Jay, please include a song you have previously presented on the XLF with the same electronics, dac, with the same either gold or silver bullet in the SR cable. There is a big difference between the gold and silver bullets. Then we can evaluate the new component. I thought the songs used in rounds 1,2,3 of the legendary dac shootout are excellent for demo, although the silver bullets were used. |
I said the sound was rounder, which is what the ARC tube preamp does, compared to the Pandora preamp you have used with the XLF. |
Nice clarity, obvious from the first note. I see the S 725 at the beginning, but whatever the identity is, this is a great recording to use for A/B/C/D 'ing the 4 preamps. |
I'll stick my neck out and say that the tonality of the last two videos is similar, so they both are the 725. I won't be surprised if I am wrong, since the recordings are different. |
Good clarity on the voice, snap on the opening percussion. It could be either the 725 or ARC which are both new preamps for the XLF. The clarity is primarily due to the XLF. Some euphony comes from the Constellation amps and the ARC preamp combo, and less euphony from Connie + 725. Guessing which preamp is in the last video is meaningless--only an A/B/C/D shootout will reveal the essential nature of each preamp, with everything else the same.
I believe the last preamp to appear is the battery one, which I am looking forward to hearing. |
Fair enough. You have learned everything you needed about Gryphon electronics, cables, in combination with different speakers. Time to move on, mainly to have the money for new things. Boulder had qualities such as more refinement and resolution that the Gryphons didn't have. Probably Soulution as well.
However, the XLF is unlikely to be replaced any time soon, because it beats any other speaker you have tried for all the qualities you value. You can use different cabling and amps to get whatever you want. No other speaker so far enables you to satisfy all your desires. You will be disappointed if you trade out of the XLF. You can still keep the journey alive with these ancillary components. The XLF is marriage material, as I said when you introduced it. The other stuff is just good relationships that come and go.
|
Jay,
The XVX and Master Chronosonics would be fun to hear live, but they might need a larger room than you have. Personally, I am hooked on the brilliant HF of the XLF, which is the unique achievement of Dave Wilson. I don't see how the XLF could be bettered for what you like. A good bargain to boot, lol.
Some reviews find Nagra euphonic. If this is true, they are a miniaturized version of expensive fine audio jewelry in the manner of D'ag. |
Can you think of a more perfect transducer than the plasma? Semantics--"purest" means the best in existence, not necessarily "perfect," Let's get practical. What driver principle is in your speakers?
It is easier to make accusations of "wrong" than to come up with advancements of real value.
|
Agree--the Naim Statement is a matched combo of the preamp and mono amps weighing what Jay says has arrived. The hifi+ review describes the type of sound that Jay likes--power, not sharp, suiting his concept of synergy with the XLF's. We'll see.
|
You can still let us hear the break in process while blocking the view of the preamp and amps. Boredom otherwise.
Pilium is a good possibility, although Naim is more likely, which everyone has heard of.
|
Best Buy=sound per dollar, or sound per pound, lol.
|
I suggest using the Gryphon amps which probably are more revealing of detail than Constellation amps. Still, the Connie will show the same relative ranking of the preamps as with the Gryphon.
DartZeel? Jay, you are a master showman of surprises and suspense. I like alliteration with s's. Let's listen to the sibilants also, lol. |
kren,
Since Jay didn't say "Nope" yet, I'll assume I am correct. He owned the Block amp around 2018 when you weren't yet here. If you were, you probably would have beaten me to the correct answer.
