The plot thickens. I boosted the volume on #2 by 1 notch on my computer keyboard. But the overall volume was now greater on #2 than #1, so Jay did a reasonable job of matching volumes, although someone doing this evaluation on their stereo with a fine volume control could do a more objective evaluation than I. So with the volume boosted by 1 notch for #2, I prefer #1 as having more precise and delicate sound, correlating with #1 having lower volume. But as Jay originally recorded it with volume levels unchanged, I still prefer #2. I agree with the findings and speculations of kren0006 and psnyder149.
It is not so simple to precisely match volume levels. Different components have different tonal balances. What weightings does the ear assign to different freq, and same goes for dB readings for cheap phone apps? Then there is human ear sensitivity vs freq, such as the Fletcher Munson curve. 100 dB in bass isn't loud, but 100 dB in upper midrange is very loud.
My summary is that #! and #2 are close, and VAC did better than I previously believed.
|
Due to all the variables in our means of evaluating YT videos, we accept that Jay in his room has more ability to discern subtle differences. What we have here is better than nothing, and offers more opportunities to compare impressions. It doesn't matter to me if someone has a different preference than I, but I value the fact that he hears the same things I do, such as A has more focus, precision, etc. than B.
We'll see if the next videos with closer volume matching enable us to better discern the differences. Possibly more surprises to come!
|
Dave, my pleasure, thanks.
|
Jay,
Look at Daniel Kurganov, violinist, on YT. His channel has 37K subscribers after many years. He is a modest guy who demonstrates his teachings in 30 min lessons, and posts old recordings of the great masters. His audience is limited to people like me and music students who find his tips valuable. Special content is available by supporting him on Patreon, much cheaper than lessons from prestigious teachers at $500/hour. Covid has destroyed the careers of many musicians, but those with great YT channels do well.
|
rbwnc,
You are correct that these are not double blind tests. Since Jay is doing the setups, these tests are single blind. If Jay is honest and diligent, then single blind is valid. So far, all of Jay's A/B shootouts have been useful on many levels.
But even if someone other than Jay were to do the setups, and Jay just presented the videos, making them double blind, technically we cannot identify the 2 presentations as being specific components. Nobody but Jay has experience with both the VAC and Soulution + Mephisto, with the Transparent cables, MSB, etc. All we can do is report what we hear and prefer. The VAC and other electronics may be atypical examples of tubes and SS, respectively.
|
VERY close. On #1, I hear slightly greater jangle/sparkle on the guitar. #2 is slightly warmer. With the E flat note on the guitar at 0:12 it is a little more stark with more transient pop for #1, than at 3:29 for #2. On the voice, I hear little difference. I choose #1 by a hair. On this video 2, I believe #1 is SS, whereas on video 1, #2 is SS.
Again, this shows that VAC is less tubey than most other tubes, and competes well with Soulution + Mephisto.
Dave, play that E flat on your guitar and see what you hear. In a small room, the guitar has more body, but in a very large room resembling a large studio, the guitar has more transient emphasis.
|
Jay,
Personally, I have enjoyed the challenges of these A/B tests immensely and thank you for your efforts. However, no amp setup "wins." It is not meaningful which setup is voted the highest majority. What counts is the detailed analysis submitted by a few commenters here or on YT--what they hear, and why they prefer a particular setup. No voting system captures that.
Analogy--voting tallies of 100's of people are like having 100's of superficial acquaintances, but a handful of good close friends are much more meaningful.
|
Jay and his YT channel thrive on surprises. Yes, it might piss some people off, but it would keep others honest. Those who say that #1 or #2 blows away the other, would be revealed as dishonest.
|
Video 2 again. Today I find #1 and #2 too close to definitely call. Unblinded, I still prefer #1 by a hair. If someone were to play them for me when I am blinded, I couldn't tell the difference. I won't be surprised if Jay has thrown a curve ball and says that #1 and #2 are the same electronics for this video 2.
|
Total misrepresentation on your part, rsf507. Even if you are the one misrepresenting statements, I would not advocate that you should be banned. But it is clear what your character is.
|
kren0006,
You said, "Editx2: Perhaps I wouldn’t be disappointed in myself if it turns out I cross-selected, because I guess that would just show I prefer different systems for different types ofmusic, which is plausible, but I guess I’d hope that I’d find one system superior in all facets - that would be preferable to me anyway."
