My Long List of Amplifiers and My Personal Review of Each!

thezaks,

Are definitions of anything subjective, according to one’s tastes? I don’t think so. The purpose of a definition is to "define" something, that’s obvious. It is to establish some standard of objectivity. In music, "tempo" is objectively defined as approximately the number of notes per second, character of the rhythms, etc. Regardless of one’s tastes, all can agree that a certain piece has a faster tempo than another piece.

Regarding artistic interpretation, some people can say that artist A is more musical than artist B on a certain piece. It is reasonable to disagree on whether A or B is more musical. A may have more accurate technique, but B has a more contemplative meaning or "soul" in his performance. One can actually like both interpretations, which each reveal different aspects of the music, and in sum reveal more than either one individually. This gets into the different meanings of "musical." Ultimately, it is related to whether one thinks of the audio system as the music, or whether the audio system should be an accurate conduit of the real music in the recording. My goal is the latter, so I think it is absurd to talk about the "musicality" of the system. Most people here design their system to color the music the way they like, which they call "musical." In effect, this is making the (real) music more "musical" for the audio system, kind of absurd to me. I want the system to do as little as possible, and just transparently transmit the music on the recording. I strive for no audio "musicality," just transparency. Let the real music define what "musical" means.

mahgister,

Your writings are sophisticated and true. I agree that we cannot describe live sound in any environment in superficial terms like frequency balance, warm, colored, etc.  It is also impossible to get mechanical speaker drivers to have the exact same tonal characteristics of natural instruments made of metal, wood, etc.  Even the same natural instruments sound vastly different in various halls, rooms, etc, due to size and acoustical materials.  Even though I have written about the unique superior sound of live unamplified acoustic music, there is a lot to complain about even in the best seat.  Applying the same critical standards we all have about our audio systems, I have come to be disappointed about certain aspects of live sound.  The strings in the front row of the stage sound wonderful, but the instruments in the back of the stage often sound really bad, with much confusion from the excessive reverberation.

So to be practical, my goals are to gain an understanding of music either heard live or on the audio system.  Clarity and high fidelity don't mean perfect reproduction of the live sound.  "Fidelity" means a faithful likeness, or "wow, it sounds real."  High fidelity is not an exact copy.  Do you know how to read printed music, also known as the "score" ?  This contains all the notes written by the composer, with some suggestions for dynamic contrasts, although the artist will interpret these suggestions in presenting the music.  If you look at the score of even a simple string quartet, it is amazing how much is written that you don't hear in most audio systems.  Live performances reveal these details better, but only if you get one of the few good seats.  If you design your audio system with the goal of revealing as much as possible of this written music, you will achieve high clarity.  I won't pretend to know much about the technical differences between audio systems and the live sound, but I am happy to understand more of the music, aided by pursuing neutrality, clarity so that the audio system has as much fidelity to the live sound I can get.  

I am not in this audio hobby as a scientific project, but rather as a means of getting the maximum information and understanding of the music I love.  

kren0006,

You said, "And again, the reason I’m harping on this is because WC has made abundantly clear at least 20 times in this thread based on his actual experience listening to this stuff that a preamp is always better yet Viber continues to not respect WC and tell him he’s wrong about that. That’s disrespectful. Viber says I don’t respect him, but it’s he that doesn’t respect WC."

I don't expect you to waste time reviewing Jay's actual statements for his actual meaning.  We are both working people and have more important things to do with our time.  My understanding is that he said that dac direct reveals more detail, but he prefers the smoothness, spatiality and dynamics when adding the preamp.  He has a strong preference for that, yes.  But it is still a preference, and he always says about any component that this is just one man's opinion.

Mikem has verified my statement that the dac always uses an electronic stage, even if the volume control is bypassed using the fixed output.  In effect, adding the external preamp is the equivalent of using 2 tandem electronic stages, which cause loss of detail compared to using the 1 stage in the dac.  It is good to bypass any circuit, and listeners may find that using the fixed output of the dac enables more detail than using the variable output of the dac.  Yes, the volume control of the added preamp is probably better than that of the dac, but the listening findings of mrdecibel, willgolf and mikem confirm that the overall effect of adding the extra preamp stage is loss of detail/transparency in the music.  If you use the fixed output, you need a volume control from the added preamp.  These listeners find that the overall results show that eliminating the extra electronic stage of the preamp outweighs the benefits of the preamp's better volume control.

