Take 2, the song, "Say Something" is an excellent clear upfront recording of the voice. It is true to life, and not bright or anything out of balance. But the last video, the song, "Liberty" is muffled by comparison on voices and instruments. The first recording will much more easily demonstrate differences between components. To show how important good recordings are, even mid-fi speakers and components playing the first recording will sound more lifelike than the most transparent speakers and components playing the second recording.
You can enjoy all your music even on poor recordings, but a great system won't necessarily bring you more pleasure from poor recordings. Musically, my favorite performances from 1920's through 1940's aren't worth listening to on my system, so YT from the computer is more convenient and good enough. High fidelity happened in the 1950's, and Jay also heard great sound from an analog setup from 1950's recordings. |
Cleeds,
You still miss the point. Factor X distortion from Jay's AC power is the same for both videos and therefore cancels out, so the perceived differences are true. With the Stromtank, his electrical power quality is likely better than yours.
Can you hear?
|
Agree, although Jay found a winner in "Say Something" whatever the format is. The original recording engineers deserve the credit, even if the remastering may have compromised it. |
I am not at all impressed with the $700K M6 system. Despite what may be the most detailed of all electronics, Soulution 701 + 725, the sound is muffled and muddy compared to what Jay presented with the song, "Say Something." That's what excessive ambience and processing does to recordings and music. The other possibility is that the Scott Walker setup is in a narrow room, so it creates a distant tunnel effect that muddies the sound. I like Jay's room and setup better, which lets his system "breathe" better. |
Also, even though data compression or loss of bits removes information, skillful microphone placement and absence of processing are the dominant factors in making a great recording. I used to make great recordings even onto lowly cassette tape. |
|
On this electronic piece, as with vocal pieces, this Pass is like all the other Pass stuff previously presented and the Pass XP15 phono stage I heard at home years ago. Compared to the Essence monos, Pass is rounded/dull/murky on the entire freq range for the electronic guitars. The piano has less brilliance and shine in upper midrange/HF. To say the Essence is "brighter" is literally true, but this "brightness" is consistent with its higher resolution, liveliness and sparkle, and not at all unpleasant.
|
Jay says, "I want for people to simply be aware of the trade-offs involved when using a dac instead of a preamp."
I am in agreement with that statement. He also said recently that dac direct gives more resolution and clarity than with the added preamp, at the price of ability to withstand high SPL's. The added preamp gives more B@LLS. Agree again.
But for those who want maximum clarity and unravelling of complexities in music with respect for natural SPL's without blasting, dac direct is the preferred option.
|
ron17,
Good observations and speculations. I'll integrate what you said into a common principle gleaned from my 40 years of audio experience--more information and accuracy are always accompanied by a relatively thin and threadbare tonality. Yes, eliminating the preamp yields thin. Yes, the Pass sounds thicker (or, the Essence sounds thinner), warmer and less detailed. So why is more information associated with thinner tonality? One reason is that more HF info is revealed, which skews the tonal balance upward, or conversely that less HF info skews the tonality downward to more dominance of lower freq. Example--on less accurate equipment, a mandolin recording sounds a little skewed towards a larger guitar. Another reason is that more accurate electronics reproduces the true to life sound of the natural instrument, whereas the less accurate electronics adds fuzzy distortion around the edges, a kind of halo effect which fattens the sound. This fullness is often misinterpreted as more complete harmonic structure, but the reality is that it is merely an overlay of electronic veil and warmth. A good way to appreciate this is to carefully listen to everyday sounds of nature like the sharp percussive impact of golf clubs, baseball bats, etc. With grossly distorted playback on TV, these sounds are fuller and much more rounded, perhaps more pleasant but not truthful. |
ron17 and Jay,
Yes, I have mild HF hearing loss typical of my age at 68. No, I have carefully limited loud SPL exposure. Young guys who insist on listening loud will pay the price before they are my age. I have met 30 year olds who lament their hearing loss due to playing in rock bands as a teenager. Even if you use euphonic electronics/cables that roll off HF and let you tolerate loud SPL's, any lengthy exposure over 85 dB has been scientifically shown to accelerate hearing loss. My hearing is good enough that I enjoy songs at 70 dB that are played here at 82 dB.
But even considering my hearing loss, I still note the vast difference between naturally sharp/crisp common everyday sounds and many musical instruments, and their DULL reproduced qualities in most audio systems. Although people vary in their objective hearing responses, any honest listener would agree about these objective differences, unless they have minimal experience. If someone really prefers a dull, smoothed over sound, they are entitled to that preference, but this is an admission that they don't value the concept of high fidelity, and are missing a lot of excitement.