But if it is Block, Jay may not acknowledge it, and prefer that we listen and form our own judgments about the unknown. |
I GOT IT--Block Audio monos, plus their battery powered preamp. You loved the Block monos a few years ago for their ballsy power, so you aren't taking much risk on an obscure overseas brand you never heard. After the Block, you found that other amps had more delicacy, like Merrill Audio 118, and the ultimate for that--Boulder. But I bet that you are itching to hear how the ballsy bass of the XLF is further magnified by the Block. |
Right, too little bass with 725 + G makes no sense. Often power quality is unpredictable, which leads to variable findings. The scientific method requires repeated experiments, so if you come back to things at other times, and get the same results, you know there is incompatibility for sure, which is still unexplainable. Also, with new items, the sound can change markedly in the early stages, again leading to random findings. No doubt you love the 725 in the early stages, but don't be surprised if you come to different conclusions later. |
Interesting. What went wrong with the combo of 725 and Gryphon amps? Too much bass? Since you love the 725 clarity for voice, I would think that 725 + Gryphon amp had better clarity than Pandora + Gryphon amp. If you still have the G amps, maybe you can demonstrate 725 + G vs Pandora + G. If the G amps are gone, do the same for 725 + Constellation vs Pandora + Constellation. The soft ARC isn't even in the running. If Pandora is gone, we'll wait for the new battery preamp, which I believe is Block. |
OK, the thing you are passionate about, DEMONSTRATING what you find in your own carefully adjusted system of top level components that nobody else is doing, generates less revenue than just talking about it.
People in their work can make great incomes but not feel passionate about what they do. It's often just a mundane business selling consumer items, working for a company with lots of internal politics, etc. The fortunate ones LOVE what they do, not just in making money from it. If you are making a great living from your work, why not devote your YT channel to doing what you love?
In short, you earn good money from your regular job, but earn a smaller amount of money yet get lots of satisfaction from doing music shootouts. Anybody could talk about equipment, but your credibility is created by the great sound you display in shootouts. Talk is for the magazines, which is why their utility is limited. Readers don't know if the reviewer can create great sound, but you have proven yourself mainly from the shootouts. |
One commenter on your YT video said that the 725 + Mephisto had amazing detail with great recordings, but wore him out on ordinary recordings. Similarly, you might feel that the 725 provides "too much" detail, so you prefer the warmth of the Constellation with the 725. At this early stage, the 725 might be relatively dry, which is often accompanied by less quantity of bass. For me, I am looking for as much detail as possible to better understand my music, provided I keep the SPL reasonable. It is not that the 725 + Mephisto or other Gryphon are incompatible--it's just that you are presently more comfy with 725 + Connie. In time, you may appreciate the 725 more with accurate amps like Mephisto, Boulder, especially Soulution 700 series (not the more euphonic 500 series) if you can get a deal--already you love the voice with the 725.
40 years ago, I took refuge in tube equipment because early SS was lousy. As SS improved when I got a Spectral preamp and Krell amp, it took me only a brief period of time to appreciate that the much better detail of these SS pieces vastly outweighed the sweet pleasures of tubes. |
Jay,
The only preamp on your list to challenge the 725 would be Boulder 2110. The Pandora ranks moderately high--it will be interesting to hear it vs 725. The Merrill Christine is a special case of great clarity for the money. I remember that for detail, the Christine was very close to dac direct in your video. I recall you thought the Christine was a best buy. The main reservation you had about it was the cheap remote.
The others on your list are euphonic.
Kren, Jay found the ref 10 was euphonic compared to the ref 6SE, as I remember. |
The burning question for me is what are the benefits of battery power vs the intrinsic benefit of the electronics outside of the power supply. For example, the 725 probably has the most transparent electronics, but the new battery preamp has the advantage of power purity. What could the 725 do if it were designed with battery power? How about if it were used with the PS Audio Power Plant AC regenerator? BTW, what sonic effects did you find with the PS Audio?
Now is the appropriate time to do a shootout between the 725 and the battery preamp, or when you feel that both have broken in. |
After a 30 second listen, superb. Crisp, clear, probably due to the 725. What are the first two commenters on YT talking about when they say there is something wrong, sound not good at all? Huh? |
As Jay says, someone cleaned the windows and you can see clearly. Who wants to have dirty windows and wants to be a little blind? Anyone with impaired vision wants to get glasses to see better. Does anyone prefer not to get glasses or contacts or corrective LASIK, whatever? |
thezaks,
Dave, you have valid points about your preference to hear the guitar at 6-10 feet. That's related to the ideal distance you want to sit away from your speakers. Whatever distance that is, don't you better enjoy a recording that is clearer? How about a player who has more facile, accurate technique? Of course, we like different interpretations of the same music, but the player with clearer technique can communicate his moods better.
