Female children have the best measured hearing response. That doesn't mean that they understand what they hear. I have witnessed old musicians who have a greater understanding of the complex sounds of music, and they point out things that young inexperienced musicians miss. The midrange is where most of the melodic content is, so the old musicians still have good midrange perception even if they are deaf over 5 kHz. I knew a young mastering engineer who worked with the renowned Bob Ludwig, and he said that the 73 year old Ludwig taught him a lot about what to listen for.
My Long List of Amplifiers and My Personal Review of Each!
So I have been in a long journey looking to find the best amplifiers for my martin logan montis. As you know, the match between an amplifier and speakers has to be a good "marriage" and needs to be blend exquisitely. Right now, I think I might have found the best sounding amplifier for martin logan. I have gone through approximately 34-36 amplifiers in the past 12 months. Some of these are:
Bryston ST, SST, SST2 series
NAD M25
PARASOUND HALO
PARASOUND CLASSIC
KRELL TAS
KRELL KAV 500
KRELL CHORUS
ROTEL RMB 1095
CLASSE CT 5300
CLASSE CA 2200
CLASSE CA 5200
MCINTOSH MC 205
CARY AUDIO CINEMA 7
OUTLAW AUDIO 755
LEXICON RX7
PASS LABS XA 30.8
BUTLER AUDIO 5150
ATI SIGNATURE SERIES 6005
With all that said, the amplifiers I mentioned above are the ones that in my opinion are worth mentioning. To make a long story short, there is NO 5 CHANNEL POWER AMP that sounds as good as a 3ch and 2ch amplifier combination. i have done both experiments and the truth is that YOU DO lose details and more channel separation,etc when you select a 5 channel power amplifier of any manufacturer.
My recollection of what each amp sounded like is as follows:
ATI SIGNATURE SERIES 6005 (great power and amazing soundstage. Very low noise floor, BUT this amplifiers NEEDS TO BE cranked up in order to fully enjoy it. If you like listening at low volume levels or somewhat moderate, you are wasting your time here. This amp won’t sound any different than many other brands out there at this volume. The bass is great, good highs although they are a bit bright for my taste)
NAD M25 (very smooth, powerful, but somewhat thin sounding as far as bass goes)
Bryston sst2(detailed, good soundstage, good power, but can be a little forward with certain speakers which could make them ear fatiguing at loud volumes)
Krell (fast sounding, nice bass attack, nice highs, but some detail does get lost with certain speakers)
rotel (good amp for the money, but too bright in my opinion)
cary audio (good sound overall, very musical, but it didn’t have enough oomph)
parasound halo (good detail, great bass, but it still holds back some background detail that i can hear in others)
lexicon (very laid back and smooth. huge power, but if you like more detail or crisper highs, this amp will disappoint you)
McIntosh mc205 (probably the worst multichannel amp given its price point. it was too thin sounding, had detail but lacked bass.
butler audio (good amplifier. very warm and smooth sweet sounding. i think for the money, this is a better amp than the parasound a51)
pass labs (very VERY musical with excellent bass control. You can listen to this for hours and hours without getting ear fatigue. however, it DOES NOT do well in home theater applications if all you have is a 2 channel set up for movies. The midrange gets somewhat "muddy" or very weak sounding that you find yourself trying to turn it up.
classe audio (best amplifier for multi channel applications. i simply COULDNT FIND a better multi channel amplifier PERIOD. IT has amazing smoothness, amazing power and good bass control although i would say krell has much better bass control)
Update: The reviews above were done in January 2015. Below is my newest update as of October 2016:
PS AUDIO BHK 300 MONOBLOCKS: Amazing amps. Tons of detail and really amazing midrange. the bass is amazing too, but the one thing i will say is that those of you with speakers efficiency of 87db and below you will not have all the "loudness" that you may want from time to time. These amps go into protection mode when using a speaker such as the Salon, but only at very loud levels. Maybe 97db and above. If you don’t listen to extreme crazy levels, these amps will please you in every way.
Plinius Odeon 7 channel amp: This is THE BEST multichannel amp i have ever owned. Far , but FAR SUPERIOR to any other multichannel amp i have owned. In my opinion it destroyed all of the multichannel amps i mentioned above and below. The Odeon is an amp that is in a different tier group and it is in a league of its own. Amazing bass, treble and it made my center channel sound more articulate than ever before. The voices where never scrambled with the action scenes. It just separated everything very nicely.
Theta Dreadnaught D: Good detailed amp. Looks very elegant, has a pleasant sound, but i found it a tad too bright for my taste. I thought it was also somewhat "thin" sounding lacking body to the music. could be that it is because it is class d?
Krell Duo 300: Good amp. Nice and detailed with enough power to handle most speakers out there. I found that it does have a very nice "3d" sound through my electrostatics. Nothing to fault here on this amp.
Mark Levinson 532H: Great 2 channel amp. Lots of detail, amazing midrange which is what Mark Levinson is known for. It sounds very holographic and will please those of you looking for more detail and a better midrange. As far as bass, it is there, but it is not going to give you the slam of a pass labs 350.5 or JC1s for example. It is great for those that appreciate classical music, instrumental, etc, but not those of you who love tons of deep bass.
It is articulate sounding too
Krell 7200: Plenty of detail and enough power for most people. i found that my rear speakers contained more information after installed this amp. One thing that i hated is that you must use xlr cables with this amp or else you lose most of its sound performance when using RCA’s.
Krell 402e: Great amp. Very powerful and will handle any speaker you wish. Power is incredible and with great detail. That said, i didn’t get all the bass that most reviewers mentioned. I thought it was "ok" in regards to bass. It was there, but it didn’t slam me to my listening chair.
Bryston 4B3: Good amp with a complete sound. I think this amp is more laid back than the SST2 version. I think those of you who found the SST2 version of this amp a little too forward with your speakers will definitely benefit from this amp’s warmth. Bryston has gone towards the "warm" side in my opinion with their new SST3 series. As always, they are built like tanks. I wouldn’t call this amp tube-like, but rather closer to what the classe audio delta 2 series sound like which is on the warm side of things.
Parasound JC1s: Good powerful amps. Amazing low end punch (far superior bass than the 402e). This amp is the amp that i consider complete from top to bottom in regards to sound. Nothing is lacking other than perhaps a nicer chassis. Parasound needs to rework their external appearance when they introduce new amps. This amp would sell much more if it had a revised external appearance because the sound is a great bang for the money. It made my 800 Nautilus scream and slam. Again, amazing low end punch.
Simaudio W7: Good detailed amp. This amp reminds me a lot of the Mark Levinson 532h. Great detail and very articulate. I think this amp will go well with bookshelves that are ported in order to compensate for what it lacks when it comes to the bass. That doesn’t mean it has no bass, but when it is no Parasound JC1 either.