From my early musical training as a child 60 years ago to the present, I have always listened to music with full concentration like I was reading a technical article. Great music, like great writing, is about careful communication. Respecting the composer and performers of the music means listening carefully and attempting to glean all the information it has to offer. It is like paying full attention to someone who is speaking to you. It is disrespectful to even slightly ignore the other person and do something else. Maximum enjoyment is obtained by maximum information/detail retrieval regardless of your hearing acuity. The key is to avoid pain from loud SPL's. The alternative is abusive overload from high SPL's which actually decreases perception of subtleties. All the interesting A/B tests here are best appreciated at modest SPL's, and cannot be heard with mere casual listening. I really enjoy the videos Jay presents. Even if I don't care for some of the music, I treat them as hearing exercises to challenge myself to still hear the differences and describe them intelligently.
In 1978, when I was young, I noted the raucous distortion of a Pioneer receiver on my Maggie Tympani 1D. I couldn't afford anything better than the Pioneer at the time. One day, I got stoned on some MJ, and the sound was smoothed over so I couldn't hear the distortion of the Pioneer as I was missing much of the musical details. I then resolved never to listen to music again unless I was in good condition with full concentration. |
inna,
For a cheap but excellent amp which delivers accuracy with high power, a top bet is the PS Audio M1200 for $6K. Even better would be to spend $600 for Ric's (ricevs) modification which eliminates the euphonic tube input stage. Of course, then it has much less resale value, but I assume your mission is not buying and selling like Jay. Ric implies that the stock Rouge Audio dual mono amp using the same IceEdge class D module is comparable to the M1200, and with his $500 mod the total cost is $2100. This will be my next move, but even before that, a higher priority would be cleaning up the AC power. The PS Audio Power Plant 15 and 20 are AC regenerators that cured the disastrous distortion from Mike Fremer's generator switch when the AQ Niagara 7000 couldn't do it. Ric is glowing about the Goal Zero Yeti battery + inverter which reviews state is as good as the $20K and $30K Stromtank units that Dan D'Agostino sells. The Yeti 1500X at $2K probably will make many amps compete with anything without AC regeneration.
Look at Ric's site--tweakaudio.com. |
kren0006,
It is smart that you listen mainly at 70 dB. I'll also mention that lower resolution speakers sound dead at 70 dB so people naturally crank them much higher to hear more of the music. My electrostatic main and tweeter speakers have the best of any speaker in resolution so I can be satisfied at 70 dB. I can get 100 dB out of them, but they strain and the clarity is compromised. On the nice Christina Aguilera "Say something" I would try playing the soft opening voice in a range of 50 to 70 dB, and see what gives the most natural and intimate presentation. Suppose for me the ideal is 60 dB. At 63 dB, there would be more visceral impact, but the price to pay is a slightly bloated/fuzzy image which sacrifices her sensitive longing. At 57 dB there might not be enough presence, so 60 dB might give the ideal combination of attributes. This is a very pleasant recording, so some comments on the YT channel are ridiculous, such as the Essence is too clinical, forward, bright, aggressive, etc. Come on, there is nothing of that in this recording, and the goal is to try to appreciate the singer's feelings, which is best done by revealing as much detail/nuance as possible, at the most natural SPL. |
ricevs,
Thanks for your update. Do you find that the Rouge with your mods or stock is more transparent than the PS Audio under the same conditions, since there is no added euphonic tube input buffer stage? As you say, the 27 dB gain of the IceEdge is plenty, so who needs the additional 3.5 dB gain of the added PS Audio input stage. |
|
inna,
Sure, the Essence monos sound better than the stereo. But the price is steep, and Jay prudently wants to financially stay alive in his pursuits. Since your funds for audio are limited at present, I really suggest the Rouge Audio + mods that ricevs offers. I have it on the trusted word of tweak1 who owns ricevs’ EVS1200 for $2200, that this amp is perhaps one of the best amps at any price, for neutrality, speed and power. Even my Mytek Brooklyn AMP at $2K was more neutral and focused matched against the $15K Merrill Element 114. Jay ranked the flagship Merrill 118 high.