The question of preferences is nebulous and not the whole story. As children, we liked different sounds and wanted to study different instruments and types of music. Those were our preferences. Still, every musician wants to improve his technical skill and range of expression. He employs the ideal of clarity as a standard to better achieve any goal he wants. |
kren,
I have astigmatism and can only correct to 20/30 vision with glasses. That's good enough for most of my purposes, and I would never do an invasive, potentially harmful procedure like LASIK. I envy the person with 20/20 normal vision. But I have met some people with even better vision--20/10. I bet some people with normal 20/20 envy the ones with 20/10. The same for bodybuilding. I admire Jay's accomplishments in this area, and do the best I can with whatever time and energy I have to work out. If I try to do more, I get wiped out, so I have to settle.
Audio is much the same. Nobody has an unlimited budget for this. The key is to recognize what is most important to you, and spend money prudently. I believe that prioritizing clarity is the most important attribute that improves most other things like focus, separation, precise soundstage, coherent tonality. |
kren,
It is a good question to raise about whether a component is emphasizing one area of the freq spectrum and shortchanging the other end of the spectrum. Certainly a mini monitor speaker may emphasize the HF and reduce the bass. Then it is difficult to conclude that the speaker is showing better overall clarity. Evaluating electronics is easier, for a given speaker. One might say that the 725 emphasizes the HF and reduces bass, as Jay found with the Gryphon amps. But I have found that an accurate piece like the 725 will reduce QUANTITY of bass, but make it tighter. The higher freq overtones of the bass fundamental will be more accurately revealed, AND bass information will be more revealed even if it is reduced in quantity. Gradually the listener gets used to this, and realizes that the accurate electronics reveals all frequencies better, benefitting all instruments. I agree with the factual observations of most of the commenters, although I disagree with the interpretations of the few who say the 725 is bad. Time will tell as the 725 breaks in and we hear more songs we know. A/B'ing the 725 with the latest preamp on the same amp, whether Constellation or the new monos will be instructive. |
I listened to the whole video. The 3rd song is obviously highly processed and canned, which the 725 reveals. Yes, I understand the criticism from the few who say the sound is too dry and bright. That's the fault of the recordings, esp the 3rd. The engineers are catering to the young kids with rolled off HF in their speakers, who boost HF AND bass in order to impress. Too bad Jay isn't familiar with naturally recorded classical music, which some commenter requested. Still, the nice recordings we already know will be interesting to hear. And the 725 may change with break in. |
pokey,
I didn't say that preferences are childish. In fact, we both believe that it is proper to have preferences. The issue is what criteria or standards one uses to form the preferences. You and ricred1 say that there are no absolutes in audio, only preferences. Let me illustrate with a hypothetical story why I think that carried to the extreme, this is not really correct, or at least is partially but not completely correct.
At an audio club, you meet a friendly guy who likes the same song as you. You are curious about how the song sounds on his system. He plays this song on an old fashioned FM tuner whose station he knew would program this song at the time you meet. He tunes the radio between the station and the adjoining one to create huge amounts of static. He says, "man, I love the static which makes the music sound good to me." You say, "but the static completely obscures the words, so the system at this moment is completely unmusical and distorted." He says, "there are no absolutes, only preferences. You want to hear the words, but I want to hear the static. Both preferences are equally valid--there are no absolutes." He has good hearing, which you can briefly objectively test, but he still maintains that anything goes, as long as one prefers it that way.
OK, this is an extreme situation, but lesser degrees of bad sound are common. He could play the song on his CD player which has no static. But he is using an old tube amp whose tubes have drifted way off spec, and the words are still muddy compared to what you are used to on your more accurate/revealing system. The same conversation unfolds--he says, "I like NOT being able to hear half the raunchy words in that song, but you say, "I want to hear as much as possible of what the singer intended, good or bad."
