2. amps-preamps
  3. 126624-10101

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!


jays_audio_lab

Showing 50 responses by viber6

viber6
2,454 posts
 
I only mentioned the M6 because of the available comparative videos between M6 vs Alexx, and M6 vs XLF.  Alexx is significantly clearer than M6, and XLF blows away the M6, so I am reasonably sure that the XLF is significantly clearer than Alexx, but only A/B's of XLF vs Alexx on the same song will tell for sure.  Even if the amps are different in this comparison, differences between amps are much less than between speakers.
viber6
2,454 posts
 
Here's a short video that shows how much fun classical music can be.  This is a popular dance called czardas, arranged for piano, 2 violins, clarinet.  The performers are all young, attractive superstars having fun.

https://youtu.be/hIdhv0zOXtQ


viber6
2,454 posts
 
Thanks for the XLF tour--interesting. I hope you can gain access to the rear panel controls for tweeter, midrange, woofer level adjustments. More fun, very useful.

Liberty song beginning 3:23--Alexx, Pass XA60.8, Boulder 2110
https://youtu.be/TubAq84cVNU
viber6
2,454 posts
 
Liberty song at beginning--Alexandria XLF, tweeter flat, Gryphon Essence, Pandora preamp (I think)

https://youtu.be/Zkbtx3E_B5s
viber6
2,454 posts
 
This is why A/B's should be done side by side with volumes matched.  Turn down the volume on the XLF a little to compare with the Alexx.  The Alexx is really quite respectable compared to the XLF.  The Alexx is a little veiled and less detailed than the XLF for the female voice in midrange/HF.  The voice is slightly cloudy on the Alexx vs XLF.  I was so enthusiastic about the XLF in comparison to the M6, which was hopelessly dark and veiled.  After suffering through the cloudy, dreary weather of the M6, the sunshine came out with the XLF.  But the Alexx and XLF are close enough so I could see an Alexx owner playing with the resistors to obtain midrange/HF clarity comparable to the XLF.  Conversely, if the XLF adjustments were to increase the level of the midrange driver and decrease the tweeter level, I would probably prefer the Alexx in that case.  But with flat positions of all the drivers on the Alexx and XLF, I would prefer the XLF.  Just speculating.

All in all, both are great speakers with wonderful capabilities for sound optimization.  Any great deal for either used speaker would be a sensible long term purchase.  Wilson is the greatest dynamic speaker company.  I wouldn't bother with the Magico M9, which is likely to be similar to the M6, just as the M3 had similar dull sound as the M6.  Forget about Sonus Faber Aida, which is likely to be a warm, dull, forgiving speaker like other SF models I have read about.  OK, we have learned our lesson about taking reviews as gospel, but Fremer still is correct about the overall excellence of Wilson, even if Jay and I differ with him on the XLF vs Alexx rating.
viber6
2,454 posts
 
Riaa,
Since you are an attentive wordsmith, I think you meant "entertaining though" instead of "entertaining thou".  
viber6
2,454 posts
 
Jay,
There are very few videos on YT that approach what you have presented with Wilsons.  The only one I could find is this presentation by Peter McGrath of the Master Chronosonic.

https://youtu.be/63v8vFIcGHY

It is clear from several musical selections that this speaker is the absolute finest dynamic speaker.  Both Peter McGrath and Dave Wilson made superb recordings and knew their musical stuff.  There is no other company to do a better job with time alignment.  That was Dave's lifelong quest, and he succeeded.  My pet peeve about electrostatic and planar magnetic/ribbon speakers is that none of them incorporate time alignment.  

Since the flagship Chronosonic is unaffordable, how can you come close, or even BETTER its performance?  I would suggest boosting the tweeter output as we saw on your video.  Even just a small 1-3 dB boost will increase the overall clarity and spaciousness of the XLF.  The XLF uses the same tweeter as the flagship, and the other drivers are almost as good as on the flagship.  With a few speakers, I have found that even small boosts of HF go a long way towards benefitting the complete tone of all instruments and voices.  Small boosts of HF will not make the speaker sound tizzy or harsh, but will make the overall benefits much greater than any slight perceived brightness.  If you look at John Atkinson's measurements of the XLF at Mike Fremer's home, there was a reduction from 2-4 kHz, so this gives justification for experimentation by boosting the tweeter.  If this isn't possible, then a slight reduction of the midrange while keeping the tweeter at 0 dB accomplishes a lot of the effect.  One of the wonderful aspects of the XLF is the use of the tweeter down to 1 kHz, which lets the midrange drivers do what they specialize in.  Wilson doesn't reveal the crossover points in the other speakers, and we don't know if the flagship's tweeter is used down to 1 kHz.