Even if many followers of this thread won’t consider these cheap items I know are great from my experience, there is no need to be downbeat. I enjoy and learn from the shootouts which show the relative sonic character of each item. Frankly, even though I agree with you that the Essence monos are more revealing than the Pass X600 monos, the difference isn’t all that great. Read Mike Fremer’s Stereophile Jan 2021 glowing review of the PS Audio M1200. At $6K, I bet it beats most amps discussed here, but I am going for the Rouge modded by ricevs for $2100, which probably beats the PS Audio in ways I’ve discussed. |
golfnutz,
It is music to my ears to hear that you think Ice Power (now IceEdge) 1200 AS2 sounds sterile in the midrange. If you are in the euphonic camp, you don't like raw accuracy. Tweak1 owned the PS Audio Stellar 700 and Audio Alchemy DPA-1, and found them euphonic and reasonably detailed, but his EVS1200 which uses IceEdge modules is far more detailed, accurate and dynamic than those other amps. For your taste, you would prefer the PS and AA.
Thanks for your post which is informative. Even if your taste is opposite to mine, your objectivity is valuable and useful to me. The trouble with most reviews is that they are politically correct in terms of the manufacturer who is generous in loaning equipment and advertisers who support the magazines. Mike Fremer is a reasonable exception--he describes what he hears in great detail, and after a while the reader knows his tastes and extrapolates what he does with this assessment. |
A few topics.
First, obviously, the Wilson people say that, "the Alexx won’t play as big, won’t throw the immense presentation, the scale, the muscle, etc, etc. The laws of physics are in full effect when you look at the physicality of the XLF." I wouldn't dispute that the XLF is bigger in sound as it is bigger physically, but if someone values accuracy/precision/focus, that is another matter. As I recall Fremer's review, he found the bass on the Alexx tighter, with the Alexx overall a more accurate speaker than the XLF. Fremer has a tiny room so the Alexx may be a better match.
Next, the PS Audio M1200. I was fascinated with Fremer's review, but I am held back because I don't like any euphonic aspect which could be from the tube input stage. Like kren0006, I read some user reviews that said it is somewhat warm and nonclinical. PS Audio does have a reputation for good accuracy with some euphonic character. Paul MacGowan states his reference is the 7th row center concert hall seat. I have spent lots of time in many seats in many halls, and will say that the 7th row is a very laid back sound compared to closer. Note that microphones are usually positioned at a distance corresponding to the 1st row, so someone who sits there can go home after the concert and listen to a recording and then get an idea of accuracy to the recording. I only like the 1st row, and even the 2nd row is quite rolled off in HF compared to that.
BTW, when someone says something is sterile and clinical, they are probably in the euphonic camp, since "clinical" and especially "sterile" has a negative connotation to them. But if we hear the same things, I would call it "accurate" and look favorably upon it. Their "sterile" is my "accurate." Too many audiophiles spend lots of time at shows and dealers, and not enough time with natural unamped live sound. They don't realize that live sound is quite raw at times, but all speakers and components add varying degrees of fuzzy warmth/veil/dullness.
I appreciate the time and investment that Jay puts into his pursuits and putting on a great show for us here, so I respect his decision not to buy stuff we are interested in, and compare to his gear. He has integrity not to engage in 30 or 60 day trials and then return the items. He has a reputation to protect. Even the more neutral stuff he likes, I would probably find somewhat euphonic. This happened with current Merrill GaN amps which we both heard at home, although he heard the flagship 118 and I heard the 114 which is of similar character, according to Merrill. At first, he found the Gryphon Mephisto to be ultra neutral, but then found that the latest Boulder was even more neutral. Then Mike at Suncoast Audio implied that the Boulder amps are smooth and maybe even tubelike compared to Soulution, which he described as more raw in character. This correlates with Jay's finding of the latest Boulder tonality as not sterile, unlike the prior series. All in all, my assessment of Jay's overall taste is middle of the road between detailed/accurate and tubelike/euphonic, perhaps slightly skewed toward detailed/accurate. My stand is at the furthest end of the spectrum at detailed/accurate. I have long experience listening and judging for myself, so I wouldn't learn much if I sent Jay anything.
I only mentioned the PS Audio lately to inna and perhaps others who would be interested in a reasonably accurate sound with a little warmth, at a very cheap price. Most people here are on a reasonable budget, don't buy/sell like Jay, so are free to do those 30/60 day trial offers. BTW, Fremer appears to have tastes much like Jay. His reference is a DartZeel amp, which he admits is warmer than the PS Audio. He loves Wilson speakers, but not electrostatics. He is an analog guy who likes detailed cartridges like Lyra, but finds ultra revealing cartridges like the Rega Apheta too raw for him. Those are his assessments, not mine, since I never heard any of those cartridges in my system.
