stores were using as reference the 1967 Turnabout recording of Rachmaninoff's Symphonic Dances, which was upfront and brilliant. Another Turnabout recording in the same style was Copland, Fanfare for the Common Man, Rodeo. I hated later recordings of these pieces, which were more distant, and lost impact from the ambience muddying the waters.
As for Jay, I enjoy much of the music he presents, which although not acoustic, still presents reasonably natural timbre. Ultraprocessed hard rock should not be used for assessing musicality, however anyone defines that term. So Jay can use most of his relatively natural recordings to demonstrate that the Mepisto monos reveal flaws in the system, as well as bringing out more detail and understanding of the music.
|
Often the confusion is a result of the fact that cable differences aren't that great compared to much larger differences among speakers, their setup, and electronics. Fluctuating power quality from the wall or power conditioners can swamp the relatively minute intrinsic cable differences. I don't accept the statements by the deaf measurements people who refuse to listen carefully and claim there are no differences, but I say that there ARE differences which are relatively small.
|