You have been incorrect on this issue.  No problem, but I didn't hurl any personal insults at you and just stated that other people's findings show that you are incorrect on this issue.  I used the word, "incorrect" but not "wrong" which has a connotation of moral negativity.  I don't say YOU or your statements should be ignored.  If someone is talking about something I am not interested in, I just ignore them, but I don't get nasty and yell that they should be ignored.  (A few years ago, you were even worse and said I should be REBUKED for my statement on a particular issue at that time).  If I disagree with their statements, I just explain why in an objective manner, using my listening experience or whatever technical knowledge I have--but I don't say that their different opinion should be ignored.  It is nice to have a written record of what the different opinions are, so they can be reviewed and considered at any time by those interested.

Jay,

Now that you seek neutrality and clarity with the Mephisto monos, understand that no preamp will give you these qualities better than source direct into the power amp.  Even if the Gryphon Commander is THE best preamp for these qualities, it still won't be as good as no preamp at all.  You will come to recognize that it will still give greater dynamics and bloom but with sacrifice of neutrality, clarity, transparency.  Save your money--source direct into the Apex amps will more likely achieve the heights of neutrality and the like.  Right now, without spending any money, try source direct into your M monos.  You might be entranced with the greater neutrality/clarity and be willing to give up some of the dynamics and bloom.  Your XLF speakers are very efficient, and the powerful M monos by themselves might satisfy you totally, without the impurity from any preamp.  Even then, if your power quality is terrible at times, you will pull your remaining hair out, even with the Apex amps.  When I have those bad power days, my best power amp sounds worse than my oldest worst amp on a good power day.

Jay, 

You said, "MSB into Mephisto monos is a step backwards.. I have been very clear on the fact that the mephisto needs a "race car" driver. You can't make a dac do a real preamp's job."

This implies that you do not really value neutrality/clarity, but prefer big scale dynamics which an added preamp does provide.  Any preamp ALWAYS adds its own flavor to the total sound.  That is a move away from neutrality and clarity.  I wonder why you proclaimed the Mephisto monos the best amp ever.  It seemed that it provided neutrality/clarity AND power/control.  Did you do extensive listening to MSB direct into Mepisto monos?  That doesn't provide enough dynamics for you?

kren0006,

Jay didn't say that MSB into M monos sounds like crap.  He said it sounds bright and produces ear fatigue.  If I listened in his room and with loud SPL's I would agree with his observations.  No, dac-direct isn't distorted--it is the way to reveal more detail and musical content.  This is true of both megabuck and cheap systems. This is not YOUR taste, but it is mine.  STOP YOUR INCESSANT DEPRECATION OF MY PREFERENCES.  You continually assert that I have no respect for others' preferences, but you are guilty of that sin against me.  Jay and you are entitled to your preferences, but Jay's observations are consistent with mine.  That makes his findings useful to me, so I learn much from him.  Whatever I might learn from you is tainted with your negativity.

What I do is to state objectively that dac-amp produces more detail/clarity, and dac-preamp-amp produces more warmth and dynamics.  You cannot handle facts, but go on the emotional warpath because you thrive on antagonism toward people with different preferences.

Furthermore, Jay's top lessons are his own personal opinion, and he states continually that they are "one man's opinion."  That makes him respected, unlike you with an undertone of vicious attacks.  You will continue to deny this, and just state that I should deal with your "facts."  THAT makes you a slow learner, to put it politely.  