Pass labs 350.5: Wow, where do i begin? maybe my first time around with the xa30.8 wasn’t as special as it was with this monster 350.5. It is just SPECTACULAR sounding with my electrostatics. The bass was THE BEST BASS i have ever heard from ANY amp period. The only amp that comes close would be the jC1s. It made me check my settings to make sure the bass was not boosted and kept making my jaw drop each time i heard it. It totally destroyed the krell 402e in every regard. The krell sounded too "flat" when compared to this amp. This amp had amazing mirange with great detail up top. In my opinion, this amp is the best bang for the money. i loved this amp so much that i ended up buying the amp that follows below.
Pass labs 250.8: What can i say here. This is THE BEST STEREO AMP i have ever heard. This amp destroys all the amps i have listed above today to include the pass labs 350.5. It is a refined 350.5 amp. It has more 3d sound which is something the 350.5 lacked. It has a level of detail that i really have never experienced before and the bass was amazing as well. I really thought it was the most complete power amplifier i have ever heard HANDS DOWN. To me, this is a benchmark of an amplifier. This is the amp that others should be judged by. NOTHING is lacking and right now it is the #1 amplifier that i have ever owned.
My current amps are Mcintosh MC601s: i decided to give these 601s a try and they don’t disappoint. They have great detail, HUGE soundstage, MASSIVE power and great midrange/highs. The bass is great, but it is no pass labs 250.8 or 350.5. As far as looks, these are the best looking amps i have ever owned. No contest there. i gotta be honest with you all, i never bought mcintosh monos before because i wasn’t really "wowed" by the mc452, but it could have been also because at that time i was using a processor as a preamp which i no longer do. Today, i own the Mcintosh C1100 2 chassis tube preamp which sounds unbelievable. All the amps i just described above have been amps that i auditioned with the C1100 as a preamp. The MC601s sound great without a doubt, but i will say that if you are looking for THE BEST sound for the money, these would not be it. However, Mcintosh remains UNMATCHED when it comes to looks and also resale value. Every other amp above depreciates much faster than Mcintosh.
That said, my future purchase (when i can find a steal of a deal) will be the Pass labs 350.8. I am tempted to make a preliminary statement which is that i feel this amp could be THE BEST stereo amp under 30k dollars. Again, i will be able to say more and confirm once i own it. I hope this update can help you all in your buying decisions!
Bryston ST, SST, SST2 series
NAD M25
PARASOUND HALO
PARASOUND CLASSIC
KRELL TAS
KRELL KAV 500
KRELL CHORUS
ROTEL RMB 1095
CLASSE CT 5300
CLASSE CA 2200
CLASSE CA 5200
MCINTOSH MC 205
CARY AUDIO CINEMA 7
OUTLAW AUDIO 755
LEXICON RX7
PASS LABS XA 30.8
BUTLER AUDIO 5150
ATI SIGNATURE SERIES 6005
With all that said, the amplifiers I mentioned above are the ones that in my opinion are worth mentioning. To make a long story short, there is NO 5 CHANNEL POWER AMP that sounds as good as a 3ch and 2ch amplifier combination. i have done both experiments and the truth is that YOU DO lose details and more channel separation,etc when you select a 5 channel power amplifier of any manufacturer.
My recollection of what each amp sounded like is as follows:
ATI SIGNATURE SERIES 6005 (great power and amazing soundstage. Very low noise floor, BUT this amplifiers NEEDS TO BE cranked up in order to fully enjoy it. If you like listening at low volume levels or somewhat moderate, you are wasting your time here. This amp won’t sound any different than many other brands out there at this volume. The bass is great, good highs although they are a bit bright for my taste)
NAD M25 (very smooth, powerful, but somewhat thin sounding as far as bass goes)
Bryston sst2(detailed, good soundstage, good power, but can be a little forward with certain speakers which could make them ear fatiguing at loud volumes)
Krell (fast sounding, nice bass attack, nice highs, but some detail does get lost with certain speakers)
rotel (good amp for the money, but too bright in my opinion)
cary audio (good sound overall, very musical, but it didn’t have enough oomph)
parasound halo (good detail, great bass, but it still holds back some background detail that i can hear in others)
lexicon (very laid back and smooth. huge power, but if you like more detail or crisper highs, this amp will disappoint you)
McIntosh mc205 (probably the worst multichannel amp given its price point. it was too thin sounding, had detail but lacked bass.
butler audio (good amplifier. very warm and smooth sweet sounding. i think for the money, this is a better amp than the parasound a51)
pass labs (very VERY musical with excellent bass control. You can listen to this for hours and hours without getting ear fatigue. however, it DOES NOT do well in home theater applications if all you have is a 2 channel set up for movies. The midrange gets somewhat "muddy" or very weak sounding that you find yourself trying to turn it up.
classe audio (best amplifier for multi channel applications. i simply COULDNT FIND a better multi channel amplifier PERIOD. IT has amazing smoothness, amazing power and good bass control although i would say krell has much better bass control)
Update: The reviews above were done in January 2015. Below is my newest update as of October 2016:
PS AUDIO BHK 300 MONOBLOCKS: Amazing amps. Tons of detail and really amazing midrange. the bass is amazing too, but the one thing i will say is that those of you with speakers efficiency of 87db and below you will not have all the "loudness" that you may want from time to time. These amps go into protection mode when using a speaker such as the Salon, but only at very loud levels. Maybe 97db and above. If you don’t listen to extreme crazy levels, these amps will please you in every way.
Plinius Odeon 7 channel amp: This is THE BEST multichannel amp i have ever owned. Far , but FAR SUPERIOR to any other multichannel amp i have owned. In my opinion it destroyed all of the multichannel amps i mentioned above and below. The Odeon is an amp that is in a different tier group and it is in a league of its own. Amazing bass, treble and it made my center channel sound more articulate than ever before. The voices where never scrambled with the action scenes. It just separated everything very nicely.
Theta Dreadnaught D: Good detailed amp. Looks very elegant, has a pleasant sound, but i found it a tad too bright for my taste. I thought it was also somewhat "thin" sounding lacking body to the music. could be that it is because it is class d?
Krell Duo 300: Good amp. Nice and detailed with enough power to handle most speakers out there. I found that it does have a very nice "3d" sound through my electrostatics. Nothing to fault here on this amp.
Mark Levinson 532H: Great 2 channel amp. Lots of detail, amazing midrange which is what Mark Levinson is known for. It sounds very holographic and will please those of you looking for more detail and a better midrange. As far as bass, it is there, but it is not going to give you the slam of a pass labs 350.5 or JC1s for example. It is great for those that appreciate classical music, instrumental, etc, but not those of you who love tons of deep bass.
It is articulate sounding too
Krell 7200: Plenty of detail and enough power for most people. i found that my rear speakers contained more information after installed this amp. One thing that i hated is that you must use xlr cables with this amp or else you lose most of its sound performance when using RCA’s.
Krell 402e: Great amp. Very powerful and will handle any speaker you wish. Power is incredible and with great detail. That said, i didn’t get all the bass that most reviewers mentioned. I thought it was "ok" in regards to bass. It was there, but it didn’t slam me to my listening chair.