Finally, Jay, I again think that you ought to at least try zip (lamp) cord, no. 16 or 18. Only a dollar or so, nothing to worry about. Steve of GTA confirmed that my zip cord was more lean/immediate/forward sounding and detailed than his speaker cables. I was there, and it took seconds for him to say so. In his system, he likes his cables, and he caters to his customers, most of whom like the same. I can envision a scenario where a client comes to you and says, "my system sounds dull, bass heavy/fat and rolled off in HF." You can delight him by recommending zip cord for speaker cable, which will make his system more lively. But of course, try it yourself to hear what it does. Yes, I know zip uses poor quality materials, and I don't know why it sounds so good in the ways I describe, but I just want practical results. You seem to have more of an open mind these days, which may be due to your developing consulting business and YT presence. Of course, if your client wants to show off expensive prestigious components and doesn't prioritize high performance which may be found at cheap prices, you know what to recommend. |
kren0006,
I apologize for the length of my last post, but I wanted to express in detail my insights. Trying to be more succinct, I'll say that Jay likes some degree of both accuracy and warmth, so chooses his favored amps accordingly. This happens to align with the tastes of most of his followers and clients. The clincher for me was our assessments of the Merrill Element amps. I found the Merrill 114 quite warm/euphonic. Careful reading between the lines of many reviews of Merrill 116 or 118 shows good detail with nonclinical sound, consistent with my findings of the 114. Merrill himself told me that the 118 is more accurate, but they have similar character. Jay still found the 118 to be more accurate/neutral than Constellation, D'Ag, Luxman, Rowland, Pass, Audio Research. So I am confident that I would not like those amps. Gryphon appears to be more accurate than any of the other amps. At one point I posted that the Mephisto was the only amp Jay tried that I might like. Then Jay revealed that the new Boulder was more accurate/neutral, but Mike at Suncoast revealed that Boulder is a little tubelike compared to Soulution. I was considering the Boulder 1161 at $22K, but both Jay and Mike did me a big favor in helping me decide not to bother considering it. It's only a guess, but I believe that the PS Audio M1200 is roughly comparable to the best amps discussed here, like Boulder, Mephisto, Essence. It would definitely be worthwhile for someone who might be considering the M1200 for himself to put up the modest $6K for it. The problem is that class D such as the M1200 might not reveal its true character for several months of break in, which may not be learned within the 30 day trial. If he lives within easy driving distance from Jay, they could both do the assessment together. The M1200 could then be returned for refund, but the real assessment of a fully broken in M1200 could not be done in time. Alternatively, a well broken in used amp could be purchased for a better assessment, but if the purchaser didn't like it, they would have to assume the risks of selling it and would probably lose significant money. Only Jay has the contacts to do this without losing money. Therefore, I still think it would be worthwhile for him to get a used M1200 at maybe $3-4K. The risk is minimal. Certainly Jay has bought many amps much more expensive without hearing them first. The M1200 may not be the absolute best, but it represents great value that many would appreciate. One additional risk is the tubes. The sound changes markedly with the age of the tube, as well as different tubes, complicating the assessment of a used M1200. The ideal is a used unit with new tubes, although only a few hundred hours of break in might show comparable performance to new tubes.
As for me, I am not interested in buying/selling to do R&D like Jay, since I am not doing a consulting audio business. And what I like is not the "best" for someone who prefers warm/euphonic sound. The nice thing about Jay is that he tries to be truthful and demonstrate the objective qualities of each item. The "best" is determined by each listener for himself. |
rbach,
Since I found that zip reveals more HF than any other speaker cable I've tried, the soundstage is more upfront. I hear more detail both front and back, although the entire stage is more forward than it would be from warmer and more bass dominant cables, just as with electronics. In other words, the zip stage is 1 to 30 feet deep; a warmer cable's stage is 10 to 100 feet deep. So the range for zip is a factor of 30; for the other the factor is only 10. This is all highly variable, dependent on the recording and the room/speakers, of course. I don't analyze soundstage much, but mainly listen for tonal quality and detailed musical information content. Try zip for a dollar, and report what you hear. |
ricevs,
Just name one amp you have A/B'ed against your modified IceEdge that is better, and say in what ways. I just read Doug Schroeder's dagogo review of the Legacy Audio IV7 who says it is better (more resolution and smoothness at the same time) than any amp he has tried, although his standard of reference is merely a Pass. You say the Legacy IV2 is nearly identical to the Rouge Audio Studio N-10DM, both using IceEdge 1200 AS1 modules. |
You look great. Pure muscle and low body fat. You ought to audition for commercials. |
RIAA,
I think we all want goosebumps, which may come from euphonic beauty of sound OR raw raunchy excitement from pizazz/sparkle. Clarity enables the latter. EQ can be tailored to your preferences. It can enliven distant/veiled recordings, or tone down hot recordings to your preferences.