Knowledgeable listeners like mikem and mahgister value my opinions, so I will continue to state what I hear from my extensive experience.  If you think I am wasting your time, just ignore me and don't respond to me.  There is no place for your incessant negativity towards me.

mahgister,

Thanks for your recommendation of Bruckner's Fifth Symphony.  The most popular are 7, 8, 9.  I don't know the 5th.  I'll message you this weekend.  You have eclectic musical knowledge, much to learn from you.  THANKS.

mahgister,

Thanks for your education on Liszt and Bruckner.  I'll begin my listening to see if I can appreciate what you say.  Much less known are the Bruckner string quartet and quintet.  I've had these recordings for many years and still haven't gotten to them.  Do you know them?

mikem,

Oh yes, I heard the original version of the Music First passive preamp at a home dealer about 10 years ago. The amp was a Nuforce class D ref 18, speakers were Marten using ceramic drivers at about $30k. The owner said that all conventional preamps he had heard colored the sound in various ways, and that for musical honesty and truth, nothing equaled the MF. We listened together in a bypass test. "A" was the source direct into the power amp. "B" was the source into the MF preamp then into the power amp. "C" was the same as "B" except with MF switch in place for 6 dB gain, and the volume control turned down 6 dB to match the volume of "B." Back and forth listening several times--I couldn’t hear a difference. That meant that the MF passive preamp was perfectly transparent. Later, a more expensive MF unit came out. I couldn’t understand how that future unit would be better than what I heard. If it were to be better (more transparent), maybe I couldn’t hear that the original MF was only 99% perfect. Perhaps as ricevs says, the better unit had better wire in the transformer volume control device.

Yes, what counts is the pure unadulterated original music of the recording coming through, without superimposed "false music" of any electronics in the chain. We both hear this--it is obvious, for those whose goals are high fidelity.

Yes, my favorite Scheherazade recording is that 1959 Reiner/CSO you mentioned. Sidney Harth (1925-2011) was the concertmaster who played those great solos. In 1998, I recorded a small professional chamber ensemble with guest Sidney Harth as the leader in Tchaikovsky’s Souvenir of Florence. His playing was technically a little off compared to his prime days on the reoording, but the young musicians appreciated working with the elderly master, Harth. I felt honored to have the opportunity to hear and meet him, and I expressed my appreciation to him.

P.S. The MF, for those not familiar, controlled volume via a TVC, transformer volume control.  In effect, this is an impedance matching device, so the +6 dB gain switch was just another impedance, not electronic gain.  Mrdecibel understands better than I the virtues of his passive Luminous preamp compared to TVC.

mikem,

For live performances, I prefer shallow stages.  I found that the back and even middle rows on the deep stage muddy those instruments in excessive reverb.  The front row on the stage is clear, but the further back rows are way worse than the average audio system.  Have you heard the Mercury Living Presence recordings of the late 1950's?  The 1950 mono recordings of Rafael Kubelik were done in Orchestra Hall in Chicago.  Everything is clear, yet spacious enough. 

jakesnak,

I partially agree with you, surprise!  From an objective point of view, yes, omitting the preamp makes the sound relatively more edgy and fatiguing (I'll add only if the SPL is too loud).  Here is where preferences and experiences with live unamplified music come in.  Live unamped music heard at a close distance, near where the main microphones are, IS more edgy, bright and shows more details than the same music heard at a greater distance.  If you like the former, you prefer omitting the preamp.  If you like the latter, you prefer the added preamp.  Also, if you listen to subtle music like delicate harpsichord, you prefer omitting the preamp, but if your main music is louder/dynamic, you prefer the added preamp.  A possible conundrum comes for certain classical pieces which have both loud and soft parts. In the loud parts, you may prefer the added preamp.  In the soft parts, you would prefer omitting the preamp.  For example, in the Saint Saens Carnival of the Animals, there is a part where the high piano notes interweave with similar high notes from the glass harmonica.  In order to appreciate the subtle tonal differences between the piano and glass harmonica, it is best to omit the preamp.

The foregoing applies to all levels of equipment.  The principle is the same.  My experience with modestly priced equipment reveals this.  Jay's experience with different Gryphon amps and preamps confirms this.