This could be true, but another possibility is that the two setups are so close that you randomly selected one type of sound for some of the videos, and another for the other. In my case, I want clarity and front row type immediacy for any music I enjoy. I certainly had difficulty with all 3 videos with my computer setup, but no doubt if I were listening in Jay's room and with more precise volume matching, the differences would be greater. The fact that you and I who normally have different preferences chose the same presentations for some of the 3 videos, supports my contention of random selection of very close presentations.
|
Video 3 is tough. I was about to give up and not make a choice, but kren0006 tipped me off about listening to the bass. Like him, I find the bass on #2 a little tubby. The string bass is a little more plucky and tight on #1. My choice is #1 for this video, which I think is SS.
Summary of my choices and guesses of the identities:
Video 1--#2, SS
Video 2--#1, SS
Video 3--#1, SS
|
psnyder149,
We are waiting for your summary and analysis. So far, the handful of listeners here are all over the map in their preferences and guesses of identities. Assuming everyone has good ears, this proves that these two setups are very close.
The big revelation is that the VAC is not a classic tube sound, paralleling Mike Fremer's experience.
|
Unfortunately, you didn't record the dynamic drum piece for #1 in video 3. On #2 it was great. Great job otherwise, thanks.
One YT commenter thought he could hear tube hiss. That would be a way of cheating by knowing the identity of the VAC without critically listening to the music. But SOTA tube equipment has barely any hiss. I didn't hear any hiss on my low rez computer. Do you hear any hiss from the VAC system?
|
Dasign,
It is interesting that on all 3 videos, you and I prefer what we each think is SS, but we differ on the presentations we chose. On video 1, there was a mismatch in the volumes, which I couldn't correct for, so my choice for video 1 is actually uncertain. Since you matched dB levels, you may be correct all the way.
|
Congrats to dasign for being correct in all 3 videos on both the ID of SS and consistency in his preference for the SS.
Congrats to kren0006 for being consistent in his preference for tubes, although he and I both thought the slightly tubby bass of #2 on video 3 indicated that #2 was tubes, when it was actually SS.
Grey9hound did a diligent job in discovering that video 1 had a significant volume mismatch. Since he likes warmer sound from most classic tube electronics and selects tube brands and dac chips with that type of sound, it is surprising that he consistently chose the SS on all 3 videos. I made mistakes in the ID of 2 out of 3 videos, and I was inconsistent in my preferences for SS or VAC.
What may explain all these disparities? We all agreed that both presentations were close, and the fact that Jay says that in his room, the differences are very significant, implies that YT videos are unreliable in telling the true differences that only Jay can appreciate. Perhaps dasign listened through his dedicated audio system with precise volume matching, which enabled him to be the most consistent listener here.
It seems like VAC is one of the finest examples of tube technology. At more modest price levels, tubes may have a much larger gap in performance than similarly priced SS. I don't expect to find modestly priced tube electronics that offer the clarity of similarly priced SS.
I also learned that these difficult A/B shootouts cannot be relied on as much as Jay's verbal descriptions of what he hears in his room. I still think that larger differences such as between speakers can be meaningfully demonstrated on these videos. I'll search for links of Jay's videos using his XLF and current Focal speakers on the same songs.