It is remarkable that the XVX and the flagship use smaller woofers than the XLF.  I would predict that the XLF would have more powerful bass than these other speakers, so even a bass lover like you notes that bass is quite powerful in your room.  I wonder if sealing both the front and rear bass ports would still produce satisfactory bass even if it is reduced.  In that way, the midrange might be clarified even more.  See what you find.
viber6
2,454 posts
 
The XLF tells the truth about the recording "Man in the moon."  When I purchased the CD so I could play it at home, I found it to be a very bright recording, at least regarding the twang of the guitar accompaniment.  I had to tone down my usual EQ settings--I was shocked.  The voice is more conventionally recorded, which makes it veiled compared to the guitar, or the guitar is bright compared to the voice, whichever way you want to look at it.

There is nothing wrong with the XLF.  In fact, it is the closest of Jay's speakers to the GTA on this song that I will link.  Markedly lower the  volume for the XLF to properly compare at the same SPL.

https://youtu.be/Wf6_8at5RQw--GTA, Pass preamp/amp, Lampi dac.

https://youtu.be/vFmC1V-FetM--XLF, Essence
viber6
2,454 posts
 
The XLF has enormous bass and lower midrange fullness compared to the GTA.  Matching SPL's is difficult due to the big differences in tonal balance between the GTA and XLF.  You can A/B the opening guitar on the two speakers, and then A/B the voice on the speakers at a different comparative volume setting. This is why I regard EQ such as my Rane ME 60 to be essential in choosing the tonal balance that suits you according to your taste and the particular recording.  Instead of "choking" both ports of the XLF, the EQ could do it more flexibly with greater variation.  The EQ would replace the preamp.  Just connect the dac to the EQ then to the power amp.  Only a guess--the Pandora is warmer than the Rane, but the Boulder preamp is more transparent.  Whatever the possible slight weak link of the Rane, its EQ utility vastly outweighs its limitations.  The Rane handily beats the Pass preamp for clarity/detail, heard as well by Steve.
viber6
2,454 posts
 
henry201,
An excellent display of symphonic music is the last few minutes of the video of the Master Chronosonic I posted above.  It is the conclusion of Puccini's Tosca.  Listen to the soft and loud orchestra parts, the extreme dynamics of the female voice, the cymbal crashes.  The recorded audience applauds at the end, and after a few seconds of the silence of wonderment, the audiophiles in the room applaud gratefully.

I have indicated to Jay how he could take his "humble" XLF (by comparison to the Master Chronosonic), do the speaker resistor adjustments and use a cheap quality EQ like the Rane to improve on the performance of the Master Chrono.  Jay didn't believe me last year when I said I could get the Alexx with EQ to outperform the Master Chrono without EQ.  OK, he can take out a massive reverse mortgage to come up with nearly a million bucks for the total Master Chrono including the $75K/pair Thor Hammers, OR follow my suggestions for a pittance.  Even without tuning resistor and external EQ tricks, the XLF approaches the flagship Master Chrono at a small fraction of the price.
viber6
2,454 posts
 
golfnutz,
The effect of the tuning resistors ultimately is to change the tonal balance.  That's what EQ does.  The two methods are different, but the effects are similar.

Until YOU try the Rane or other electronic EQ, YOU don't have a clue what you're talking about.


viber6
2,454 posts
 
All,
 Once again, keeping a closed mind leads to inferior overall results.  Those who mock me or say Jay is not interested in my contributions can go ahead and live their audio life in blissful ignorance.
viber6
2,454 posts
 
golfnutz,

You said the following, "Stop with your ’word salad’ garbage."  

First, a brilliant and respectful expert named atmasphere explained how to have a conversation without offending someone with different views.  He said, make your point factually.  If you want to correct someone's statement, say that it is false.  I'll add that if you say it is false, back up your position with some facts or experience.  But don't trash the person who made the statement you disagree with.

Now on to the substance of your other remark--"EQ is about changing different frequencies."  What does that mean?  Neither the method of tonal balance adjustment in Wilson speakers using the tuning resistors (this phrase is used in Wilson literature) nor the method of tonal balance adjustment from an external electronic EQ like the Rane, do anything to "change different frequencies."  Rather, the Wilson tuning resistors increase/decrease the output of each non bass driver.  With the Rane EQ, I change the relative levels of output from different frequencies.  The Wilson method and the Rane method produce similar effects, although the Rane can be abused to exaggerate the effects.  For example, if I want to make the upper midrange/HF more brilliant using the Rane, I can boost 6 to 20 kHz, or I can lower midrange 200-800 Hz and keep the HF the same, or some combination of the two.  The is approximately equivalent to taking Wilson Alexx/XLF/XVX/Master Chronosonic and attenuating the midrange driver(s) or boosting the tweeter driver using those tuning resistors.  There are thirty 1/3 octave adjustments in the Rane.  The user can use 1 or several adjacent adjustments to change the frequency outputs in a narrow or wider range, respectively.

All this explains why I consider the Wilson method a form of EQ which is valid and relatively subtle at the same time.