Who is right, you or he? Do you still say that he is right, since there are no absolute standards and anything goes? I maintain that in order to have your preferences, you have your own standards. Are these standards totally subjective without any objectivity? Some people like systems with more deep bass, because they believe that for some music with deep bass content, reproducing deep bass is essential. That is objectively true which is an example of some absolute truth. More generally, everyone has had great moments of discovery and exclaimed, "boy, that sounds REAL." That means REAL, not merely good or great, which is a subjective preference. Now, you will counter and say, "real to THEM," as if to imply that it is totally subjective without any absolute basis in reality. NO, there IS a basis in reality, as the quick recognition of something truthful appears. If you hear some music in the street with your eyes closed, you can usually tell whether it is unamplified live, or an audio system. How and why? Because your ear makes fairly quick judgments, based on reality. The confusion lies in the fact that no system is perfect. It is natural that there are different opinions about what aspect of it comes closest to the reality. I like to hear the transients of an instrument, others like to hear the body of that instrument. Actually, we all like both the transients and the body, but we differ in our preferences of each attribute. Those of us who seek high fidelity as the standard will disagree about which system best conveys it, but at least there is agreement that there IS an ABSOLUTE SOUND, an expression capitalized on by Harry Pearson. But those who say that system building is only about preferences without absolutes are saying that anything goes without any reference to reality.
One day, speakers will get much better and sound very close to reality with more careful ancillary component matching. Then there will be more agreement as to which systems are much closer to reality than others. At present, with so many mediocre systems, reality is a pipe dream, so many people naturally don't even try to obtain high fidelity and are content with merely getting sounds that please them. |
ricred1,
Harry Pearson defined "the absolute sound" as the reality of what sounds are heard in a concert hall, with characteristics of depth, R/L separation, tonality, etc. I don't restrict myself to the concert hall, but I recognize the sounds of instruments and voices in various rooms and at various distances. My system differs from what HP had over the years, although I was inspired by his writings on Maggies. We had different preferences, but if we had met, we would have agreed that the true reference is the sound of live, unamplified instruments under different conditions. I agree with everyone who says there are preferences, because I have my own. But my point is that to say that there are no "absolutes" in audio is not accurate, although there is a little truth to that statement due to the variations in sound of these real instruments under various conditions. The audiophile can choose whether he wants to achieve some form of high fidelity, which is reference to some type of "absolute sound," OR whether his preferences are totally arbitrary, unrelated to reality but still pleasing.
In art, there are old master paintings which tried to convey a photographic reality, and painters were judged on how realistic their art was. The great old masters employed subtle variations which were "artful" distortions of literal photographic images. More modern artists like Picasso deviated more from reality, but still their shapes were reminiscent of reality. More avant garde abstract works have no reference to reality, and are appreciated as pure abstract creations. All forms of art can be appreciated equally for what they are.
Although I agree that a good audio system is a skillful combination of components, the audio system is not an intrinsic art form like abstract art where anything goes, unconnected to reality. Those like me who seek high fidelity want to let the music speak for itself, which is best achieved by seeking clarity and transparency. So I say that there ARE various absolutes or principles in audio systems. For the lover of deep bass music, a full range speaker with or without a subwoofer is required in accordance with the reality of the bass instruments. For the lover of brilliant HF percussion, extended HF drivers and appropriate electronics like Soulution are best.
You can uphold the concept of the absolute sound, and still have different preferences based on your favorite music, different room sizes, etc. For those who have homes with several audio rooms, a mini monitor would be best in a small room or even a moderate sized room with small scale music. A large room for large orchestral and organ music needs a larger speaker. Basic audio consulting utilizes these approximate "absolute" truths. To be fair minded, these "truths" should be considered as "principles" or "guidelines." I only take issue with your blanket statement that there are NO absolutes. Maybe you agree that there are principles/guidelines, to be somewhat modified by each listener in accordance with his perceptions. But to deny the existence of principles/guidelines invites anyone to create an arbitrary concoction of sounds. Then he wonders why he is unhappy and goes off randomly trying anything that looks enticing, spending money and time endlessly.
As a violinist, I have played with other violinists whose tastes in violins are different from mine. For their style of playing, whatever violin that enables them to express themselves best, is fine. Still, for ensemble playing there has to be some consistency of musical concept, or else the musical message falls apart from the friction among players. I make a distinction here between the art of music making, and the superimposed "art" of random colorations of audio systems not based in reality. |
The 3rd song, Freya Ridings, "Lost without you" sounds immediate and clear, largely due to the XLF. I cannot ascribe the great sound to either the new preamp or G Essence, but only remember how veiled it was with your former Wilson speaker, whichever that was. The voice and especially the piano were murky before, now fine.