Bryston 4B3: Good amp with a complete sound. I think this amp is more laid back than the SST2 version. I think those of you who found the SST2 version of this amp a little too forward with your speakers will definitely benefit from this amp’s warmth. Bryston has gone towards the "warm" side in my opinion with their new SST3 series. As always, they are built like tanks. I wouldn’t call this amp tube-like, but rather closer to what the classe audio delta 2 series sound like which is on the warm side of things.
Parasound JC1s: Good powerful amps. Amazing low end punch (far superior bass than the 402e). This amp is the amp that i consider complete from top to bottom in regards to sound. Nothing is lacking other than perhaps a nicer chassis. Parasound needs to rework their external appearance when they introduce new amps. This amp would sell much more if it had a revised external appearance because the sound is a great bang for the money. It made my 800 Nautilus scream and slam. Again, amazing low end punch.
Simaudio W7: Good detailed amp. This amp reminds me a lot of the Mark Levinson 532h. Great detail and very articulate. I think this amp will go well with bookshelves that are ported in order to compensate for what it lacks when it comes to the bass. That doesn’t mean it has no bass, but when it is no Parasound JC1 either.
Pass labs 350.5: Wow, where do i begin? maybe my first time around with the xa30.8 wasn’t as special as it was with this monster 350.5. It is just SPECTACULAR sounding with my electrostatics. The bass was THE BEST BASS i have ever heard from ANY amp period. The only amp that comes close would be the jC1s. It made me check my settings to make sure the bass was not boosted and kept making my jaw drop each time i heard it. It totally destroyed the krell 402e in every regard. The krell sounded too "flat" when compared to this amp. This amp had amazing mirange with great detail up top. In my opinion, this amp is the best bang for the money. i loved this amp so much that i ended up buying the amp that follows below.
Pass labs 250.8: What can i say here. This is THE BEST STEREO AMP i have ever heard. This amp destroys all the amps i have listed above today to include the pass labs 350.5. It is a refined 350.5 amp. It has more 3d sound which is something the 350.5 lacked. It has a level of detail that i really have never experienced before and the bass was amazing as well. I really thought it was the most complete power amplifier i have ever heard HANDS DOWN. To me, this is a benchmark of an amplifier. This is the amp that others should be judged by. NOTHING is lacking and right now it is the #1 amplifier that i have ever owned.
My current amps are Mcintosh MC601s: i decided to give these 601s a try and they don’t disappoint. They have great detail, HUGE soundstage, MASSIVE power and great midrange/highs. The bass is great, but it is no pass labs 250.8 or 350.5. As far as looks, these are the best looking amps i have ever owned. No contest there. i gotta be honest with you all, i never bought mcintosh monos before because i wasn’t really "wowed" by the mc452, but it could have been also because at that time i was using a processor as a preamp which i no longer do. Today, i own the Mcintosh C1100 2 chassis tube preamp which sounds unbelievable. All the amps i just described above have been amps that i auditioned with the C1100 as a preamp. The MC601s sound great without a doubt, but i will say that if you are looking for THE BEST sound for the money, these would not be it. However, Mcintosh remains UNMATCHED when it comes to looks and also resale value. Every other amp above depreciates much faster than Mcintosh.
That said, my future purchase (when i can find a steal of a deal) will be the Pass labs 350.8. I am tempted to make a preliminary statement which is that i feel this amp could be THE BEST stereo amp under 30k dollars. Again, i will be able to say more and confirm once i own it. I hope this update can help you all in your buying decisions!
Showing 50 responses by viber6
Carey1110, Listen to my three videos on page 302 of Alexx, M6 and GTA playing the same song, "Iron Hand." It is obvious to anyone without bias (let a friend play all for you so you are blinded) that the clarity of the GTA reigns supreme. Many people like what the M6 does, according to their taste. I preferred the clarity and midrange neutrality of even the Alexx compared to the M6. The honest truth is that the M6 is like your chosen wife/girlfriend who has obvious flaws in her looks compared to supermodels, but you love the combination of attributes she has. I agree that Mike is sincere and helpful in many ways. He makes his customers feel that they are best friends with their best interests at heart, a far cry from most pushy salesman out to try to sell the most expensive thing they can. |
Contradictory phrase--"neutral without life." The goal of high fidelity is neutrality--strive to create a likeness of the real thing without artificial colorations. The real thing IS life, but those who think "life" means flavoring and coloring the sound are entitled to whatever flavoring they like, but that is artificial. Of Jay's and Steve's 3 videos of the Alexx, M6 and GTA speakers in my reposts on p 302, the GTA is the most neutral and lifelike. Of the 3 speakers, the M6 tonality is the warmest/darkest, which some people prefer. After the next quarter million bucks is spent, the M6 videos will still display those characteristics, but the GTA with the modest Pass and Lampi tube dac will still be the champ for clarity/neutrality/life. |
Jay, You said a few months ago that people told you that the Mephisto is the most revealing Gryphon and the Antileon Evo is more euphonic warm. Now you heard it for yourself. Moving up the clarity/neutrality scale, your Boulder was higher than Mephisto. Then Mike of Suncoast on your part 2 video implied that Boulder is still more tubelike than Soulution. So Soulution 700 amps appear to have the most clarity/neutrality. You can hear the videos I presented on p 302 which show that compared to Alexx and especially GTA speakers, the M6 is darker/warmer in tonality. The GTA is highest ranking for clarity/neutrality and that is with euphonic Pass and Lampi dac. The M6 could use a top Soulution amp if you like some aspects of the M6. The Alexx with more neutral Boulder is more neutral in midrange/HF than the M6 with Pass, and I won't be surprised if the M6 with Soulution will show that the M6 moves ahead of the Alexx for clarity/neutrality. I wouldn't waste money and time pursuing Dag Relentless or expensive VAC tube amps because they will likely be more of the same euphonics, but a top Soulution would be fascinating. Soulution is still cheaper than Dag Relentless. Of course, my iMac audio settings are not as revealing as your live room experience. But whatever factor X differences there are between my iMac and your live room, they are constant, so my relative rankings would likely be similar if I were in your room. |
kren0006, I believe you refuse to listen to my videos on p 302, because doing so is at odds with your agenda, or what you think Jay's goals are. If I am mistaken, and you actually listened to those videos, and decided that you hate the sound of the GTA, then explain objectively what you heard. Someone did listen, he admitted that the GTA has more clarity, but he likes heft, so it wasn't for him. That's fine for him, and honest, unbiased input. As an exercise, have a friend play you the videos, and you decide your own rankings as you will be free of bias by being blinded. It is good that Jay often presents different versions blinded without giving names, to avoid bias. He said he is open to hearing GTA live, unlike the projections you make. Steve told me that the membrane/magnet gap has been reworked, for even greater extension at both freq extremes and enhanced clarity. That will be interesting to evaluate. I have no business involvement with GTA, and am only interested in advances in the SOTA. If one day in my lifetime a new transducer comes out that beats what I have heard, I will enthusiastically spread the news to anyone who cares to listen. This thread and others should be about learning about advances, so anyone can benefit from awareness. To Jay's credit, he pursues anything he is able to do financially. I object to closed minds and bias. |