Thanks Jay for the experience.
|
Jay,
I listened to your final assessment again and re-read Mike Fremer's S-phile review of the VAC 452 IQ monos. There was a clear majority of listeners here who preferred the SS combo over the VAC on all 3 videos. Since most listeners here, esp grey9hound prefer warm sound over typical analytical SS, this suggests that your SS combo was perceived by this majority as warmer than the VAC. Fremer wrote that his VAC was highly detailed and delicate, not at all like typical classic tube sound. His ref SS amp, the Dartzeel, had more power and grunt in the bass, where his VAC was "polite." Also, the post on this page by runwell suggests that Audio Research is a more typical example of tube sound, whereas the extraordinary detail of VAC leans more to typical SS sound, with a bit of classic tube sweetness.
All this suggests that the VAC vs S 725/Mephisto mono comparison is best viewed as applying to those products only, and not as a generalized assessment of tubes vs SS. An interesting comparison for tube lovers would be the lower power VAC 200IQ monos for $30K vs ARC tube amps for a comparable price. Both would offer some sweetness, with that VAC perhaps offering more delicate detail and transient sparkle in the manner of some excellent SS.
What don't you like about S 725 + VAC amp? My speculation--is this combo too bright or "in your face" for you? Is the VAC preamp + Mephisto more laidback but with the bass power you like?
|
pokey77,
I have several top headphones--AKG 1000 and 240, Beyerdynamic 880. Any of these reveal much more bass information and extension than the computer speakers, but I find the headphone bass overwhelming. The music sounds like an elephant dancing. If I use several 50 cc cups around the edges of the phones to get my ears 1-2" away, I get a reasonably good tonal balance, although this is a crude solution. The AKG 1000 is an interesting open design where you can vary the distance from your ears to the transducers, adjusting the bass to your preference.
|
Jay,
I don't know what you mean by synergy. I'll just repeat my question--"What don't you like about S 725 + VAC amp? My speculation--is this combo too bright or "in your face" for you? Is the VAC preamp + Mephisto more laidback but with the bass power you like?" I'm just trying to understand what sound you like best, so I can get the most out of your evaluations.
Impedance mismatches are common between a tube preamp with its high output impedance and low input impedance of some SS amps. But the S 725 has a low output impedance which would be compatible with almost any power amp. If the ratio of input impedance of the amp, divided by the output impedance of the preamp is over 10, you are OK from a technical point of view.
|
pokey77,
Try cups of various sizes, or similar contraptions to get varying tonal balances. You will look like a woman with curlers in her hair, but who cares--the sound is everything, LOL. Or you can hold the earphone cushions away with your hands, but this gets tiring. I gave up with all this.
|
Grey9hound,
Regarding huge soundstages, I don't like bloated soundstages and fat images, which is like magnifying a low quality picture to reveal larger but fuzzier images. My ideal is to have higher resolution in all freq, which increases ambient detail at all positions within the soundstage. By revealing more low level detail at the farthest reaches of the soundstage, the soundstage is enlarged/expanded naturally, not through artificial magnification of low quality. HF extension is important to achieve the expanded soundstage. Of course, we don't want upper midrange/lower HF distortion or hifi-ish brightness. Many people have added super tweeters which don't cause tonal aberrations but exhibit more airiness and enlarge the natural soundstage.
|
kren0006,
Agree. In particular, on video 3, we both found the bass slightly tubby for what was later revealed as S 725 + Mephisto. There are a few ways to describe this. Tubby, looser, less controlled, fuller. For what was revealed as VAC, I found the string bass to be more plucky, and lighter with less body but more control. The interesting thing is that these bass qualities of the VAC are closer to typical SS amps, whereas typical tube electronics tend to have the bass qualities we found for S 725 + Mephisto. That explains how grey9hound consistently preferred the S 725 + Mephisto, which had the characteristics he likes about his tube electronics.
Since you preferred the VAC for all 3 videos, you might consider VAC 200 IQ monos for $30K vs comparable ARC tube amps. Your top choice of Luxman is probably the best of all, since it combines the best aspects of SS and some sweetness of tubes. I still think you should audition the LSA Voyager GaN at $3K, which has these general qualities. Don't discount the LSA class D just because you didn't like my Rouge class D, an older module. Use the LSA with a good passive control unit with a good volume control such as Luminous (or Luminance?) as used by mrdecibel, or your present preamp.