I realize that the 725 and the new preamp are young, so a careful A/B now is not worthwhile. The G Essence might be gone when you are ready for the A/B, so it will be done with either the Constellation or the new mono amps. Since you are tired of the popular songs, "Lost" and the Tracy 2nd song can be used as new A/B material. The opening of Tracy has good HF percussion sounds that are useful for demo. |
Another possibility is that the XLF is so good that any top tier electronics sound good with it. Different sounds with each preamp, but both are great. Even ordinary recordings are enjoyable. The defects of the recordings are heard, but you don't care because the music is revealed more. BTW, Freya Ridings (the 3rd song) has so much more pathos and emotion now that the system reveals all of it better. A revealing system is not just for showing off sparkle from hot HF percussion, but it enables better appreciation of emotional nuances from the singer.
With the 725, I am surprised how even with the euphonic Constellation, there is excellent clarity. Now that you are getting used to the 725, you might enjoy it with the G Essence more than you did in the beginning. If the 725 is already broken in and just needs a warmup before critical listening, it may turn out that any amp can be used with it, with benefits of clarity and neutrality in any system. It may possibly be added to my list of absolute truths--the 725 has the general quality of bringing out clarity in any system. Same goes for the new preamp, for bringing out its own special assets in any system.
|
Nice improvement in the lighting. Maximum quality for me is only 1080. 240 is blurry.
|
Ah, thanks for your explanation. This iMac is from 2011. My other iMac is from 2015. I'll try that, but the screen looks outwardly the same, so I doubt it is 4k.
|
Nice discussion of the G Essence. It seems to be among the very best balanced combination of everything you like. So how about trying the 725 with it again, now that the 725 is broken in and you are used to that? Inna and I thought the G Essence monos were significantly better than the stereo--still not too crazy expensive.
If you have an efficient speaker like the XLF, the low powered amp will have enough power, and more quality and accuracy than the higher powered amp of the line. For example, every higher powered Bryston I've tried is mediocre, but my lower power Bryston 2.5B SST2 is the most accurate amp I have heard. Higher power requires more transistors and circuitry which lead to risk of mismatches and consequently more distortion, even if the specs don't tell. So don't fall for a G Essence 150 watter just yet. |
Jay,
I wasn't comparing Bryston to Gryphon. I implied that both companies illustrate that quality of sound is more important than quantity of power. Yes, higher power Bryston is truly mediocre for quality--agree. But since you have not heard the low power Bryston 2.5B SST2, you can't comment on that. Pass is another company whose low power amps are more accurate than higher power amps, although I base this statement only on reviews I have read. Years ago, Steve brought over the Luxman M600A, a 30 watt class A amp, 60 at 4 ohms, 120 at 2 ohms, 240 at 1 ohm--high quality. After a month of listening, I thought It was reasonably accurate, not euphonic the way the M900u amp has been described, although I never heard the latter.
Up until now, you have believed that high power is a must for quality. Your assessment of the G Essence is a milestone for you, showing that quality is what is more important. If a company uses the same high quality standard for parts in their low power and higher power amps, then the low power amp with the fewest number of parts and shortest signal path will have more purity and lower distortion. Higher power is only needed for relatively inefficient speakers and for certain loud music.
Mephisto is a different design for a higher standard of accuracy, so its higher power than Essence is like comparing apples to oranges. Yet its 175 watts sounds as powerful as much higher power amps. Perhaps its supreme accuracy and revelatory qualities allow it to have more impact and startle factor than would be predicted from its medium power. I probably would find the Mephisto the best of the Gryphons at present. |
My Bryston 2.5B SST2 is rated 135 watts/ch into 8 ohms, 180 into 4. Its power supply is weak, and a tech told me privately it does 90 into 2, and I estimated from my tests about 40 into 1. Still, on chamber music at 75 dB, it has enough power driving my 75 dB efficient electrostatic speakers. Its purity/quality is supreme for this music, but I am searching for a higher power amp for more dynamic music. My Mytek Brooklyn Amp does 300 watts into any load, and I can play most any music I enjoy. On its way is the Rouge Audio IceEdge 1200 AS1, a 600/1200 watt stereo, which I will report on.