Jay, I acknowledge your point that for a Soulution to depreciate from $160K to $55K and sinking, makes for a lousy proposition. This is true of all expensive brands, to varying degrees. You can survive the turnaround process only because you are skillful in negotiating deals that give you great discounts, but most people lose BIG. This is why I search for near-SOTA products that are relatively cheap even at MSRP. I haven't heard Soulution in any system, but a Mola Mola dealer said that a Soulution 700 stereo was outperformed in clarity/neutrality by the $16K MM Kaluga amp. I took home the Kaluga, and it was good but in many ways my Bryston 2.5B SST2 beat it. The used value of Kaluga is about half the original MSRP, but the absolute loss is only $8K vs over $100K for that Soulution. Perhaps my most significant project is the Goal Zero Yeti battery/inverter, recommended by ricevs. I was inspired by Mike Fremer's accounts in the last 2 issues of Stereophile of sonic disaster created by his outdoor 22KW generator. His AQ Niagara 7000 couldn't overcome the sonic pollution from the generator transfer switch, but the PS Audio Power Plants 15 and 20 restored the glory of his system. In my NYC apartment, power quality is variable, and even with the benefits of my Shunyata Denali, small differences in amps are swamped by the difference in any given amp between a good day and a bad day. The Goal Zero inverter generates a perfect sine wave. A review by Tom Lyle in Enjoy the Music said that its sonic performance equaled an expensive and heavy Stromtank inverter distributed by Dan D'Ag. It is possible that the Goal Zero outperforms the PS Audio Power Plants. I will get the Goal Zero Yeti 1500X soon to see. It generates total AC of 2000W continuous, 3500W surges. At $2000 MSRP, it might enable a modest Pass amp to beat the much more expensive Gryphon Antileon, both of which have similar euphonic character. Another review said that benefits of AC regeneration are most obvious with digital dacs. For low power front end sources and preamps, the Yeti 500X at $700 would be sufficient. |
ron17, I admired the MM Kalugas for their midrange neutrality, which is rare. In my system, their bass was too dominant and HF were subdued compared to my Bryston 2.5B SST2. This unusual Bryston model is different from all other Brystons I have heard at home, which really are mediocre. Speaking objectively, I agree that most amps are richer and fuller than the MM, but I maintain that the richer quality is euphonic distortion that subtracts information and clarity. There is something elusive about live natural instruments that have both clarity and sweet harmonics that no system can duplicate. But live instruments in rooms/halls with lots of soft wood and carpeting sound richer than they do when the surfaces are harder, like tile without carpeting. The acoustic challenge is to avoid too many reflections, otherwise the excessive reverberation kills the clarity. Oddly, I prefer the close sound of instruments in NYC subway cars and platforms (when it is quiet) to famous concert halls. Take that, you Carnegie Hall snobs! |
klh007, Thanks for reposting the 3 videos for easy reference. It is probable that the OB subs were active for this GTA recording. However, my perfect pitch tells me that the lowest note for the male vocal in the song, Iron Hand, is A which is at 110 Hz (2 octaves below A 440 Hz which is the note used for tuning in ensembles). Since the subs cut in at 50 Hz, the sound of the voice for this song with and without subs would be nearly identical. The only anomaly for the GTA is in the lower midrange/upper bass where the output is lower than it would be for a wider baffle panel like the Maggie 3.7i or especially 20.7. That's probably why kren0006 prefers the 20.7, but the 3.7i also sounds fuller in that region than the GTA. I will admit that reducing output in this region has the effect of relative dominance of upper freq which contributes to greater clarity by emphasizing upper overtones over the lower fundamental note. But the guitar has more upper freq than the male voice, and the GTA panel (which goes up to 5-6000 Hz) and especially the ribbon tweeter are shown to be far more brilliant and still natural, than the M6 or Alexx tweeters. The dynamic tweeters in M6 or Alexx might be excellent, but no midrange dynamic driver can approach the purity of a planar magnetic driver. The overall effect is that for voice and higher pitched instruments, the GTA is much more immediate and upfront than the Alexx or M6. The latter speakers sound as though there are 6 layers of blankets covering the GTA. The most neutral/transparent electronics and cables will remove a few blankets, but in the end, the M6 will still have 2 blankets of veil compared to the GTA. Still, an artificially very bright recording might sound exciting on the M6 where it might be too screechy on the GTA. |
Sources are very important, such as the quality of recordings. Dac's are worth trying, although they are considered electronics and won't make as great a difference as the recording. My experience is that dac's are at least as critical as amps. An analogy to vinyl--recordings are still the most important factor, but phono cartridges are next, because they really are a speaker in reverse. Much less critical is the amp, in this case. The CD transport/streamer/dac is like the entire cartridge/tonearm/turntable system, so I think that this is a very worthwhile endeavor. |
inna, We both have lots of turntable/arm/cartridge experience that Jay could profit from. I hope Mike at Suncoast shows Jay what is possible from a TT system. Indeed, a compatible cartridge/tonearm is where synergy truly exists, although each part of the cartridge/arm/TT system is important. Assuming compatibility, I found the most variability in cartridges, because the cartridge is most like the speaker, always the most important element in the chain. My Denon 305 moving coil, cheap at $600 in 1985 when I got it, is more analytical and crisp than any other cartridge much more expensive, although Jay will enjoy trying many cartridges which have all kinds of tonal flavors and will make much bigger differences than anything he has yet compared. Back in the 90’s, the same recording on LP and CD showed my Goldmund Studio TT + Alphason HR100S arm + Denon 305 to be much clearer than the CD. I have a Benchmark DAC 1, and although I have no experience with expensive dac’s it was a wipeout. My 305 still plays music well after 35 years, although now the CD is clearer. I recently got a refurbished 305, but there is no rush to install it, since I still enjoy the old 305. |
Jay, Since your early years involved working on cars, you are a hands on kind of guy. You will LOVE cartridge swapping, experimenting with cartridge mounting screws of different materials, adjusting VTA (vertical tracking angle) by listening (some arms allow this while listening!), resoldering delicate tonearm wiring to cartridge pins, trying different tonearm cables by Nordost and others, trying different resistive loading in phono preamps for different cartridges, trying different phono preamps. I had fun doing all this. I once had 3 turntables together--my Goldmund Studio, Win Labs direct drive, Win Labs belt drive. I transferred my tonearm/cartridge to all 3 tables, and learned what each table was doing to the sound. You are clearly an experimenter and would enjoy so many types of sound you can create. There is no absolute truth saying that vinyl is warmer than digital. There is so much variability in all the combinations of cartridge, tonearms, tables, phono preamps. I can assemble a vinyl system with much more clarity and sparkle than a digital system. Other people choose warm sounding components in each category, so their vinyl setups are indeed warmer than digital. But digital remains artificial once you get exposed to what vinyl can do, as Mike Fremer says. |
I find kren0006's scenario plausible about the eventual coronation of the DCS Vivaldi. I am looking forward to hearing the Rossini/MSB shootout, but the money is big, and I don't think the differences will be as great as for cartridges. In the 80's, I found enormous differences between sub $1000 top performing moving coil cartridges. 10-15 years ago I was considering the van den Hul Colibri which had a reputation for ultra fast detail, but I was nervous about the unprotected cantilever on that $7000 item. Some of today's SOTA cartridges are $15K, but any moving coil for $1000 can provide just as good sound of any flavor. SOTA vinyl offers so much fun trying many things for a MUCH smaller budget than SOTA digital. |