Another important lesson is that the only true way to evaluate anything is to use it in your home system for a period of time. I have made mistakes trying to A/B things at dealers and friend's homes in their good systems, let alone YT videos.
|
pokey77,
I'll add that whatever distance from your ears you try with the cups on the headphone cushions, varying the amount of air openness affects the tonal balance. If you use 4-6 cups which surround more of the cushions than 2-3 cups of the same size, there will be less air and more of a closed in boxy feeling. Most of us realize that speakers have less detail than headphones in close proximity to the ear drums, but we prefer the open environment of speakers which better approximate the live music experience. So you can experiment with the number of cups and distance, to better simulate the natural listening experience in an environment. In fact, Stax calls their headphones, "ear speakers."
|
ron17,
Your picks also show that both VAC and S 725 + Mephisto are unique products that don't conform to typical tube and SS components, respectively.
|
Kren0006,
Right. If you were willing to spend the money on the VAC 450's and preamp, you probably would be happy with that. However, for your budget, I suggested alternatives, even the LSA Voyager, all of which you would still have to audition at home to be sure. Keep up your open mind about how any technology and even low price could give satisfaction to obtain the sound you want.
|
kren0006,
Sorry if you think I am intruding. I'm just offering suggestions based on what you reveal about your preferences. I believe that Mike Fremer likes what you do (Wilson for speakers, electronics with definition and some sweetness), so you can follow him closely. He found the VAC 452 IQ tops in almost all sonic criteria. He thought PS Audio Stellar M 1200 monos for $6K offered best value. The M1200 uses a modified module based on the IceEdge module of my Rouge, but has a tube input stage which offers sweetness. The LSA Voyager GaN is probably comparable, for only $3K. You can try the M1200 for no risk, and the LSA with only a restocking fee risk.
|
Jay,
My best recommendation is to go to Preservation Hall in New Orleans. I was there in summer 2005 right before Katrina. The picture on the website brings back great memories. Hear live unamplified jazz from that small and lively stage. There are only 3 benches to seat a small audience. The show was 30 min and cost $6. 30 min is plenty of time to give you great music and sound that will make more impact at 80-90 dB with greater transient peaks, than hours of time in front of a euphonic audio system blasting away. The next best thing to Preservation Hall is an audio system that emphasizes clarity at a modest volume so you don't get ear fatigue. 80 dB from Boulder is more thrilling than dull 90 dB mud, thud and crud from the likes of Constellation, etc.
Musical life will open soon. I have a feeling that Preservation will book fast.
|
kren0006,
Gosh, it is good to hear you missed me. I made several videos of the GTA at Steve's place with his components and with my Rane and Bryston. I sent them with comparison to Jay's videos of the Alexx/Boulder/Mephisto playing the same songs in emails to a few trusted people who have the open mind to listen. They show that the Alexx has greater quantity of mid bass and deep bass, but the GTA even with more modestly priced components wipes out the Alexx system for clarity and lifelike naturalness. The differences are 10-100 times greater than the differences among electronics, cables, stands, etc. My own Audiostatic 240 + Enigmacoustics tweeters are in a class by themselves for clarity, although most people could not accept their lack of deep bass and macrodynamics. On balance, the GTA is best for most people's desires, esp with the integral subs.
I stopped posting because of the ridicule I received from many parties. No problem--people can close their minds and miss out. No loss to me--I have no commercial audio interests. They can spend several million bucks to try super duper electronics and dynamic speakers, but the GTA with modest components will still be superior, unless they like big boomy bass with its varying degrees of mud and thud.
I will only respond to people with open minds, which sadly is rare on this thread.
|
Jay,
I wouldn't buy anything digital until you do the vinyl/digital A/B, properly, with vinyl and digital versions of the same recording. If the Koetsu on the Kronos sounds rolled off in HF vs the Taiko/MSB, don't dismiss the vinyl until you get a revealing cartridge like the Lyra Atlas or Ortofon MC Anna Diamond. From what I know about your tastes, you will LOVE vinyl even with a euphonic cartridge, and LOVE vinyl with a revealing cartridge that will beat digital in every way.