|
Who is Saul? I like audio HF, but not gigaHz for EM radiation. Read lessEMF.com about EMF hypersensitivity. |
riaa,
HAHA--after raining on my Rane parade all these years, you reveal that you have always used EQ in your systems. Which one? I don't claim that the Rane ME 60 is the best, but I just went for it after going to Sam Ash pro audio in 1996. It is easy to use and fiddle with, and even as a line stage in the flat position, its transparency is in a class with many audiophile line stages, confirmed by mrdecibel. I don't have internet based wifi systems, since HF electromagnetic radiation is medically dangerous. Are there wired digital EQ's that I could use that are better than Rane? |
All good. Even plain tone controls are better than none. D’ag has a sophisticated version in his preamps whereby a different circuit is used when the tone control function is engaged. But no conventional tone control is as versatile as the Rane with its thirty 1/3 octave sliders, plus/minus 0-12 dB. With hot recordings like Nils Lofgren’s Keith don’t go, I boost/use the upper 3 sliders (12.5 kHz, 16 kHz, 20 kHz), but with laid back classical recordings I use the upper 5 (8, 10, 12.5, 16, 20 kHz). A young listener with better HF hearing than I would use less boost, which would vary with the recording and speaker. This Rane makes 1000 times more variations than any subtle differences between cables or 100 times more than different preamps. Even flat without any EQ, it is as transparent as many good preamps. You can do all this fully or very subtlely, your choice. With XLR, there is 6 dB of gain, so the Rane can serve as your line stage. Connect your source to the Rane, then Rane to power amp.
When and if a speaker comes out that perfectly reproduces the snap and naturalness of live sounds, I will abandon much of my use of EQ. Right now, all speakers are markedly veiled and colored, so judicious EQ has more benefits than detriments. If you don’t like the EQ choices of the recording engineers, you can change the recording to your taste with your own EQ. Since most recordings here are highly processed and EQ’ed, this is even more beneficial for listeners whose main diet is these recordings. |
Cheer up Jay, you didn't fail. I am in communication with Rouge Audio from Italy, (mentioned by ricevs) which makes basic amps with SOTA class D modules. They sell IceEdge, Hypex, Pascal-based amps. Francesco said that the IceEdge 1200 AS1 is tops for neutrality and accuracy, compared to Hypex. I like his characterization of the IceEdge as "studio monitor" type of sound. I agree with him--the Hypex amps I have tried are somewhat euphonic. My Mytek Brooklyn Amp uses modified Pascal modules, which I found are more neutral/accurate than those other amps and the more expensive GaN. I just wrote to see how he compares IceEdge to Pascal. As of now, I probably will order the Rouge Studio N10-DM, which is about $1550 delivered. I'll let you know how it works out, before I send it to Ric for his mods.
I may even send it to you for evaluation if I am happy. I believe you lean toward accuracy/neutrality, although you are not at the extreme like me. So you can have an expensive speaker and source, and do nicely with these cheap amps, if your priorities are similar to mine.
|
|
On tonight's first hearing back and forth, I hear more focus/clarity/detail from Gryphon compared to Constellation. The Connie is tubelike/rounded/bloated compared to Gryphon. I assume Jay matched the SPL's. If so, the Connie seems a little louder, but this is due to its added fuzz and fur coat effect which magnifies everything. The Essence is still smooth/coherent, and ultimately more lifelike in every way, and yes, more musical because of that.
Be careful not to confuse euphonic roundness with true musicality, which is the revealing of total musical info in a balanced, coherent way whereby all the frequencies exhibit equal high clarity. The Essence is an example of true musicality. I like the name, "Essence" which is apt. |
More challenging, dynamic song, "Private Investigations" https://youtu.be/FgGVH1e_eyM--Gryphon Pandora and Essence monos The song on the Constellation is at the beginning of the video I posted just before. |
Same findings. Also, Essence has more startle than Connie as with the raunchy loud guitar at about 1:03. The Connie has more boom and weight, but the scare/startle is greater with the Essence. Analogy--Essence is like a lighter tap with a metal hammer; Connie is like a heavier blow with a rubber hammer. The Essence hammer drives the nail into the wall more efficiently than the Connie hammer. So much for the 250 (or 500?) W capability of the Connie vs only 50 W of Essence.
Always go for quality rather than quantity. The Essence is a great reference with plenty of power for nearly all recordings. |
My iMac and PC couldn't assess Agon yesterday, probably because the site wasn't secure. Did anyone else have this problem? I watched Jay's video directly on YT.
|
On the contrary, I found the M6 enjoyable with any amplifier tried here. Its honest neutrality brings out more of the music, which I could listen to for hours, provided the SPL is sensible and natural. I enjoyed it most on more revealing/neutral amps like the Essence monos. However, I will admit that I only heard the videos on my computer at 75 dB a foot away, and not at much louder levels Jay heard in his room.