All this aside, Jay's superb, revealing XLF can still be enjoyed without any resistor adjustment because it offers so much of everything.  In fact, if you read Mike Fremer's XVX review in the May Stereophile, he describes the sound as softer than he expected.  Percussion sounded more woody than metallic.  Seems like I would prefer the XLF to the XVX.  Jay, you don't need to spend any more money to trade to the XVX.  Like me, you might like the XLF more than the XVX.
viber6
2,454 posts
 
As klh007 said, the XLF will benefit from a lot of thought and fine tuning adjustment.  I would keep them on casters for a good while, which makes them manageable.  But the XLF even without additional fine tuning is already far better than any other speaker Jay has owned using any electronics or tweak.  It's a truth teller.  Analogy--I would put greater trust in a truth telling person who is a little sick in bed compared to a person who sugar coats things and is dressed up for superficial appearances.
viber6
2,454 posts
 
Jay,
I like all your methodology for the DCS/MSB shootout.  Forgive the obvious if you already implied it, but I assume that demo 1 for each song would be the same dac, and demo 2 would be the other dac.  After the whole project has completed, you then announce that demo 1 was the DCS, or MSB, whatever.  I liked how you played the XLF before revealing it.  This enabled me to overcome my previous prejudices against Wilson, and post that whatever the new speaker is, I heard it as the best you ever owned.
viber6
2,454 posts
 
I am disappointed with some of Shunyata's products like the top Sigma HC power cord in the previous series, which was laid back compared to the Venom HC which I like.  I do like my Denali 6000S.  With everything plugged in, there is more detail/focus without any rough edges.


viber6
2,454 posts
 
I hear the Antileon as brighter with less bass fullness than the Essence.  I have no idea how much of this difference could be due to the new acoustic panels.  Henry201 would probably prefer the Essence, but I prefer the better clarity of the Antileon, although I admit that it is more hyped up and hifi-ish on this recording.  

Jay, if your ears agree with my assessment and you find the Antileon + acoustic panels more revealing, then delay the DCS/MSB until you have done further tweaking.  As it stands right now, I love the latest video and believe it will best show the differences between the two dacs.  I eagerly await the shootout as it is with the Antileon.  Then before you sell one of the dacs, confirm your choice with the Boulder amp, the most revealing amp you have owned.
viber6
2,454 posts
 
Same song "Man in the moon"

https://youtu.be/vFmC1V-FetM--XLF with Essence, before new acoustic panels. Start at 1:18 to compare to the beginning of Jay’s above video of the Antileon.

In the next post I will comment on what I hear from the Essence vs Antileon.

I see how Henry201 says that the guitar is artificial on these XLF videos, but that is due to the hyped up recording of the guitar, not the XLF. The voice is more natural, much clearer than on any of Jay’s previous speakers. The brilliant tweeter implementation exposes the flaw in the guitar recording, but the voice doesn’t have the brilliant HF of the guitar, so the voice is more natural. It is usually true that in striving for more clarity, something has to give, like the sharper HF from the guitar. The alternative is a dull speaker like Magico where the guitar is not as nasty, but the lower freq instruments are veiled/dull. I prefer to tolerate some unpleasant sounds in return for the overall great clarity of the XLF.
viber6
2,454 posts
 
Wow, even a cheap microphone in the phone can produce great recordings.  Perhaps the Antileon enhanced with the Orange fuses is responsible.  I do remember that your recordings were even better when you switched from the phone mike to the Shure.  Hopefully you can redo the latest recording with the Shure mike.  There was a recent Stereophile review of the Essence which found it warm/euphonic.  I bet the Antileon is more accurate.  Let's dream about the XLF with Mephisto or Boulder with Orange fuses.
viber6
2,454 posts
 
The usual suspects here like to bash my audio tastes, but remember that Jay agrees with me that the XLF is the BEST speaker he has ever owned by far.  Give me the same respect as you give Jay.  Jay and I have far different music that we like, but come to very similar conclusions.  Jay has more experience with expensive equipment than most anyone here, and my musical background gives me the knowledge and experience to know what is live, real and natural.

No speaker is perfect.  Magico may have the best drivers and cabinet design, and takes out full page ads on all their technical aspects.  Despite that, Dave and Daryl Wilson, with the input of the prestigious recording engineer Peter McGrath, have practical musical expertise that helped them create the XLF which is far more revealing and lifelike than Magico.  Possibly inferior drivers than Magico, but better design artistry.  So yes, I acknowledge that the guitar on the XLF sounds hyped compared to Magico.  But you have to have enough experience in different halls and rooms to know that a guitar in a small room is rounded and boomy, but in a large open space is much brighter and thinner.  That "Man in the moon" song is from a live outdoor concert where the guitar is in reality bright and thin.  So the XLF is telling the truth about that recording, whether you LIKE it or not.  Even so, in order to get slow dynamic drivers (compared to electrostatics or planar magnetic/ribbons) to sound like they have snap, you have to play some design tricks, which Dave Wilson did artfully and most intelligently.  With Magico without the Wilson tricks, you hear the basic slower character of dynamic drivers.  The darker and deeper tonal balance of Magico is true to a mid hall presentation, and the XLF is more brilliant and upfront, where the microphones are.  Therefore, the XLF is a closer representation of reality. 