Vinyl even with its noise and other worse specs than digital, is more detailed and natural than digital.
|
The Kharma speaker line is interesting. The flagship Veyron 1 uses an array of 1" diamond tweeters for higher HF and an array of 2" diamond tweeters for upper midrange freq. In an AV showrooms video, the designer implies that the larger tweeters extend down to the midrange, my guess 700 Hz, with the other drivers working from lower midrange on down. This reminds me of the Tekton Design array, but done better with diamond tweeters. Too bad this implementation is unavailable in the lower Kharma models. You have to spend a good fraction of a million bucks to get it, plus have the space for the 90" tall and weighty boxes. They would never offer their tweeter array with the smaller models to save money, space and weight. Just business.
Kemper Holt did a nice review of the Acora Acoustics speakers. On their website, you can find comparative reviews of the smallest stand mounted speaker with the same Be tweeter as the flagship larger speaker. The small speaker is comparable to the larger speaker. I prefer the smaller one for its midrange/HF clarity, although the larger one is more spacious and is better in the lower midrange/bass.
|
On the throwback video, I much prefer the initial Magico S5 to the ML Neolith. At 48 seconds, the Neo comes on, and crispness is lost while midrange bloating occurs. The Neo is one of the worst implementations of electrostatic design, while the Magico has smart implementation of dynamic drivers in a box. In real life, the female voice is focused but not bloated. The microphone is close to the singer, so the Magico better captures the reality of the voice and the recording. On the Wilson Alexx, the voice comes mostly through the upper smaller enclosures, so the voice is focused and lifelike, as with the Magico S5.
|
Jay's point about the superior cabinet of the M6 makes sense. The ultimate approach in eliminating cabinet resonances is heavy rigid granite, used in Acora speakers reviewed by Kemper Holt. Also, cast iron cabinets used by Jern. I heard the small mini monitor Jern ES 14 EH speaker at Audio Doctor (now Audio Intellect) and it was the best dynamic speaker I have heard for clarity above 90 Hz. Still, the best performance out of these drivers could not approach the clarity and brilliance of my unique Audiostatic 240 electrostatic/Enigmacoustics Sopranino tweeter combo.
Let's hear the M6 on familiar good recordings. |
asin,
Thanks. At low/moderate SPL, how do the ML 536 and AHB2 compare for detail, resolution and bite of classical music? My experience with AHB2 is it is strong in subtleties but weak in power dynamics.
|
I like the post of henry201 just above,
"I just looked at the soundwave of this song, it’s compressed as a tortilla. There is also nothing ’real’ in this recording, no acoustic anything, even his voice is processed to a T. Magico is a fine wagyu steak, not a burger king whopper, you will hear it like it is 😐"
Still, whatever musical information is in this processed recording, DCS and Magico reveal more of it. As in other matters of life, appreciate the positives and ignore the negatives.
|
Jay,
When Oz does the Kronos setup at his place, you can also first go to his place and A/B the reel-to-reel tapes with your Kronos. His tube (?) phono stage will not be anywhere near as revealing as your Boulder 2108 phono stage, so the Kronos will be at a handicap. Maybe you can bring your 2108 which is probably not too heavy, so you and he could compare with that, in his system. Then you can bring it all to your place, before you get the TT stand. It will be interesting to see the effect of the stand on the whole TT system. Since the Kronos has the ingenious double platters which cancel vibrations, I won't be surprised if the stand makes almost no difference.