Jay, Even my 35 year old Denon 305 cartridge still has brilliance AND it is smoother than my digital. When the 305 was in its early years, it wiped out my same digital in EVERY way. The miracle of live, unamplified music is that it is both brilliant and smooth. I know you want clarity and musicality, and I believe that vinyl is your ticket. So much more variety of tonalities in cartridges, than the differences in digital components. You may at present lack the experience of analog devotees, but you still have the attraction of high class speakers and electronics to show on youtube. I think that the tremendous variety of sounds you could present with varying analog systems would showcase the work you have already done with speakers and electronics. |
grey9hound, Thanks for the MM cartridge links. I won’t live long enough to read over 13,000 posts in his threads! Certainly Raul has much more experience than me, but he is vague on the relative sonic character of MM vs MC cartridges, maybe because of the wide variety. My experience with MM--Shure M91, top Shure V15MR, Grado F9E is that they were all hopelessly murky/veiled/rolled off in HF compared to any MC I have owned--Denon 103D, Supex 900, Linn Asak, Fidelity Research MC201 and a FR skinny one I can’t recall, Monster Genesis 1000, Accuphase AC2. The Denon 303 was faster than all of them, and my current Denon 305 still the fastest although the most ruthless. Raul deserves credit for matching cartridge to tonearm, different styli, and loading factors. It is possible that were I as thorough as he, I might have liked some MM cartridges more. Nowhere else are specs meaningless--it is all about compatibility and listening tests. Jay, Which turntable/tonearm/cartridge/phono preamp did Mike play for you? I never met a dealer who could do the ideal comparisons of TT/arm/cartridges in different combinations in the same room. The same TT/arm with different cartridges so you could do A/B/C/D. The combinations are so many. You can’t buy a cartridge and return it because it is too delicate. The best you can do is borrow a cartridge from a good dealer who you have a relationship with. It’s good to have a few friends to swap cartridges with. This is admittedly very daunting, but grey9hound and I promise it is worth it for the sonic nirvana of your choice. Someone like Raul with 13,000 posts demonstrates the passion of vinyl lovers who know it is all worth it. |
Numbers game, open to interpretation. Mephisto is rated 97/100, Boulder is 98/100. Imagine 100 to be perfection. Then Mephisto has 3 steps to go, but Boulder only 2. That makes B much closer to perfection than M. Several people here including Jay noted significantly better clarity/resolution/detail for B vs M. This correlates with the interpretation that B is much closer to perfection than M. In other matters of life, the powerlifter who lifts 500 lbs gets the gold medal, the one at 495 gets silver, the one at 490 gets bronze, but the masses below 490 get nothing, as if they are all weaklings like me at 200. Crazy. |
YES. The issue of mono vs stereo is a small part of sound quality. If you took the circuit of a dual mono stereo amp, and put each channel in a separate mono chassis, the sound would be almost identical. But in the real world, things are more complex. Comparing the mono amps to the stereo amps of the same company, the mono amps have different circuits with more power, so the mono amps are likely to be significantly better as though you have a wholly different product. Years ago, I had the Krell KSA 50 stereo class A amp. I then compared the KMA 100 monos, the same design in a double power mono version, which were significantly more extended and revealing in HF. It wasn't merely a difference of more separation, no crosstalk--it was a markedly different sound. That said, it appears that there is a general house sound for each company. D'ag and Pass are in the sweet camp. Boulder and Soulution are in the neutral/revealing camp. I suspect I would prefer even the stereo Soulution integrated to any mono from D'ag and Pass. I heard this on the M6 video between Soulution and Pass. For smaller differences between Boulder and Mephisto, so far we know that Boulder mono offers more clarity/neutrality than Mephisto stereo. Would Mephisto mono offer more clarity/neutrality than Boulder stereo? My guess is that I would prefer the neutrality of Boulder stereo to the Mephisto mono. There is still probably a fundamental difference between the house sound of each company, with lesser differences between the models of the same company, whether mono or stereo. That's because the designer of all the products of company A has a different DNA or concept from the designer of all the products of company B. |
Agree with grey9hound. Also, the big advantage for me of 2 mono amps vs the same circuitry in a dual mono stereo chassis is that I can lift each mono by myself, but not the nearly 2x heavier stereo. Otherwise the sound of 2 monos vs dual mono stereo is nearly identical. For example, the D'ag monos are each manageable by weight. |
For easy reference. https://youtu.be/VEjje1WCvFw--M6 + Soulution 530 integrated https://youtu.be/zhkL0tjPui8--Kharma + Boulder To me, M6 is more neutral, clear and focused, for Iron Hand--voice, guitar, ambience and openness. |
Jay, It's been a long time since you heard the Chord Dave, and you didn't talk much about it back then. The Dave has a reputation for neutrality/clarity. How did it compare to the DCS Vivaldi or Rossini? Please don't be biased by the price difference and say the Dave doesn't compete--just describe what you heard. In the same way, don't say that the M6 is much better than Kharma because of the price difference. I described what I heard above without price bias. You gave away some of your findings about the MSB as it having less detail/clarity than DCS Rossini. That may be a factor in my perception that the M6 is less colored on the voice than Kharma, but I bet that the M6 superiority will be seen. To answer this question, it will be easy to do the M6 with MSB in your room. |
Jay, I agree when you said, "liking something doesn't make it better." But instead of saying it's about your sonic preferences, I'll say that if you want high fidelity and naturalness, you choose neutrality and lack of coloration. On occasion, I have preferred Product A in early evaluation, but further listening reveals that Product B is more neutral/natural. I learn to appreciate B for the fact that it comes closer to reality. Other people may "like" certain aspects even if they openly admit that high fidelity is not their standard. Listening skills don't come easily, and we must reference what we hear in audio systems to the real thing. Live, unamplified concerts are rare these days, but fortunately we all hear speaking voices in real life every day. It is interesting to hear radio or TV voices repeatedly for many years, and then meet them personally. I am often surprised at the differences. This forces me to recalibrate my preferences. |
Derek has owned Maggie III for years. Both of us appreciate the neutral midrange/HF character of planar magnetics and ribbons, which are superior to all dynamic speakers for this quality. To be fair, the Kharma creates a smaller image, which aids its focus. The tweeter is good, but compared to the M6, the midrange is colored, most apparent on voice. Magico is known for suppression of boxy resonances and colorations, which applies to their cheaper models as well. |