If you LIKE Magico or other warmer speakers and don't care about accuracy and reality, that's OK, but DO NOT mock those of us with different goals.
viber6
2,454 posts
 
The last few comments by kren0006 were objective and respectful towards me, but that of rbach NOT.  My comments are informational about objective descriptions of what I hear from XLF or anything else, and my speculations about how design features may correlate with what I hear.  But they are NOT "relentless preaching," or telling anyone they must dump their present speakers and get XLF, etc.  Actually, the person who says that I am preaching is uncomfortable with inconvenient truths that I present.  Well, they might now deny that I am presenting "truth."  "Truth" means objective descriptions of what the component sounds like compared to other components in that system, and what natural unamplified live music sounds like whether or not it is your preference.  A first rate dignified guy like "thezaks" I know has different preferences than me, but in posts here and private communications he acknowledges the objective facts I present.  If he gets pleasure from things I don't like, that is OK with me because he is happy.  He does respect my musical background and experience, and knows I am being honest and not disrespectful to him or anyone else.

What is really bang on truth is Jay's statement---"One thing i find interesting is that when nobody knew what the speaker was, 90% of people were impressed by it. As soon as they find out what speaker it was, the hate starts."

What this all means is the importance of having an open mind and being objective, which is in short supply from the bashers. 



viber6
2,454 posts
 
Jay,
Mike Fremer seems to have tastes that are much warmer than mine.  He prefers the Alexx to his older XLF, and the XVX to the XLF.  He doesn't care for electrostatics.  All this is OK--whatever makes him happy is none of my business, but I find his honest and objective descriptions of everything useful.  If money was no object, I would probably still prefer the XLF to the XVX, or to any dynamic speaker I have heard, based on his objective descriptions and my listening here.  If your tastes are approximately similar to mine, you might feel the same, so you don't have to spend outrageous money on hopes of beating the XLF.  When you are trying more modestly priced components for the benefit of your audience, that is doable, but engaging in unaffordable pursuits creates financial and family stress which isn't worth the excitement of the expensive R & D.
viber6
2,454 posts
 
rbach,
Yes, I haven't posted a video of my own personal system.  I am not set up with the equipment required, and the room doesn't exactly look like House Beautiful.  So what?  I have stated that my system has similar qualities to the GTA system, which anyone here can listen to.  

Jay nailed the fundamental issue of preconceived notions.  I applaud his efforts in the ways he has done.  Zip cord and Rane EQ?  The prejudice against these cheap items is unfortunate as well.  Now that Jay is urging people to have an unprejudiced open mind, hopefully he will present zip cord as "mystery" cable, or just a "different tweak" and let blinded people hear the increased clarity for themselves.  If they have good ears and are honest, they will also say that the zip is deficient in bass.  These are factual and accurate assessments which I won't dispute, but I would hate prejudice and closed minds if they say that zip is totally bad and doesn't belong in an audiophile system because it is dirt cheap and wouldn't be sold by any high end dealer.  Same for the $200 Rane.  He presented the XLF with Antileon, at first not revealing that it was done with the inferior phone mike, and the superior Orange fuses.  My comments on that video were just a description of what I heard.  Jay might even decide to make fools of all the prejudiced people by making A/B's of two identical components, but call them component X and Y. The prejudiced people will say that X is better than Y for all their imagined reasons, but I will say that I am unable to hear any differences.

You like "warm" sound, which I describe as "dull/veiled."  They are merely different ways of describing the same thing.  Maybe I am being too harsh with "dull/veiled" and should say "more rounded and less revealing." The guitar is "sharper" on the XLF than on the Magico.  But you would say that the Magico presents the guitar as more natural, which I would agree with if you heard a live guitar in a small room where it really is boomy and rounded.  But the way the guitar is recorded and presented in the outdoor concert on the "Man in the room" the XLF presents more snap/brilliance the way it really is.  Actually, we don't totally disagree, because I stated that the tweeter of the XLF may exaggerate the HF.  Since no speaker is perfect, I have made the assessment that on balance the XLF delivers the truth of the recording more accurately than Magico.  Rather than getting rid of everything I have, I use the Rane judiciously to maximize the benefits and minimize the drawbacks.  I have experimented with less aggressive settings and have gotten more rounded sound, but the relative murky qualities have interfered with getting all the musical content, so I choose the more aggressive setting which reveals much more music, at a price of slight HF aggression.  I tailor all this to the recording.  These recording engineers have made their own EQ and processing choices, which I modify according to my needs.

Rather than escalating the duel between us, it would help if you revealed your musical background, training, experience and preferred music so I could understand your perspective better.



















viber6
2,454 posts
 
golfnutz, pokey, rbach,

All good points.  I try to avoid being personal, so most of what I say is my attempt to describe objectively what I hear and relate it to some theoretical concepts that explain why.  