|
kren0006,
Even engineers disagree about which factors are most important. Pure scientists may look at things in isolation, but the job of the engineer is to use the science and balance the factors to design a complete product. On this issue, the first pertinent factor is the transparency of the volume control, which is of course superior in the outboard preamp. The second factor is the transparency of the added electronic stage of the outboard preamp. My contention is that the loss of detail from the second factor is greater than the loss of detail from the first factor from its inferior volume control. Many years ago when I discovered the Rane EQ, I first evaluated its transparency without the EQ settings, so I wanted to know how its transparency/neutrality/detail compared with the line stage of my Spectral DMC gamma preamp. The Spectral had a good rotary volume control, but the cheap Rane used a crummy tiny control which is used in pro audio equipment. I was shocked to find that the Rane used merely as a line stage without EQ, bettered the Spectral in the ways I mentioned. The Rane with all its old fashioned parts had more purity of sound than the audiophile grade Spectral. Amazing. That was the beginning of my mistrust of most of the audiophile industry. Some people have advised me to put in better quality electronic parts and a better volume control for my Rane, and I may do that one day.
Regardless of the technical discussion above, Jay said it best--
"I won’t argue with people who use DAC direct because they know their system and I don’t. What I will say is I would NOT trade the extra 2% detail that a DAC will give you by going direct for benefits such as more control, more soundstage, more drive, etc etc." For his preferences, "I would not trade the extra 2% detail..." YES, correct and right for Jay. For the preferences of myself, mrdecibel, willgolf and mikem, we choose dac direct and value the extra 2% more than the benefits from the added preamp.
Unlike the claims of maxima95, I don't impose my views on others, but simply point out how different preferences lead someone to different components that suit them best.
|
For the undemanding recording of Iron Hand, the Pass 60.8 is plenty of power. At 82 dB or so, only about 1 watt is needed. For low level transients, 10 watts. The Soulution integrated also has plenty of power. Tonal qualities of each speaker can still be judged. The GTA speaker has the most clarity, even when driven with relatively cheap Pass electronics and Lampi dac. Listen to the GTA with an open mind, preferably blindfolded with a friend doing the switching among the three videos of this song.
|
ron17,
Yes, the M6 does sound slightly rolled off in the top HF, even through my mediocre computer system which is rolled off anyway.
Listen to the thunder at around 1:40. The thunder rumble is low volume bass, but also you hear the crack of thunder best on the GTA. The crack of thunder is much higher midrange and HF. The GTA and especially my unique electrostatics + Enigmacoustics tweeter best reveal the higher overtones of natural bass instruments, which enables me to psychoacoustically enjoy bass on my limited bass system. |
henry201,
In practice, there are no serious mismatches of products, except for obvious errors like high output impedance from tube preamps going into low input impedance of power amps, which will roll off HF. The 91 dB decent efficiency of the M6 means that except for a few pieces of highly dynamic music, it can be driven by low watt amps. Amp quality is more important than power quantity for sonic purity. No inefficient speakers of less than 80 dB efficiency are being considered here, so all amps are game here.
|
Convenient repost of Jay's videos of Alexx and M6 on the song, Iron Hand, with my analysis. https://youtu.be/gueDCNUAapI. This is Alexx with the best electronics. https://youtu.be/VEjje1WCvFw. This is M6 with Soulution integrated. On my computer, these videos are top quality and enable comparisons. Whatever colorations there are from my computer system, they are the same for both videos, so I believe that similar differences would be heard hearing the system live in Jay's room. Only Jay knows for sure. I hear the M6 as darker, warmer, less brilliant in upper midrange/HF, than the Alexx. There may be more information/accuracy in the lower freq on the M6, while the Alexx shows more clarity in the freq from midrange on up. The male voice on this song has the lowest fundamental note of A which is 110 Hz, so this recording is mainly a test of the lower midrange up through HF. The opening guitar is more brilliant on the Alexx, as a test of upper midrange and HF. The M6 has three 10.5" woofers; Alexx has one 10.5" and one 12.5" woofer, so the total air excursion for the M6 is greater than the Alexx for bass. But the Alexx has 2 midrange drivers, and M6 only