Mighty fine, Fyne. Excellent midrange neutrality, almost on a par with M6. The M6 has deeper bass and an overall more weighty tonal balance compared to Fyne. I like the Fyne the best out of all three speakers. Advantage of M6--the most linear and neutral midrange. Advantage of Fyne--a leaner tonal balance with freedom from bass murkiness. The Kharma is way behind, with terribly muddy and heavy lower midrange and mid/upper bass on the male voice. Classe electronics are euphonic in general. I heard one--D200. From reviews, I gather that the new Delta series still are euphonic. What does Mike at Suncoast think of the Deltas? Imagine the Fyne with neutral Boulder. Just on sonic criteria, I rate the medium expensive Kharma the worst, the most expensive M6 in a tie with the cheapest Fyne. For music with deep bass, M6 is the choice; for other more brilliant music, Fyne is the choice. Best absolute performance and also outstanding value would be Fyne 704 at $15K + the cheapest Boulder 1161 at $22K. At 150 watts/ch into 8 ohms, 300 into 4, peak 450, the Fyne + 1161 would please many people. Thanks Jay for exposure to the Fyne. Now let's hear the top Fyne models. |
The Fyne 704 has some design features with objective technical characteristics that correlate with the excellent midrange/HF neutrality and resolution. The tweeter compression driver has its own small horn, which enables high efficiency. For a given SPL output, the excursion of the tweeter is less than for a non-horn tweeter, enabling lower distortion and greater purity. Also, covering the range down to 900 Hz is another factor accounting for the speed and purity. Jay has not liked the horn speakers he heard in the past, calling them "shouty." This Fyne speaker is probably the lowest coloration "horn-like" speaker I have heard. One tiny caveat--the tweeter appears to be at about 44" height, which is higher than ear level of about 39" sitting straight up in an average chair. Even though the horn radiation pattern would give excellent dispersion, it would be even better for full HF perception to sit on a higher chair. The top F-12 has even better coverage of its tweeter down to 750 Hz. Its titanium material is probably better than the magnesium for the 704. I also like the brilliance control for 2.5-5 kHz, for customization. (The flexible adjustment with resistors for each driver in the Wilson Alexx is also a great feature). I hope Jay does a video of the F-12 so we can compare these two superb Fyne speakers. Who cares if some people think that this thread is advertising for Mike's Suncoast shop? Mike has a great lineup of products, and he has the highest degree of honesty and integrity. Even though he may not need the additional advertising here, he deserves the widest recognition. The pre-eminent NY dealer, Lyric Hifi, is closing its doors for good. I knew Mike Kay who founded it in 1959. I bought my first high end speaker, the Maggie Tympani 1D from him in 1978. The current owner, Lenny B in an interview in the latest Stereophile, said "it was a wonderful life" but young people today with their phones and such don't appreciate quality. Sad, but true. Mike of Suncoast is trying to preserve the quest for quality--more power to him. |
Delightful surprise. In several ways, the Franco Serblin is my favorite speaker of all that Jay has presented, for its brilliance in midrange/HF. Its obvious shortcoming is the mid bass bump which is typical of many of these mini monitor type speakers. The tiny midrange/bass driver cannot produce any honest bass, so the mid bass is boosted electronically to give fullness. The resulting incoherence between the thin midrange/bright HF and the mid bass is unacceptable. This reminds me of the fun I had in the early 80's with my Rogers LS 3/5a, probably the most well known of the mini monitor speakers, and still sought after today. Back then I hadn't discovered the utility of EQ, so I just lived with the mid bass bump in return for the accurate midrange/HF. But now with my Rane EQ, I would reduce the mid bass bump to achieve decent coherence, and have a nice time enjoying a lot of music with little bass. In a very small room with the EQ to give coherence, the bass might be satisfactory, enabling excellent enjoyment of a lot more music down to 70 Hz or so. The Hegel is good amplification. Another amp or cable wouldn't make much difference. A tube amp would create a more mellow balance, but it wouldn't correct the big problem which is the mid bass bump as a deliberate design to obtain fullness from a tiny speaker. |
inna, Please listen to the Franco Serblin (FS) carefully. The opening lower freq instruments are bloated and muddy compared to the clear voice and upper freq transients. I prefer the highest midrange/HF clarity of the FS to that of the Fyne 704, but the larger speakers have honest bass which is coherent with the rest of the freq range, resulting in more clarity in the lower freq and overall better musical balance. The incoherence of the FS is a design flaw which cannot be corrected with amps or cables. But EQ is the only electronic intervention that can "correct" the incorrect design. What the FS does well is excellent. Some YT videos show the Fyne F1-5, another stand mounted speaker. With unfamiliar music, it seems like this Fyne doesn’t have the mid bass bump and might be a better design. It would be great if Jay can present the Fyne F1-5 and F1-12 on this Iron Hand song. Sorry, I know people must be getting tired of this song, but the only way to reliably distinguish products is by using the same song as a reference. A few reviews of the FS are highly complimentary, but none mention the obvious mid bass bump and incoherence. This shows how many reviews have limited value, because they are "politically correct" and don’t honestly present the drawbacks. |
klh007 makes good sense, which gives everyone what they want-- "For comparison purposes, maybe Jay could play 30 second to 1 minute clips of past songs, perhaps 3 or 4 clips, then move on to newer tunes, we can compare to older gear with the same songs and enjoy some new ones as well?" When I do A/B's and go back and forth, I choose a 30-60 second passage. Any longer than that, you get used to what you last heard, and comparisons are more difficult. Judging tone quality in midrange/HF, I can often tell within 1-2 seconds. |
No way to judge the last video since the song hasn't been presented before here. Even though the recording is dated, this great song is a hit classic and is useful as a new reference for midrange with the voice and sax. Of course, you enjoy all of your music at home and don't need to keep repeating demo songs for yourself, but for audio evaluations, there is no substitute for repeated hearings of a few references. The best audio quality song was "Perhaps Love" (or something like that) which you presented about 1-2 years ago. This is a true reference for female voice. |
Jay, Find a few tracks of MUSIC that you like and wouldn't mind repetitive hearings. Or, look for unfamiliar tracks of great music, so repetitive hearing would be welcomed to get to know the music. "Keith don't go" is a tired warhorse, but many other tracks on that Nils Lofgren Acoustic Live CD are not often heard. I particularly like the first one, "You" and there are many meditative tracks of interest on that CD. Simon & Garfunkel had several popular hits such as "Sounds of Silence" but my favorite is the much less well known "April come she will." The recording quality is poor, but you get the idea. |
keithr, I thought the Fyne 702 in Jay's video was superior to the M6 except for mid & low bass. I bet the Fyne F1-12 will challenge the M6 in every way. It would be great if you can do a video of your F1-12 with that Iron Hand song (sorry for its repetition) even if you don't have the same microphone setup as Jay. Alternatively, Jay could do the recording of the F1-12 in Mike's shop. Mike would welcome the publicity. |
Psnyder149, I never got around to trying different tonearm interconnect cables to the phono stage. This might be significant since it is at the source. Nordost would be fun to try. Avoid stiff cables which would imbalance the Linn suspension. If I did it all again, I would choose the top Rega TT/arm/Apheta 2 or 3 for about $7000. For my taste in crisp, lean sound, Mike Fremer wrote that this is superb value. Actually, he wrote about the expensive Aphelion cartridge at $5K. I would never fool around with an expensive cartridge--one false move, uh-oh. Most cartridges have unpredictable break-in and radically changed personalities with age and day to day big variations. Digital is convenient with excellent sound, outweighing the heartaches of most analog. Even if analog master tapes are king, the few available titles make it only an expensive curiosity. |