I have heard the version of the GTA that I have posted several times, most recently on page 323 comparing it to the XLF.  I have heard the GTA in person at Steve's house a few times, and correlated those experiences with the same videos at home.  I have never heard the XLF in person, but I have a good idea from Jay's excellent videos.  Listening  carefully to that song on GTA and XLF, I actually hear more detail from the XLF tweeter above 5 kHz.  But much of the midrange of the GTA is slightly less colored and more transparent than the XLF.  I speculate that the midrange planar magnetic driver + ribbon tweeter of the GTA is more coherent and pure than the midrange driver + tweeter of the XLF, so this explains why I actually agree with some people who have found the XLF highs somewhat unnatural.  I could be wrong about the real differences between the two speakers, since the GTA was driven by warmish Pass electronics and tube Lampi dac.  As is, the XLF is the only speaker Jay has owned that I feel seriously competes with the GTA for what they both do very well--clarity, transparency.  I can't wait to hear the completely reworked GTA.  I feel that Jay will never find a better dynamic speaker according to the criteria of clarity/transparency, and the new GTA may represent improvements at a much lower price than any dynamic speaker contenders.  

At first glance, the GTA will have poor resale value compared with several prestigious brands, but since the price is so much lower, there is less absolute risk.  However, once people realize that to duplicate what the GTA does so well, and that it will take spending 5-20 times its price to get a SOTA dynamic brand name speaker, then the GTA may develop more popularity and offer good resale value.  

I like routing for the underdog.  Remember that in their early days, McIntosh, ARC, Krell, Wilson were underdogs until they proved themselves.
viber6
2,454 posts
 
abedirov,
Just listen to the GTA videos I posted on p 302, 323.  Compare to the other speakers, and then tell me what you hear.
viber6
2,454 posts
 
grey9hound,
Can you post some YT or other videos of these songs?  Do you prefer them at loud or moderate SPL's?
viber6
2,454 posts
 
I second kren0006 on keeping Demo 1 the same dac and Demo 2 the other dac for all the videos.  Perhaps I'll be convinced that Demo 1 is my choice after the 1st video.  Suppose on the 2nd video, I choose Demo 2, etc.  Should we vote after all the 3-5 videos are presented, or after each video?
viber6
2,454 posts
 
Jay,
Pure business is boring.  Don't buy speakers or anything else you aren't passionate about, just for the sake of clicks and YT revenue.  There are lots of YT videos of mediocre items, but almost none of the quality products you own.  

For me, if I have a nice patient with an interesting medical problem, I'll take more time even if they have lousy insurance.  I don't think of it as work, but as helping a friend.  It makes me happier as the most important benefit to me.
viber6
2,454 posts
 
grey9hound,

I enjoyed listening to Flow, Lift off, Farewell transmission, Charlotte's thong.  The bass is the least interesting part of these recordings.  It is used like punctuation in a sentence--necessary but not the main message.  Far more entertaining are the other instruments, vocals and interesting spatial effects.  A system where all the components (speaker, electronics, cables)--are highly resolving, will offer the best clarity of all the aspects of the music.  It will also clarify the pitch of the deep bass.  Most systems that emphasize warmth and fullness make the bass in particular suffer in clarity.  I want to hear ALL the notes of all the instruments clearly.  In that way, clarified bass does enhance the overall musical effect.  Often the fault lies with the recording engineers, so trying to obtain maximum clarity helps undo the poor taste of those engineers.

These recordings as well as most others, are best enjoyed at moderate SPL's.  Too loud makes things muddy.
viber6
2,454 posts
 
I differ.  I want clarity for everything, which applies equally to all voices and instruments, as I said in my last post.  At two extremes of instruments, high notes on guitars/percussion and deep bass of rock will both benefit from better resolution from a particular component.  After I listen carefully to video 1, I will choose the dac that offers the best clarity.  Usually 1-2 minutes of any one song will tell me what I want to know, so it is unlikely that I will vote differently after the other videos.  If a recording is bad, I won't choose the warmer dac just because it makes that recording less bad.  I don't think Jay will choose any bad recording for this shootout.

When famous violin teachers judge many students in competitions, they can reject most of them in about 30 seconds.  They don't need to hear them play many different pieces.  The few top contenders will be heard in more depth later to see who wins the Gold, Silver, Bronze.
viber6
2,454 posts
 
Jay,
Seriously, the YT video posted by ricevs has some outstanding sound.  "Way down deep" and "Flight of the cosmic hippo" have nice HF percussion and good bass.  The voices are clear.  It is a cheap system.  Either that system is great or the recordings are great, or both.  I'd love to hear those recordings on your XLF system, when you finish with the dac A/B project.
viber6
2,454 posts
 
Wow, this is difficult.  Both sound great, since the XLF is such a great speaker.  But the absolute differences seem small.  I'm not certain how I will vote, but I am leaning towards demo #1.