The real issue is a person's acceptance of neutrality and maximum info retrieval which is the requirement for getting the most intellectual appreciation of music. Some people like me listen intellectually and my enjoyment comes from maximal understanding, the way it is in other aspects of life. Examples--reading and listening to intellectual discussions and researching details of traveling to new places. I like to rewind videos and catch what I didn't understand the first time. Other people prefer to experience the moment without planning, or sit back and lose themselves in the mood of the music.
Recently I corrected the time alignment of my electrostatic tweeter with my main electrostatic speaker. This made my system even more analytic than before. Some people would find it even more sterile than before. Even I had to get used to it. But very quickly I realized that even more of the music was revealed and understood, so I learned to prefer this new time alignment.
|
Jay, ibuprofen is dangerous because it causes stomach ulcers, gastritis and fatal bleeding in some cases. Tylenol (acetaminophen) doesn’t cause stomach problems, but it causes liver damage if taken long term. The best and safest solution is Tylenol short term without any alcohol drinking. |
Riaa has the best sense of humor here by far. No doubt about it--objectively true, not personal preference. The laugh meters spike the quickest after his remarks. Case closed.
|
rh67,
It would be interesting to hear that Oceanway horn speaker. Have you heard it? Unfortunately, Jay would be unlikely to consider it, since it is largely unknown and wouldn't have easy resale. This is a shame, because the best products are less popular, but the popular lower performers are hyped up with marketing so they have better resale. Jay wants his YT channel to show the best sound, but his business model is to cater to many people with popular expensive brands whose performance is eclipsed by less popular items.
|
riaa,
Like you, sometimes I wish I were older. I knew people who heard the greatest violin masters of old. Fritz Kreisler's heyday was the 1920's. Listen to his recording on YT of "Meditation" from Thais. Today's greatest violinists like 76 year old Itzhak Perlman are like nursery school savages compared to Kreisler. The 30 year old performers of today are mere infants who lack toilet training. The closest I ever came was hearing the greatest concertmaster of all time, Mischa Mischakoff in 1975 at his age of 80 at a private concert. I told him how much I loved his recordings of the 1940's. |
Whatever the new speaker is, I prefer it to the M6. On the M6, the opening voice is dark, muddy and veiled compared to the new speaker. No, the new speaker is what it is, even before break in. I always thought the M6 was dark and veiled, even compared to the Alexx which had more pizzazz on upper midrange, HF percussion and such. The M6 was improved with more transparent electronics such as Gryphon Essence, but this new speaker on even a euphonic tube amp would kill the M6 for lifelike clarity on the fastest SS amp. I look forward to hearing more music on this new baby.
Mofojo, I am presently using a computer with rolled off HF compared to my usual computer. I still hear the obvious differences. Great show and choice, Jay!! |
Jay,
I like your patient Socratic method. That is, eliminate bias by withholding the name of the new speaker until more listening is done with open minds and ears. This could be your best speaker yet by far. If so, then I agree with ricevs on this one point--keep it as a long term reference, which will best reveal all the ancillary components you want to evaluate at different price levels. This speaker will sound fabulous on a few cheap amps I know and have mentioned.
|
What a great new speaker! On this song, the well recorded opening guitar is satisfactory on the M6, but the new speaker offers even more brilliance. Then around 50 seconds after the opening, the voice is badly veiled on the M6. The inconsistent engineer did a great job with the clarity of the opening guitar, and a lousy job on the voice which is muddy by comparison. But on the new speaker, the veiled recording of the voice has acceptable clarity.
I am sure the drivers and enclosure of the M6 are superb, but the M6 designer chose to voice the speaker much darker than that of the new speaker. There is more HF/upper midrange emphasis on the new speaker vs M6, which brings out the plucking percussive aspects of the guitar, whereas the body of the instrument is emphasized more on the M6. I can see a listener finding the guitar enjoyable on either speaker, but I absolutely hate the veil and muddiness of this recorded voice on the M6.