Sorry--useless recordings for evaluation. Muddy, congested, processed to the nth degree. The lake is 10 feet deep and the bottom should be clear, but visibility is limited to 3 inches. A superior component will increase the visibility to 4 inches. Big deal. I hope you find some natural recordings of good music for critical comparisons when you get around to A/B tests. I suggested a few. |
Forget money matching the cheaper Pass + more expensive power cord against the more expensive Essence + cheaper power cord. That's like comparing a bag of mixed fruit to another bag of a different fruit mix. The most important goal is to learn the sonic signature of each power amp and how it drives the M6. You have never heard either the G Essence or the X350.8 (oh, maybe you had the 350.8 years ago in a totally different system), so the amp shootout will be valuable. Use the same power cord for each amp, even if the only duplicates are the stock cords. Later you can optimize your favorite amp using the power cords whose character you already know. The expected finding is that amps vary a lot more than power cords. |
If you go back to videos I posted on p 302, the Alexx had more sparkle in upper midrange/HF than the M6. Even though the Alexx had the advantage of Boulder, I believe the Alexx had much more of these features than would be explained by the superior Boulder electronics. I believe that Jay had tweaked the Alexx with all those resistors to get more brilliance from it. The M6 doesn't have those adjustments. The trouble with reviews is that it is not specified how the Alexx is adjusted with the resistors. For some adjustments, the Alexx may have less brilliance, and for other adjustments the Alexx would have more brilliance. Jay can probably answer about the differences, which he has not mentioned in the past. A clue to this is when he said that the M6 and M3 in the past didn't impress at first, but were appreciated later for their more subtle sound. Comparing the M6 to the Franco Serblin stand speakers, I found the FS had more brilliance and focus although there was a bad discontinuity between its midrange/HF brilliance and bad bass bloating. So in contrast to the prevailing perceptions here, I feel that the M6 needs neutral and brilliant electronics to enhance its neutrality and bring out more life, instead of toning it down with mellow tubes/Pass, etc. Probably the best value would be the Boulder 1160 which is powerful enough. |
Decent recording of guitar up to 47 seconds. Then the voice comes in--either veiled or she is mumbling her words throughout the song. The soft background vocals are even more murky. Please, no mellow euphonic electronics on this song. This recording needs brilliant electronics like Boulder, Soulution. For this song at your playback levels, you are using only a few watts on peaks and a fraction of 1 watt for most of it, so 50 watts is not the issue. Let's hear the best natural recording you played a few years ago on a smaller Wilson, as I remember--"Perhaps Love" or something like that. |
To shift gears a little, I am posting a preview of a virtual upcoming live concert at my music club, The BohemiansNYC. Listen to this 1 min video and enter into the real world of the sound of live, unamplified and unprocessed music. It is also a YouTube video, so even the mediocre YT medium is able to show the obvious worlds of difference. I hope some will be interested to hear the whole two virtual concerts on their website, clicking on YT on Mon May 3 and June 7 at 7:30 PM. The music is esoteric classical, but often great striking live sound is enough to inspire appreciation and learning new things. https://youtu.be/qVngRnQvoo0 Next, few people here will admit that Steve's video of the GTA speaker I posted on p 302, shows that none of these dynamic speakers even driven with megabucks of components, can compete with the GTA's liveness and clarity. Steve is not a professional recording engineer, and I watched him casually make several GTA videos using the same microphone as Jay into his phone. My own unique electrostatic main speaker and tweeter go beyond even the GTA for liveness and clarity, although I can admit my system's deficiency in loud dynamics and bass. The GTA video is good enough evidence to show that it comes much closer than any dynamic speaker to the live video I just posted. That said, I do thank Jay for his efforts at presenting his work and presenting Mike's valuable experience in describing sonic differences in electronics, which is all useful objective information to have, regardless of tastes. If Jay can find great natural recordings of music he likes, it will more informatively demonstrate the differences he is learning about. |
Funny video with left/right reversed. It appears like you are in the UK, driving from the right seat with the opposite traffic on your right side. You had the Chord DAVE before. What were its sonic characteristics--tonality/resolution--compared to DCS Vivaldi or Rossini? I half agree on the subject of better speakers and associated components. With the GTA, even the earlier version of a few years ago, this was the only time I liked any system with Pass electronics. The neutrality of the whole was due to the speaker, so even if the Pass was softening it, the overall effect was neutral with high resolution. But Steve and I agreed that the slightest change in components was more easily heard with the GTA than with his previous speakers. So if someone found his new $40K speaker to be more revealing than the old $20K speaker, he can still enjoy his present components and doesn't have to junk them. When he upgrades the components, they will make greater difference and enjoyment with the new speaker. |
Jay, Thanks for listening and making valid observations. At 29-30 seconds, the singer's peak is at 300 Hz, with harmonic overtones much higher. This recording was made in a small room that I am not familiar with. But in the regular hall where they usually present concerts, I have heard male and female singers, piano and other instruments. In one concert I was sitting in the 1st row about 6 feet away from a female singer. Even I was shocked at the power of her voice, unamplified. These classical music singers have incredible training like you do as a top rated bodybuilder. On peaks, it was probably 100-110 dB at fundamentals of 600-1000 Hz, and much higher freq overtones. The ear is most sensitive in the midrange, esp 3000 Hz. If you thought the male singer was screaming, then YOU would have screamed and covered your ears if your heard that female singer! Her tonality was actually even dryer than I anticipated, which confirmed my understanding of what sonic truth is. More revealing audio components are neutral and dry. In a room with carpets and soft wood walls, the tone is warmer and sweeter due to HF absorption, but recordings with close microphones are not made in such rooms, so to tell the truth about the live sound, the audio system should be neutral and on the dry side. This illustrates that live music is often loud and unpleasant. But it is the truth, and if you want to hear all the complexity of the music, it is desirable to have a truthful, revealing system. My solution to this problem is to keep listening levels modest. For most of my favorite small scale music, live levels are average 60-70 dB with rare peaks to 90 dB, so my electrostatic speakers maximally reveal the truth at live, natural levels. My system does well at 80-90 dB, which accommodates a lot of large scale symphonic music. Even the music you have presented, like Iron Hand, Keith don't go, and the latest Sara K video of the guitar and female voice, have modest SPL's in the low 80's, although for Keith don't go I enjoy listening at home at 70 dB whereas you like 82 dB. But I hate smoothed over hifi which robs me of the full enjoyment of the intricacies of my music. I have tried many euphonic amps, and I can't get the exhilarating sparkle I know is present in the music by cranking the system to loud levels. Euphonic mud won't develop life by pushing the SPL, just as a blurry photo will actually be worse if you magnify it. Today's high rez TV screens let you maximally enjoy your videos, even from a small screen, much better than a large screen of outdated low rez. |