Comparing the dynamic guitar and bass drums at 1:18 and 10:27, I find #2 to be more dynamic in the midrange/bass and slightly rounded in HF, so I can see how sequence56 finds #1 to be digital-like.  #1 has more twang of the guitar at 1:18.  It has a slightly lean and maybe compressed (less dynamic) quality compared to #2.

At 3:55 and 12:55, the very soft guitar is more delicate and focused at 3:55 for #1.  #2 presents a more rounded, fuller comfortable feeling for those like kren0006 who gravitate toward ARC/Luxman type of sound.  Since many people find the hot tweeter of the XLF too much for them, I can see how they would prefer #2.  Perhaps kren0006 likes the crispness of the Sasha DAW which he wants to tone down a little with electronics like ARC/Luxman.  Again, I see how he would like #2 if he could spend the money for either of these dacs.  It is interesting that he likes the DCS Bartok, so maybe he has heard it and believes that it is a more rounded sound than other dac's he has tried.  Wild speculation which is premature at this time--#2 is DCS Rossini.  Jay, don't tell.  There is a 50/50 chance I'll eat those words, lol.


viber6
2,454 posts
 
Jay, 
I went to your YT channel homepage, clicked commentary, then clicked demo 1, but it took me to my email, and the number of votes was still 127. I tried again, and it still showed 127.  I'm not sure it was counted, so you can add me to #1.  Sorry for the inconvenience.  What's to prevent someone from voting many times?

Anyway, the comments here from everyone are far more insightful than any voting system.  I presume you are interested in everyone's findings.  A vote from someone who puts more effort into the project and explains his findings in more detail is more important than the vote from someone who makes a quick superficial decision.  I hope many more people talk about their findings here.

Often I get paid a little to do medical surveys.  Some of the questions seem irrelevant and tedious so I rush through them and check the boxes down a straight line, because I just want to get paid.  That's why surveys are of limited reliability.  There are medical studies using remembered food intake of nutrients, but these are less scientific or valid than better studies done using measurements, etc.
viber6
2,454 posts
 
Jay, 
The unfortunate fact of human society over the millennia is how truth tellers who were in the minority were persecuted and killed for challenging the majority dogma.  Galileo, Socrates, etc.
viber6
2,454 posts
 
chazzzy,
It is nice that we hear the same things.  Your experience as a drummer, and my experience as a violinist show that we both know live music.  It doesn't matter that you pay more attention to the quality of bass, and I listen more to HF.  I have always said that electrons don't favor either bass or HF.  If a component is revealing and truthful, both bass and HF will be clear.  Bass will be tight and crisp, and HF the same.  Actually, even bass instruments have lots of higher harmonic overtones, so the perception of tight bass may be related to the accurate rendition of the higher freq overtones.  So we agree that demo #1 is the truth.  Have you compared Rossini to Bartok?

People are entitled to their subjective preferences, but the important thing here is that they should agree on objective descriptions of the sound.  That makes forums informative if everyone speaks the same language.  So I am confused by rh67's preference for #1.  At first, he said, "Demo 1 was more natural with a laid back feeling."  Then he reversed himself and said, "Demo 1 is clear and articulate, Demo 2 not quite as clear with maybe a touch of distortion which can give the impression of extended highs and crispness."  To me, "laid back" is the opposite of "clear and articulate." Since these two demos don't show vast differences, it is understandable that we may change our minds with further listening.  Jay may even entertain tricking us by making a 4th video with 3 demos, 2 of which are identical.  This would confound the people who boldly say that one blows away the other.

What fun.  Thanks, Jay.


viber6
2,454 posts
 
chazzzy,
I also agree with what you said, "it feels like DAC #2 is giving me it's interpretation of live music where DAC #1 is giving helping a look into the actual intended recording."

More generally, this is why I favor lack of coloration and advocate clarity/transparency in electronics.  Live music is the reality and ultimately the standard by which we judge systems.  I don't want the component superimposing its own "musicality" or "interpretation" on the real music.  Doing so leads to veiling and loss of real musical information.  Some people want to round off the revealing tweeter of the XLF, but I want to hear it in its full glory, such as with Demo #1.
viber6
2,454 posts
 
kren0006,
Did you A/B Rossini vs Bartok?  You seem to want the Bartok--what does it sound like?
viber6
2,454 posts
 
Short excerpts--8:50 on demo 1, 17:50 on demo 2.  Small differences, took me several times back and forth to realize.  Again, I hear demo 2 as more dynamic, demo 1 compressed by comparison.  The greater focus and snap I hear on demo 1 may be an artifact caused by compression.  This raises the issue of whether we are hearing just the different conversion technologies, or superimposed internal Rossini/MSB preamp stages.  Since I prefer direct without any added preamp stages, I suggest that after this exercise is done, it would be nice to A/B just the dac's direct, using a transparent passive preamp, to really tell what's what.  Since Jay doesn't have a passive preamp (mrdecibel, we need to use your Luminous passive preamp, lol), an alternate plan would be to use the fixed outputs of both Rossini and MSB, if they are available, feeding the same outboard preamp stage (Pandora or whatever).