The new speaker reminds me of the brilliance of the Focal Stella Utopia that Jay had. The new speaker is lean in the lower midrange/upper bass, which greatly helps the voice. It is the most brilliant speaker Jay has owned. Although the Essence monos are more brilliant and open than the Essence stereo, the monos cannot get the M6 to have the brilliant clarity of the new speaker. I believe the GTA speaker is still more brilliant than the new speaker, and I am delighted and surprised that a conventional dynamic speaker like this may challenge the GTA for these qualities. In the world of expensive dynamic speakers, this new speaker may be the pinnacle. The final frontier will be the GTA, much much cheaper. Steve and I are waiting on the completely reworked GTA. |
Inna,
On any given speaker, it is easier to compare amps, because tonal balance differences are much smaller than for different speakers. For amp A/B's you can match the SPL closely, but the big variation in tonal balance from speakers makes it more difficult to match the SPL. The latest video shows that the superior Essence monos cannot produce the clarity from the new speaker from the M6. This reaffirms the classic wisdom that the speaker is the most important element in the chain. It is much more interesting to compare speakers vs amps.
I am glad Jay waited for the new speaker before doing the A/B between the DCS and MSB dacs. It is much more revealing than the M6, and will easily show the dac differences. |
Jay,
You were one of the few listeners who said the M6 is neutral. Of course, your impressions are most important since over 99% of your followers including I have never been in your room. As for me, I posted videos on page 302 comparing M6 to Alexx. I stated at that time and still affirm that the Alexx is more lively with more snap/sparkle. Perhaps I should stop using the word "neutral" which only means that all freq are presented evenly and in balance. Resolution and clarity are really what I am after. There are examples of components that are neutral but have mediocre resolution and clarity. The M6 tweeter may be more refined than the Alexx tweeter, but the overall design of the Alexx with its EQ options using resistors displays more snap in the upper midrange/HF. So far, the new speaker blows away both the M6 and Alexx on the snap of the guitar and clarity of the voice. I hated the muddy voice on the M6 but can enjoy it on the new speaker.
You were never going to get the resolution/clarity of the new speaker from the M6 even if you tried all the expensive amps in the world and completely redid your room. You didn't FAIL--you will SUCCEED in your new quest to get far more musical enjoyment from this new speaker.
Focal Grande Utopia EM Evo is possible. Mike Fremer gushes in vague ways about his new Wilson XVX, but he doesn't mention much about raw detail, so I think Focal is more likely. A horn which is usually 100 dB efficient is likely ruled out. The Wilson XVX could be 92 dB efficient, and if it has the resistor adjustments of the Alexx, it can be tweaked to be brilliant, so that is still a possibility. |
I will be the second, behind kren0006 who was first, to say emphatically that it is the Wilson XVX. Jay said that the new speaker has been a long time favorite of the mags.
XVX is 92 dB efficient. Most significantly, Jay said that this speaker has the best imaging he has heard, surprising for a large tall speaker. What makes it possible? Time alignment!!!! The funny shape of the top Wilsons is necessary to allow time alignment. The XVX also has the tuning resistors, which is a form of EQ that I could have fun with. I hope Jay does also.
Focal is still possible, because its shape also supports time alignment. Efficiency of the Meastro Utopia is 93 dB, close enough. I did say that I thought the new speaker resembled the sound of the Focal Stella that Jay had.
After many audio affairs, Jay has finally gotten married to Wilson. |
Clever attempt to confuse. The white/black speakers look like cartoon characters with ordinary drivers. I could be wrong, since you said you were nervous that you never heard them before you bought them. Maybe you heard the XVX at shows. I still say XVX. |
Kren0006 still wins the Gold Medal for his predictions. I happily take 2nd place--my XVX guess is close enough to Jay's selected XLF.
Even with the cluttered room and stack of VAcoustics boxes near the left XLF, the XLF still is the best speaker Jay has ever owned. I didn't pay attention to the bass, but I am thrilled with the midrange/HF. My only reservation is the rear firing tweeter. Multiple tweeter drivers firing in different directions often create time smear which interferes with the purpose of time alignment. It is possible that the added tweeter output creates HF prominence which I personally like--an EQ of sorts--this goes a long way to increasing the resolution, clarity and articulation. The rear tweeter creates a dipole effect which is one thing that makes panel speakers attractive. I would have changed the design to omit the rear tweeter but increase the output of the forward tweeter to maybe 1.5x. It would be nice if Peter McGrath came over and did time alignment measurements, but Jay has an excellent ear and subjective assessment is always the ultimate way to do this.
Theoretically, time alignment is perfect for only ONE listener in that sweet spot. Listeners away from the sweet spot will probably still enjoy the excellent sound. This XLF is craftily designed with the right sauce of driver balance/integration, crossover components, with those tuning resistors that can be tweaked to personal preference.
I was totally misled by Mike Fremer's comparative review of the XLF he owned prior to the Alexx where he preferred the Alexx. Jay has shown that he has better ears.