one, so the Alexx seems to be designed for more midrange clarity. Then the Alexx has the resistors which is a form of EQ for the drivers, allowing for adjustment of tonal balance. The interesting thing is that although the M6 cabinet, drivers and its tweeter may be more sophisticated than the Alexx, the overall design and voicing shows that the Alexx gives more clarity and aliveness than the M6, at least from lower midrange on up. I defer to others regarding the bass, which I can't analyze just from this song. Is the M6 handicapped by the Soulution, compared to the Boulder electronics on the Alexx? Probably yes, although I believe that the upper range brilliance of the Alexx design is a much bigger factor. It is likely that other resistor adjustments on the Alexx would create a completely different tonal balance. This is another example of my long experience with the benefits of any form of EQ, whether in the speaker crossover electronics or Rane, etc. It is valuable for the owner to have flexibility in tailoring tonal balance for his preferences. All things considered, the presentation of the Alexx from Jay's video is the best dynamic speaker system I have heard, from lower midrange on up. |
Good points kren0006. For convenience, here is a repost of the GTA on this song. Steve's recording of the GTA uses the same microphone as Jay. Many people will say that the lower range of the voice is very thin by comparison to either M6 or Alexx, and I agree. However, I was present at the recording, and must say that hearing the system in person, the voice was not thin as it is on the video. It was lifelike, and shows that these dynamic speakers make the voice fuller and veiled by comparison. The guitar and upper range of the voice are much more focused/detailed on the GTA, with the background instruments much more airy and spacious with sparkle on the guitar. The GTA is using the euphonic tube Lampi dac and euphonic Pass electronics, and yet if you can listen through the thinner lower midrange/upper bass, there is greater clarity from the GTA. The total GTA system cost is much lower than either M6 or Alexx, so once again I say that cost does not equate to quality. I welcome hearing the M6 with top Boulder/Gryphon/Soulution 700 series electronics and will keep an open mind, but for now, I believe that properly implemented lowest mass planar magnetic/ribbon and electrostatic drivers cannot be beaten by dynamic drivers for lifelike clarity. https://youtu.be/B8jm25r6Saw |
kren0006,
I understand why you prefer the 20.7 to the GTA. The 20.7 is much wider than the GTA, which yields a fuller bass on the 20.7. But the GTA has greater clarity from the midrange on up. The next best speaker for clarity to the GTA is the Alexx. I applaud the designer of the Alexx, who has made a speaker that offers everything in good measure. Forget about judging things based on money. If someone who wants more mid and lower bass took the GTA and used an EQ to boost mid bass, that would be great for them. Actually, the designer of my thin Audiostatic panels did this with his mirror drive transformer, but I don't like it, so for my tastes I would rather live with thinner bass and choose highest clarity for the higher range of freq.
|
henry201,
As you said, "The GTA may be more clear sounding, but they lack dimensionality and heft. I would get tired listening to these."
That's an honest statement of your preferences. You acknowledge what the GTA does, but your preferences are for a certain type of sound that dynamic speakers deliver. That's OK.
|
Part 3 of Mikey's system is superb. From my computer, I can't judge soundstage, spatiality, but only tone quality. The 2nd song, Dire Straits' Private Investigations I learned and heard many times on Jay's Wilsons and enjoyed it. But these Arion ribbon speakers show what uncolored, lifelike tonal quality is all about. The voice and soft guitar at the beginning are delicate, natural. Although the XLF and Focal Maestro's are at the top of the dynamic speaker class, the colorations of dynamic box speakers are evident when compared to the Arion ribbon drivers. Although the electronics are different, and Mikey is to be commended for his dedicated setup, the essential differences between dynamic and ribbon speakers are still there. The GTA and Arion speakers rival each other for this special tonal quality.
|
Jay,
Yes, any speaker will sound better with the Boulder or Gryphon. I'm glad that you are open to the GTA. For what I know you value, the GTA + two to six subs for $30-50K total, plus even modest electronics will give you more of everything you want, than M6 plus Boulder/Soulution 700's at many times the price. For your ultimate, GTA + subs + those top amps will still be well under $200K total. Since GTA is most revealing, the top amps will make a much greater contribution than they would for the M6.