Mahgister has so many insights about acoustics, room and power line treatments, as well as extensive breadth of knowledge about classical music which surpasses mine in many areas.  My comments may not be of interest to some people here, which is OK because they can ignore me, but if I had kept my insights to only the few people I already know in private messages, I would not have met him.  So if some people say to get this thread back on track, just realize that a diversity of opinions and subjects broadens general understanding.  We are not discussing things like women's fashions and politics, which are totally off topic. 

thezaks,

To further clarify, the dac with its volume control has an active electronic stage. That is in effect, a preamp, although Jay says that this is not as good as the added preamp. When people add their preamp, they are in effect using TWO preamps in tandem. As mrdecibel, willgolf, mikem and I find from listening, 2 preamps create loss of clarity but with added dynamics and smoothness, compared to the single preamp stage in the dac. This is true at all price levels. The laws of physics don’t change with money spent.

There might be a few dacs available without volume controls or that added electronic stage. The actual dac chip would be used with an external dedicated preamp. That would be the purest method of going "dac direct" since there would be only one electronic gain stage in that chain, rather than the two stages used in Jay’s discussions of his systems.

Takes 1 and 2 of the new speaker are pleasant.  But it would be most helpful if someone can link videos of the XLF playing the same songs so we can better understand the differences between the XLF and the new speaker.  Even if the electronics are different in the XLF videos, speaker differences are much greater than electronics differences, so this would be most informative.

Jay can say all he wants, but hearing by us is more informative.  We can accept what he says about his own findings in his room, but these links would be more helpful.  We will find out shortly what the new speaker is, but unless someone hears the differences himself in a readily available way, he won't know for himself what the differences are.

I used to link comparisons of songs on different speakers, electronics, cables.  However, most of your present posts and YT videos are devoted to your discussions.  You used to do lots more videos, so it was easy for me to do this.  You have your valid business reasons for your new style, based on YT income, but any real audiophile knows that talk is cheap--it is all about the listening.  That's one of the main attributes of the audiophile--he must listen for himself, and not completely trust the statements from anyone.  We can respect your statements of your findings, and that is useful, but ultimately what made your reputation were your A/B videos, which are the most useful of all.

Magazines are solely devoted to talk, talk, talk, blah, blah, blah.  No sound videos.  Aside from the bias from manufacturer ads, their usefulness is limited by lack of sound videos.

kren0006,

You could be correct, but I am not certain that the dac with the fixed volume output is really without the additional electronic stage.  Maybe such a dac DOES have the added stage, but has a potentiometer that merely selects unity gain without eliminating the stage.  The variable pot would be bypassed by using the fixed output, but the electronic stage after the dac chip could still be there.  I couldn't find info on various dac's that say whether you or I are correct.  Maybe several owners here can clarify.  

Merely from listening, adding the preamp reduces detail but increases output, so this suggests that the whole setup is like 2 tandem stages.  One way to answer this question is to see if using the fixed dac output into the preamp, and then comparing the variable dac output set to the same gain into the preamp produces different sound.  If they sound the same, then it is not possible to bypass the electronic stage of the dac, so I would be correct that adding the preamp is equivalent to using 2 tandem stages.

Can't you have an objective discussion of facts without your usual deprecating claims that I have a lack of understanding or your insinuations that I operate at a low level?  How dare you say that my statement should be ignored?  Instead, recognize that a serious discussion is appropriate, and that your claims need to be verified by actual users and/or knowledgeable technicians for the dac companies' product.

I might be incorrect about the actual facts, and people like thezaks can correct me without badmouthing me.  Jay can physically beat the heck out of you and me combined, but he doesn't go around with a bravado and insulting manner, but rather keeps the discussion dignified and respectful.

klh007,

I don't understand Leedh processing, and I don't see how this solves the problem of loss of bits at low signal levels.  A CD playing full scale output (say 100 dB of music output) has 16 bits of resolution.  For a very quiet 22 dB output, that's a loss of 78 dB, which is 13 bits of resolution loss, down to a mere 3 bits of resolution left.  Even for a moderate level of 46 dB, that's a loss of 54 dB, or 9 bits, down to only 7 bits of resolution left.  I don't see how any digital volume control is better than analog at even moderate levels.