arcticdeth, I've read the same about Roger Sanders' Magtech amps. At the extremes of SPL this might be relevant, but with the song presented here, well under 50 watts are used for peaks. More important is the sound quality. Resolution is judged at low levels, well under 1 watt (Nelson Pass is correct on this point). Have you heard the Magtech against other amps at home? If so, what is the tonality? |
arcticdeth, I eagerly await your listening trial at home with the Magtech. You never really know until you try it in your own familiar system. I never spoke with Roger, but years ago his colleague spent nearly a whole day with me and graciously drove me from NJ to Maryland and back to hear a client's model 10B hybrid stats. This colleague said the same about Roger. I agree that every amp when played louder will increase bass SPL. This is because the ear is most sensitive in the upper midrange around 3 kHz. A voice is loud at 80-90 dB, but bass isn't loud until way over 100 dB. |
inna, This song at natural levels requires little power. Jay and I agree that for maximum detail, dac direct is best. For loud music, a preamp adds dynamics, but clarity is sacrificed for this. But for this song, an added preamp will blunt the delicate transients of the opening guitar and the subtle inflections of the voice later. |
yyz, Did you actually use your DAC direct into your power amp, and compare the DAC + LA4 + amp at the same volume setting? As much as I admire Benchmark, I am skeptical that ANY added electronics is perfectly transparent and neutral. For example, I went back to my Sony CD player from 1995 after going from the Sony digital out into the Benchmark DAC 1, which adds lots of gain and a volume control. Even though I am making big sacrifices in volume capability so I can't play loud music, the softer chamber music is much more detailed with the complete Sony than when using the Benchmark. I suspect the preamp and volume control of the Benchmark DAC 1 isn't so great. |
yyz, From your comments, it seems you like the additional gain from the HPA4 preamp. Electronic gain is always associated with loss of subtle detail and purity, but some people prioritize dynamics and fullness. To me, the holy grail is perfect transparency WITH gain to get the dynamics. No product has achieved this holy grail. Sadly, it seems like Benchmark electronics still suffer from the tradeoff of transparency vs dynamics/fullness. I wasn't going to discuss the quality of the Benchmark DAC 1, but just mentioned it because it has a gain stage and a volume control, which I assume has similar character to the LA4 or HPA4 gain stages. |
kren0006, You are missing the point. Jay listens loud sometimes, but you notice that most of his recordings are presented in his room at 82 dB average. He and I agree that for critical evaluation of components, it is best to listen at modest levels. Jay also has interest in what live sound is. Often he gets excited and says that something sounds "real." Everyone benefits from knowledge of what real sound is. My prime interest is the sound of violins, but I learn from exposure to sounds of live guitars, trumpets, cymbals, triangles, which all have commonality in regard to HF content and other tonal characteristics. I have enjoyed some of the recordings that Jay has presented. Even if they are processed to some extent, those guitar, percussion, voices all have enough similarity to live unamplified versions of these instruments to make reasonable assessments of whether a system is trying to capture the clarity of the real thing, or a fake impressionist blurry version. Everyone has exposure to sounds of nature and sports like baseball, basketball, golf. So even if someone had no familiarity with any music, he could compare these live nonmusical environmental sounds with these sounds from an audio system. He would then have a basis for judging the fidelity of a system. Some people don't care much about clarity or fidelity, and just want to bang out sound that pleases them, as with other sensory experiences like food, drink, love making, etc. If that applies, then the novice with a low quality system like a phone or boombox has just as valid a preference as an audiophile who wants to reproduce music as truthfully as possible in order to fully appreciate it. Then there isn't much point in discussing quality components if low fi is just as valid as hifi. |
Jay, Good that you are asking questions about live vs recorded music. I wonder how much live music you have heard which is unamplified and unprocessed. If you don't have that much of this live experience, what we all have is experiences with sounds of nature--wind, birds, construction noise. As children, we played handball, baseball, basketball. Now as an audiophile, I am surprised at the impact of the baseball bat or even the softer catcher's mit. It wasn't until almost 10 years ago when I first heard the crack of a golf swing. I couldn't believe how much more snap it had than watching golf on TV. Every day in the congested streets near work, I hear honking horns from cars and trucks. At all freq, the sounds are crisp. They may be very loud which takes me aback, but I want to duplicate the truth of these live sounds in my audio system. To prevent pain, I keep the volume modest. But I am NOT satisfied with loud, blurry sound from most audio systems with euphonic components. This doesn't serve my music, which is very complex and requires concentration to appreciate all its detail. Pieces that I thought I knew 60 years ago are now better revealed with my ever-improving system, and there is still more music appreciation yet to be perceived. |
kren0006, It appears that your preference is being a groupie aligned with what you think the politically correct Room thinks. Do you care to learn much about live natural sound as the standard of reference to strive for? I believe Jay is asking good questions about live sound, and I am trying to help. Who needs your disparaging remarks? The subject of this thread is amplifiers, although the discussion naturally extends into other components. People who like all kinds of music read this thread. Most are not interested in personalities and being loved as groupies--they just want to learn the experiences of others in trying various components. Over the last 4 years I have participated, I have seen many insightful people leave quickly when they perceive that there are too many groupies and not enough objective analysis and discussion. I imagine there is a rare someone who doesn’t listen to any music, but wants to build an accurate, fine system to mimic the sounds of nature in his home, weird as that might seem. He loves nature just as much as I love violin music, and I respect him for it. He is more knowledgeable than I about various bird calls. I would welcome his opinion about how an audio component might be more accurate than another in reproducing bird calls. If he has good ears and listening skills, the chances are that we would agree that a certain component is more accurate and lifelike, whether the source material is bird calls or any genre of unamplified natural music. The subtle sound of crunching leaves as you step on them is similar enough to some musical instruments or even the processed sound effects in pop/electronic recordings. These examples show that understanding common features of sound benefits everyone. The opposite approach of saying any arbitrary artificial sound is just as valid as another, doesn’t get anywhere in the quest to find out the differences between components or achieving the delightful moments when Jay and others say, "it sounds real." Those people keep trying different components at random, going in circles because they don’t know or even care what reality sounds like. |
ron17, Wouldn't you get a greater charge if Donna Summer had more nuances in her voice and manner that you could see, hear, smell and feel? The importance of greater fidelity and clarity is obvious, no matter what the type of sensory input. Upfront is better than laidback (puns in there). Since you play guitar, let her more sensitively pull on your heart strings. |
Totally irrelevant and disrespectful comment that dodges the important issues raised not only by me, but Jay as well. Maybe you think it is word salad because you don't understand it or can't logically refute it. How do you know that there aren't plenty of people reading my posts, but don't bother to comment on this thread because they are turned off by disrespectful groupies here? |