The XLF is 92 dB efficient. Most of the songs Jay has played are not very dynamic. At 82 dB, he is using a fraction of 1 watt. It would be great if he tried Pass First Watt amps. Nelson Pass has said that an amp's quality at very low power is most critical, and I agree. There are different First Watt models with different sonic signatures, and I believe Jay would have a good time with some of these. They are very cheap, and could do well on the XLF with lots of music. |
Missing in the last few posts is a quantitative appreciation of what different music demands. On the big end of the dynamic scale, the 92 dB efficient XLF at comfortable 110 dB peaks requires only 100 watts to control all the drivers. Allow for a factor of 5 to get plenty of headroom--you get 500 watts to produce controlled 110 dB, and 50 watts for 100 dB. That explains how Jay found that the G Essence's quality 50 watts/8 ohms or 100 watts/4 or 200 watts/2 is plenty of quality power to satisfy anyone in a room his size. The XLF may dip into about 2-3 ohms at low freq, where the doubling of power capability with each halving of impedance load is an advantage of the G amps. So I agree that my Bryston with its poor power supply would be at a disadvantage for loud music compared to any of the Gryphons. That's why I am looking for a higher power amp for my 75 dB speakers that still provides the clarity of my Bryston at low levels. Still, my Bryston puts out 180 watts into 4, and 90 into 2 ohms. Divide 90 by 5, so at 18 watts it could produce quality 100 dB from the XLF in the bass, with the 90 watts providing plenty of headroom.
On the other hand, subtle details of spaciousness, airiness are heard at 20-40 dB. When you enjoy loud dynamic sections of the music, you aren't listening to low level details, which are drowned out by the loudness. That's why many class AB amps sound good. They may provide pure class A up to 5 watts, and class AB or B at higher power. Louder music is enjoyable in class AB or B, because you aren't hearing and don't need the low level purity of class A. On the XLF, 20 to 40 dB requires a mere 10 to the minus 7, to 10 to the minus 5 of 1 watt, or 0.1 microwatts for 20 dB, and 10 microwatts for 40 dB. That is an illustration of what Nelson Pass says about the importance of the first watt.
There are many amps that double in power capability with every halving of impedance load, and some all the way down to 1 ohm, but that is merely one of many specifications that don't directly correlate with sound quality. An audio system is not a car which is judged by the power of its engine. Even for a car, the many aspects of its handling are determined by more design factors than the power of the engine. |
One factor I forgot to consider is that loud bass requires more than 100 dB SPL's, due to human ear sensitivity at various freq. In the midrange and HF, sustained 100 dB is almost painfully loud, but in the bass, 100 dB is not that loud. So for realistic levels for deep bass music, Jay and Kren are right that high power from amps with excellent power supplies is best. For other music without much deep bass, and especially for music at moderate SPL's, and for appreciating low level detail, the quality of an amp is much more important than quantity of power. It is interesting that Jay found that the moderate power G Essence gives better overall results than the higher power Antileon, unless someone really wants the relatively euphonic sound of the Antileon. |
Right. Magico cones are stiffer than Harbeth's. But no dynamic driver cones are as rigidly controlled as electrostatic membranes which are in a tight, narrow sandwich between stators. The drawback of electrostatic membranes is the smaller excursion which limits macrodynamics. Rigid control and lowest mass give electrostatics the highest accuracy and lowest coloration within their dynamic limits.
|
Excellent clarity on all the songs with the 725 even with the dark Antileon (relative to Essence) and the euphonic Constellation. Let's hear the 725 with Essence. The 725 is likely much clearer than your other preamps, so it takes getting used to. Probably you would like the 725 + Essence much more than you did before.
Accept the more processed 80's songs, as long as you like the music. Superior resolution and lack of coloration of the 725 enables appreciation of the good qualities of each recording. The flaws can be ignored. |
Medical scams are as prevalent as high priced audio scams. Take it from me--I'm in the medical field and have been through the audio scams as well. Everyone wants to make money at what they sell. The honest way to make money is to have the patient's interest foremost, earn their trust, and then attract more patients based on this record.