Jay,

The final take video sounds good, but I am not familiar with the songs, and I don't believe you played these songs on the XLF.  After you break in the new speaker and the new outlets, please play songs that you played on the XLF.  Since YT lists the songs, I'll try to help post links to videos from your channel, so we can compare the 2 speakers more easily.  The major variable will be the Furutech outlet vs the former outlet, but the differences in character between the 2 speakers should swamp the outlet differences.

psnyder149,

I need more time to consider all your numbers, but just for starters, I question the use of upsampling, which doesn't directly relate to my question.  If you record something at 16 bits and also at 24 bits, then the latter has more gradations of amplitude.  (There is more to psychoacoustically explain increased resolution than just amplitude variations. The sampling rate of 88 kHz vs 44 kHz may be a greater factor than the word length, or number of bits.  Jitter--variation of timing of these samples--may be the most important.  For simplicity, we can just discuss number of bits, for now).

The problem with upsampling is that it doesn't reveal more information.  If something is recorded with 16 bits and upsampled to 24 bits, you don't get the information content of the original recording at 24 bits.  Mere multiplication doesn't give the more sensitive gradations of the original 24 bit recording.  You can't invent information (artificial resolution) by just magnifying the numbers.  Similar reasoning about "oversampling" (if that is the right term) from 44 to 88 kHz, doesn't produce the information content of the original 88 kHz recording.

To start out with a 24 bit recording, you can truncate to 16 bits various ways.  I agree that more numbers in the original 24 bit word can more accurately round down to 16 bits, than the original 16 bit recording.  But I believe that upsampling from 16 to 24 bits won't produce the information content of the original 24 bit word, or even the rounded down 16 bit word.

I stand by my previous post, which doesn't directly relate to your discussion about upsampling.  To me, the issue is whether a low level digital signal with profound loss of information from reducing bits down to only 3 or 7 in the examples I cited, is better or worse for resolution than the low level analog signal with the noise.  The low level analog signal has a very high variation in amplitude, maybe like 30 bits of digital equivalent.  If the analog hiss noise is reasonably low, far below the signal level, the analog signal can have greater resolution than the digital signal.  But if there is lots of hiss, then analog is worse.

We probably agree that the best scenario is a 24 bit original recording, played back using a dac that accepts 24 bits.  Then the 3 bits from the original 16 bit recording becomes 11 bits from the original 24 bit recording, and the 7 bits becomes 15 bits, yielding much better resolution.  But if you start with a 16 bit CD recording, whether original or downsampled from the 24 bit master, you are left with only 3 or 7 bits at those low signal levels, pretty bad.

Careful, don't border on nastiness like you know who.  I accept your numbers, and I know about rounding errors, but that is not relevant to my statements in my previous post.  Your discussion is interesting, but it is not about addressing fundamental issues of analog vs digital volume controls I raised.  FACT--a low level analog signal has an infinite number of bit equivalents--that's what analog is.  The problem with analog is the storage capacity of magnetic tape and playback of the tape on a physical tape machine. Analog hiss is certainly noisy, and the issue is the tradeoff between the masking effects of hiss and the benefits of an infinite number of amplitude gradations.  Even 24 bit digital for a full scale 2V signal gets reduced to 11 bits or less for a very low signal.  There is no hiss, but the disadvantage of digital is the low number of bits for that low level signal.

Many analog listeners have noted its increased resolution compared to digital.  In fact, they praise 24 bit and higher sampling rates compared to CD, as resulting in its "analog-like" sound.

Jay,

No, I am currently involved in an interesting discussion with psnyder149 about digital attenuation.  This was initiated by an interesting post by klh007 on the Leedh technique.  I think many people are interested in this, but if not, they can ignore it, just as I ignore lots of discussions I am not interested in.

I do admit that many articles in my field are too long and cumbersome, so I skip over them from mental fatigue.  Psynder149 wrote long posts on this subject, which I find enlightening.  None of this info is meant as judgmental towards anyone's preferences, but is just information that is informative for those interested.

Klh007 and psnyder149 engaged me on this subject.  They are not out of sync.  If you're not interested in this topic, just ignore it.  No problem.