Congratulations, Jay.
|
Jay, you are a savvy business guy and could offer $40K or less for the used Soulution 701 monos. When you are done, you could get out gracefully without much loss. You could sell anything now that you can make great sounding videos with the XLF. |
inna,
Sophisticated 'philes like us pride ourselves in hearing subtle differences in components that are denied by most music lovers or the "scientific" types who say that all cables sound the same, or even that all amps with flat freq response sound the same. But we struggle to be sure that we hear the differences, and our egos demand that we struggle to hear the differences that others can't.
Speakers show much greater differences than any other component. I found both the M6 and M3 so dull and boring that although I could hear the differences between amps, I didn't really care, because the sound was mediocre with any amp. But with the fantastically revealing XLF speaker, these source, amp, preamp, stand and cable A/B's will be much more interesting and clear. Since the XLF is so exciting even with a low watt amp, Jay may even find that the greater purity and transparency of dac direct outweighs the bloom and greater dynamics with a preamp added. Extra bloom isn't needed.
So now an Essence/Boulder comparison will be more dramatic. No need to spend a lot of money--Essence stereo at $24K vs Boulder 1161 stereo at $22K. That kind of comparison will be appreciated by lots more people than an A/B of $100K amps. The big money has been well spent on what is the most important component, the XLF speaker. |
Clever design. They did everything judiciously. Maybe this was the last work of Dave Wilson, before son Darryl took over. Newer isn't always better. Maybe this original forward firing tweeter was hotter than subsequent versions. "Some like it hot" like me. |
Yes, very interesting. I can see how the rear tweeter ADDS ambience, but that is mainly true if your front walls are live. If they are damped, then there should be less of the effect. However, if you take a naturally spacious recording, ADDING the ambient effect of the rear tweeter artificially superimposes the room ambience onto the recorded stage/hall ambience. This creates smear, like being in a room with mirrors facing each other on opposite walls. You can have fun looking at the many reflections of yourself in the mirrors, but this is not really true to life. For a naturally spacious recording, I prefer the direct sound of all drivers, without rear radiation. Is it possible to disconnect the rear tweeter so you can experiment both ways? |
Yes, the XLF has plenty of bass. Perhaps Mike Fremer preferred the Alexx to the XLF because his small, cluttered room couldn't handle the prodigious mid and deep bass of the XLF. But he missed the boat on how the midrange/HF on the XLF is far superior to that of Alexx. Although I hate bass dominated sound, I like the whole package of the XLF, because the superior midrange/HF nicely balances the full bass. The bass is not just full; it is well defined because its higher freq overtones are well presented. The XLF is the fantastic whole package.
As an aside, I was playing in an orchestra conducted by Arturo Delmoni, the famed violinist who appeared in several Stereophile shows years ago. Although we usually talked about violins, this time I told him how much I liked the powerful, full sound of the deep bass tuba. The orchestra gives you everything, and the XLF is the closest facsimile of that. WOW. |
Outstanding as I expected. Here’s an excerpt from Fremer’s Stereophile review of the Alexx, comparing to his XLF. "The Alexx was notably more transparent than the Alexandria in the midrange: faster, cleaner, better focused, more resolving—and, to my ear, flatter. Central images were more reach-out-and-touch-it transparent—more like what electrostats deliver, but with all the dynamic slam and ability to play loud for which Wilson speakers are famous. The Alexx also produced a more relaxing and resolved yet faster top end than the Alexandrias. This wasn’t surprising, given the change from a three-way to a four-way design, in which the tweeter takes over at a higher frequency and is thus relieved of the burden of reproducing the upper-midrange frequencies." As you say, what was he smoking? The opposite of what we find. You can demonstrate this for us by comparing to the videos I reposted on p 302. Even the Alexx had more snap than the M6 there. You can record that same song, I believe "Iron Hand" using the DCS dac as on p 302. We will see that the XLF has much more snap and clarity than the Alexx, and completely wipes out the M6. Do the same for the other recordings you made with the Alexx using the DCS or the MSB for a particular song. One way Fremer could be right is if he used the tuning resistors to make the Alexx more brilliant and the XLF more laid back. We don’t know. Or, you could now have the tuning resistors set for more brilliance on the XLF and the resistors on your Alexx set for more laid back. Only you know what adjustments you made. I suspect that the variations in the resistor settings are much less than the variations from my Rane EQ. If the resistor settings produce only subtle variations, then Fremer is way off. A second way Fremer could be right is if he was careless about time aligning the upper drivers of the XLF long ago when he had it, but then properly time aligned the drivers later for his Alexx. Time alignment is most important for clarity and focused imaging. Correct time alignment can make a large speaker sound focused, as you are now finding with the XLF. |