Another wild guess--the slight compression of demo 1 is from the cheaper Rossini electronics; the more expensive electronics of the MSB gives greater dynamics in demo 2.  Kinda ridiculous to call the Rossini a cheap, budget component with compromises.  They are both expensive, and should have any problems solved.  I remember Jay said that the Rossini was audibly inferior to the Vivaldi.  Maybe the Vivaldi has superior gain stage electronics.  A fairer matchup might have been Vivaldi and MSB, but I am still thankful for all the effort Jay has done, since nobody is funding his great R & D.
viber6
2,454 posts
 
ricevs,
Thanks for this info.  Do you have a link to Valin's review of it?

BTW, I ordered the Rouge Audio Studio N-10DM and will keep you posted on that.
viber6
2,454 posts
 
chazzzy,
No, I am still with you about demo 1 being best for me, for its clarity, detail, focus.  I merely speculated that the greater bloom and dynamics of demo 2 could also be rephrased by saying demo 1 is a little compressed by comparison.  In other areas of audio, I have seen lots of compression in later releases of old Columbia LP's.  Bass and dynamics are compressed mainly, so HF are more dominant.  The body of trumpets is reduced, making the trumpets "spit" more on those compressed LP's.  These are gross effects, and the compression I hear in demo 1 is MUCH less, very subtle.  

To briefly digress a little, another example is classic tube sound vs solid state.  A low powered tube amp often has explosive dynamics and fullness, whereby a SS amp sounds pinched by comparison.  I never understood why this is the case, which many people note.  Possibly the increased dynamics and fullness of tubes and tubelike SS amps is a manifestation of a particular type of distortion.  Often, rolled off HF enables toleration of higher SPL's to give the appearance of greater dynamics. Today's great SS amps are not compressed, or maybe they still are by comparison to great tube amps.  Whatever the reasons, I still prefer the clarity, detail of SS amps, but I am honestly bothered by the dichotomy.  Very dynamic amps seem to sacrifice delicacy of detail.

I liken demo 2 to a very slightly more dynamic component which sacrifices a little delicacy of detail.  It took several hearings for me to conclude this.  As Jay said, this shootout is quite challenging.
viber6
2,454 posts
 
rh67,
I agree that since the differences between demo 1 and 2 are small, a change of cables could make demo 2 sound like demo 1 and reverse our preferences.  I think Jay is utilizing our comments to help him decide which dac to keep, only because he needs to be prudent, financially.  Before he sells one of them, he should experiment with different cables, if he hasn't done so already.
viber6
2,454 posts
 
jmeyers,
Even though we have different preferences, I find your comments objectively accurate, truthful and useful.  Although I have never heard the Alexx V or SF speakers, from what I have read, SF has a warm personality and Wilson goes for clarity/detail.  Likewise, I hear demo 2 as analogous to SF, and demo 1 as analogous to Alexx, but with much smaller differences than the two speakers.

viber6
2,454 posts
 
People are entitled to their preferences, but they should agree on objective characteristics of sound.  It is interesting that some of the people who prefer demo 2--ron17 (I think), thezaks, golfnutz (I think), dasign--agree with me that demo 1 has more HF with brightness, and less midrange body.  They all have good hearing, not only objectively, but they understand what they hear.

But kren0006 is uncertain of what he hears, suggests that the politically correct thread members rebuke me, and needs Jay to hold his hand and act as the Chief Justice of this Supreme Court.  
viber6
2,454 posts
 
chazzzy,
As a drummer, you are more familiar with lower freq sounds than I.  Do you also play HF percussion--cymbals, triangles? How about midrange instruments like wood block, vibraphone?  You probably favor tight skins on your drums which obviously create tighter, less distorted sound.  My former orchestra on a tight budget had an old deep bass drum that was boomy and loosy-doosy.  My overall impression of demo 2 is akin to very slightly loose skin, which creates more quantitative dynamics but less tightness and accuracy.  Let's see what you find on video 2.

On my violin, I am more middle of the road with my shorter bridge.  A tall bridge creates too much tightness and tension in the strings, which requires more pressure from both hands to get a free, natural sound.
viber6
2,454 posts
 
Video 2 is more difficult for me to decide.  This AM I listened on my work PC laptop which has a more tinny, bass deficient sound than my home iMac desktop.  I just listened to the iMac.  For the male voice, I listened at 5:26 and 12:39 for demo 1 and 2, respectively.  For the female voice, 1:29 and 9:23.  Both voices are on the husky, dark side compared to many other male/female voices.

With the lighter PC sound, again I felt that demo 1 was more focused and lean than demo 2.  I agree with golfnutz's description that demo 2 has more tonal density, which many reviewers would alternately describe as having more saturated colors, and I describe as warmer.

But on my bassier iMac, I had more trouble telling differences.  The female I could tell had the same relative difference between demo 1 and 2 as on the PC, but after many back and forth trials, I could barely hear a difference on the male voice.  Blinded, I would probably give up in being able to hear a difference on the male voice using the iMac.