If someone with the prevailing preferences posted a lot of material because he has so much to say, it would be welcomed.  I might skip over most of it, but occasionally there are useful tidbits that are useful to me.  Several people admittedly in the minority, find my input useful.  If I think that only one person I know is interested, I message him privately.  But if I think that at least several people are interested, I post here.  

One overlooked possibility is that alternative views from me do attract people from elsewhere who are searching for other opinions.  A diversity of opinions is a good thing, better than an official monolithic view of various subjects.

So there is discrimination against me from a few people.  Requests for censorship and bitterness show the character of those who do it.  

Jay,

I enjoyed your part 2 CON video of the XLF.  About flexibility--you say it is con, but I say it is a pro factor.  More work, yes.  But the time alignment design lets you get the most out of the XLF depending on distance to your ears.  With other speakers without time alignment, any given distance has compromises--you can get different tonal balances at random, but only time alignment offers the most focused imaging. The XLF could sound like a smaller speaker on certain music, and a larger speaker for other music, a real bonus.

About midrange.  The XLF has hotter HF than the Alexx.  You seem to be sensitive to brightness, so the Alexx had more midrange dominance than the XLF, which you preferred.  You tried many different things to reduce the HF prominence which helped, but not completely.  

I have a feeling that the new speaker is overall preferable to you than the XLF.  The size is better matched to your room, the tonal balance better for you.  You won't have trouble matching lots of electronics/cables with the new speaker.  You will save money and be happier.

Prior to the XLF, the previous Focal Stella Evo was my favorite of your speakers.  The Maestro looks like a winner now.  For the XLF, its brightness could have been mostly due to the crossover design--its tweeter was used down to 1000 Hz, pretty low.  The beryllium tweeter may have more sparkle than the XLF tweeter, other factors being equal, but we'll see if the crossover implementation of this Focal yields brighter sound than the XLF.  

I also like Jay's methodology of varying the order of presentations in the upcoming 3 videos.  This will keep the A/B's as unbiased as possible.

Jay,

Hopefully you can discuss with Mikey why he has the bass cabinets in the middle and the panels on the extreme sides.  When I had the huge Maggie Tympani's, I placed the HF units in the center closer to each other than the bass panels which were on the outside.  I think I remember when you had the Maggie 3.7i and 20.7, you had the ribbon tweeters on the inside.  He has the panels very far apart, but it only takes a few feet to obtain excellent separation and spatiality.  The big disadvantage of very wide separation is blurring and bloating of most instruments in midrange/HF, although at first the huge soundstage is tantalizing.

Visually, his arrangement makes sense--otherwise the huge panels would destroy the beauty of the room.  If the bass cabinets were on the sides, the bass might be too loose and uncontrolled.

Yes, a surprise.  Both #1 and #2 are pleasant and very close to each other.  I have never heard tubes competing seriously with SS, regardless of which I prefer.  I do hear #1 as being fuller in the lower range of her voice.  The high notes on the piano sound similar for #1 and #2.  I understand how thezaks finds the HF relatively prominent on #1, but I would restate what he hears as the lower freq sounding more tubby.  (That's a pun on the fact that I believe that #1 is VAC tubes). #2 is more coherent throughout the range, so I agree with thezaks that it is more natural and balanced than #1. The entire range of her voice is more focused on #2, so I vote for #2.

The fact that I still like #1 indicates that the rest of the system is superb in clarity.  My only reservation with the XLF was that the bass was overblown for my tastes, and I find the bass of this Focal speaker more naturally balanced and coherent with the rest of the range.  Great quality all the way, more refined and classy than the XLF.

Very impressive, Jay.

In these evaluations, I mainly state what I hear.  Jay loves bass power, so the surprise may be that the Soulution + Mephisto has the fuller bass and lower midrange that I attributed to tubes.  And the VAC may be much less tubey than expected, as found by Mike Fremer with his similar VAC amp.

Valid points, grey9hound.  #1 is recorded a little louder than #2.  This could explain the extra fullness in lower midrange and bass I hear in #1.  I would have to adjust the volume on my keyboard, which is crude, and repeat my evaluation.  I hope Jay matches the volumes for the remaining videos so that more meaningful evaluations can be done.