Your revealing DCS Rossini + GTA will be especially revealing.
Also, Steve's room is much narrower than yours, so you will be able to place the GTA's much wider than he does, and will get all the spaciousness you desire. You will love the 7 foot total height of the panel and the even taller subs if you get the full sub system as well. |
mglik,
Good question about GTA and Maggies. The GTA designer owned and loved Maggies for many years and wanted to make a better version. The closest Maggie to the GTA is the 3.7i. Its planar driver is a little wider than that of the GTA, and its baffle is much wider. The result is that the 3.7i has fuller lower midrange down to deep bass. The 3.7i extends to about 40 Hz; the GTA to 50 Hz. If most of your music doesn't have deep bass, the 3.7i doesn't require a sub, but fewer people will find the bass of the GTA panel enough, so it is usually used with 1-3 stacked servo subs per side. You will need a wider room for the complete package.
Maggies are cheaper because of the lower quality of materials, but also because manufacturing costs are low with mass production. GTA speakers are handmade in smaller numbers.
Listen to my 3 videos on the last page of the song, Iron Hand, for the 3 speakers, Alexx, M6, GTA. As for how they all rate, draw your own conclusions based on what YOU hear. If you want to discuss further, message me rather than this thread.
|
Correction to my last post about Mikey's system. His main speakers are from Analysis Audio, not Arion. I like his customized add-ons with the extra ribbon tweeter and Townshend Audio tweeter. This restores the brilliance of the HF which I felt was missing from similar looking Apogee designs. I considered the Townshend in place of my Enigmacoustics tweeter. The advantage of the Townshend is much higher impedance than the Enigmacoustics, which doesn't strain the amp as much as my Enigma. I use the Enigma time aligned with my main electrostatic panels, firing forward.
Great job with great sound, Mikey.
|
pindac,
Can you be specific as to what are the tonal characteristics of the Soulution amps you heard? Did you compare the 700 to 500 models? What are the prices for models of Neurochrome? |
The latest recording is the kind I like. Everything upfront from bass to sparkling percussion, much more natural than the usual songs. My computer is circling around so I don't see the name of the song, artist, etc. It sounds like "Temptation." The sound is great mainly due to the recording, so I hope you make it a reference for future videos. Can you give the full name of the song, artist, label, etc.? Thanks. |
Thanks to Mike of Suncoast for revealing little known aspects of Boulder vs Soulution. Even though my taste for accurate, analytical sound is opposite to his, I appreciate his honesty in what he said. He said in essence that Boulder is more tubelike smooth than Soulution, which is more detail oriented SS. I was considering the Boulder 1161 which is a lower power version of the 1160, which he said is of a similar character to the 2100 series.
As for "musicality" and "soul," I have a different interpretation than most. My music is almost exclusively classical, but I do appreciate the excitement of jazz recordings which are lively and snappy. I like the lively Diana Krall recording of "Temptation" which Jay just presented. A system with the highest clarity/neutrality will present the musical informational content to its full extent. To me, THIS is musical, because more of the music is revealed. But euphonic tube type sound, while pleasant, is missing some information, so is really NOT musical the way I consider it. Related to this is what you think of as "soul." Hearing all the information in the recording and gaining greater understanding of the musical details is also "soul satisfying." I am unhappy, even depressed, when the system is unclear, and I can't hear what I know should be there. This is NOT satisfying to my soul. A recent example--I was listening to a violin/piano recording. Usually the violin is more brilliant and the piano is in the background. But the electrical power was pristine that particular day, and I heard the piano shine more brilliantly like a glowing vibraphone. I was happy because I could appreciate the brilliance of the soft piano as well as the violin. This was like a beautiful bright sunny day that makes everything more beautiful, good for the soul. Still, I don't like bright sun in my eyes, which is like blasting the system too loud. Songs like "Man in the moon" in my system sound wonderfully brilliant at 70 dB, not 82 dB. |