This confirms how I find it much easier to discern HF differences between components than lower freq.  On video 1, the abundant HF content of the music let me more easily zero in on the differences.

Jay, if I can't get the system to register my vote, put me down for demo 1 again for video 2.
viber6
2,454 posts
 
Jay,
Yes, to keep us all honest and open minded, it would be great when you do the Connie video to label the dac's as demo A and demo B.  Right now, the people who think they know the characteristics of demo 1 and 2 will be biased going into the Connie video.  That includes me, and I want to have an open mind.
viber6
2,454 posts
 
chazzzy,
Your changing preferences parallel my experience on this A/B project.  This is a difficult exercise.  There is a large price difference and we all want to make sure we come to reliable conclusions.  Yet the differences between dac's are surprisingly small.  That's why we are having trouble deciding and voting.

I have felt for decades that digital component differences are much smaller than analog component differences.  Phono cartridges are transducers like speakers, and their differences are as great as speakers.  Digital technology is more sophisticated, and even budget CD players are excellent whereas budget MM cartridges are really bad compared to MC cartridges.  

On balance, we seem to agree that demo 2 has a richer, bolder, more dynamic sound compared to demo 1.  If you evaluate drums with their predominantly dynamic bass tonality, demo 2 is definitely more true to life.  But for upper midrange/HF instruments, or in the drum case, the subtle brushes and taps of the snare drum or cymbals where HF are important, I feel that demo 1 is slightly more accurate and lifelike.  In a large space, spatiality is fully revealed with more HF presence, which I believe is more accurately done with demo 1.

Guitars and pianos can be confusing to evaluate.  In a small room, they sound big and more bass dominant, so if someone likes the sound of those instruments in a small room, then demo 2 would be preferable.  But in a larger space, these instruments are more HF dominant and show their sparkle and brilliance, so demo 1 would be preferable.

For me, demo 1 is still my choice.

Regarding better amps, I did post that in the comparative videos, the Antileon is more accurate and lean than the Essence stereo.  I suggested to Jay that the Antileon would be better for this A/B than the Essence, but I guess he was already deep into the preparations so he stuck with the Essence.  I also think that eliminating the Pandora would produce even greater clarity, so using each dac direct would show the demo 1 and 2 differences even better.  Each dac has its own volume control and preamp stage, so SPL's can be matched that way.  I don't see the value of superimposing two preamp stages with the added veiling.  For those who like the extra dynamics from preamp stages, the XLF is efficient and dynamic enough so extra preamp stages shouldn't be needed.
viber6
2,454 posts
 
Jay,
Another issue to discuss which you mentioned is fatigue.  I see your point that a less revealing component lets you listen longer without fatigue.  But in my case, if I hear dull/veiled sound, I don't want to listen for any time at all.  If my power quality is poor, the sound is so veiled that I turn the system off after a few seconds, and just go on to non audio activities.  But when the system is exciting with great detail and revelation of the music, I am happy with just 20 min of listening.  Also, I have observed that extended listening gets you used to the sound, so exciting things initially have less excitement later.  This is true of live music as well.  Even with everyday experiences, when you first open the door and go outside, the first breath of fresh air and sunlight create the most impact.
viber6
2,454 posts
 
Jay,
I defer to your experience that Antileon has a darker bassier sound than Essence.  My only basis for comparison was your casual video of the Antileon with the phone mike.  I couldn't evaluate the bass, but did hear more focus in midrange/HF with the Antileon.

Right now with these A/B's, demo 1 and 2 are so close that with cable swapping, preferences could change. 

The stereo Mephisto was the best Gryphon amp you had.  It was nice that it only needed one power cord.  Try the stereo Boulder 1161 against the stereo Essence at similar modest prices.  The 1161 offers a decent amount of power and might be best bang for the buck.
viber6
2,454 posts
 
Funny, chazzzy is being accused of the same things as I.  Chazzzy and I get it.  As musicians, Chazzzy and I value clarity above everything else.  Musicians are trained to strive for the best clarity that our physical abilities will allow.  If demo 1 has greater clarity with more accurate DA conversion than demo 2 on A speakers and B amplifiers, it will have the same greater clarity and accurate DA conversion on C speakers and D amplifiers.  However, the people who want some ill-defined synergy will say that they may LIKE demo 1 on A speaker and C amp, but LIKE demo 2 on B speaker and D amp.  This may happen with the XLF, which some people hate for its hot tweeter.  They prefer to ease the XLF pain with the more rounded and less revealing demo 2.  They are not prioritizing clarity, but are seeking the lesser "evil" of the XLF with demo 2.  With Magico M6, they might choose the clarity of demo 1.

Still, it will be fun to repeat the A/B with the different mike and Connie amp.  I applaud this exercise, and I will likely come to the same conclusions.  So far, demo 1 for me.  However, if it changes to demo 2, one possibility is that since 1 and 2 are very close so far, random variations, or other unknown factors like sudden change in power quality may skew the results.
More to discover