First, get the proper diagnosis. Just because the MRI shows herniated discs doesn't mean that the anatomic findings correlate with your pain or other symptoms. (Sounds familiar--specs on the amp don't have a strict correlation with sound quality). To establish correlation, see a neurologist, do the nerve conduction velocity and other tests, to see if the abnormalities in the nerve tests correspond to the specific herniated disc. You have FOUR herniated discs, so how does any doctor know which disc(s) should get surgery? DO THE NERVE TESTS. In the old days, a great neurologist would do a careful exam, and establish the correlation without doing the tests. Today, they do the tests to make more money, although also to more firmly establish the correlation for legal reasons. The only time surgery for herniated discs is absolutely necessary is if the nerve to the muscle is being pinched and then the muscle is atrophied. You have to restore strength to the muscle, so you do the surgery. In the appropriate cases, surgery is dramatically successful and worth the risks. But the risks are obvious--inadvertent collateral damage, scar tissue years later, etc.
Maintaining muscle strength is important, but it can be done at my moderate level of routine fitness. At your advanced level, you are pushing the envelope and risk further injury.
If it is established that the herniated discs are the root cause of your symptoms, there are alternatives to surgery. First, lose a little weight. I study your body as carefully as I listen to your videos. You are well built, but your veins don't show as prominently as compared to pro body builders in the magazines. So I estimate you could lose about 20 lbs of fat. Do the body fat analysis at the gym or with a body fat scale you can buy at Bed Bath Beyond, etc. The goal is 15% for the non athlete or 10% for the advanced body builder. Second, talk to the orthopedist/sports medicine guy/surgeon about inversion tables. The table straps you in so you can "stand on your head" which takes the weight off the herniated discs. Over time, people with routine back pain feel better, but I don't have much experience with people with herniated discs. Lately, there are commercials for tryTeeter.com.
It is worth seeing holistic MD's or DO's about prolotherapy, platelet rich plasma, stem cells for healing. Get Dr. David Brownstein's book on "Ozone: The Miracle Therapy." I met Brownstein in 2008. He has a chapter on orthopedics and has used ozone to treat several problems ranging from routine back pain to herniated discs. He practices in Michigan. You can see him on youtube.
Maybe you will be attracted to smaller lighter amps, like my IceEdge which is arriving Mon. Sometimes I think that you like heavy amps because they help build your muscles! |
Wilderness, thanks for your experience and other helpful tips.
Jay,
Also, your joint pains are another problem not directly related to the herniated discs. Several different doctors are needed to determine the cause of all your symptoms--orthopedist, neurologist, neurosurgeon, rheumatologist (arthritis specialist). For the back problems, the teeter.com site mentions several back conditions that are helped by the product, including herniated discs. The 28 min video contains an endorsement by an elderly neurosurgeon. In my experience, most people"s back pain is NOT caused by herniated discs. You will be pissed if you jump for surgery and you still have the problem, or new problems. Get careful diagnoses.
Regarding joint pains, this is an inflammatory condition. You will benefit from Dr. Peter Osborne's book, "No grain, no pain." This is a catchy title as a takeoff from the well-known dictum of body building, "no pain, no gain." Basically, eating a high carb diet including grains such as wheat causes inflammation. I consider Osborne a leading expert on gluten free eating. He is stricter than me, and advises NO grains at all. However, I advise being gluten and dairy free, but permit healthy carbs in small amounts like quinoa, beans, lentils, potatoes, carrots, squash, taro, cassava. Sugars from beverages are a NO NO. Alcohol irritates the stomach and intestinal lining which causes "leaky gut" which is the gateway to widespread body inflammation. No matter what the cause of the pain is--trauma, arthritis, orthopedic/neurologic problems--an anti-inflammatory diet improves things. Extra fat creates inflammatory chemicals called adipose cytokines (adipokines), so getting lean and mean is most important and good for general health.
Best wishes. |
No quick fix for anything that allows one to abuse the body. Prostheses have limited life span. Bad materials, implants can cause autoimmune disease not realized in early research. Big Pharma has failed miserably in curing Alzheimer's dementia. There is no magic bullet for this. Prevention with exercise, healthy diet and nutrients is most important. Testosterone is important for optimum mental as well as physical performance. Growth hormone (GH) is necessary as we age--by age 40 it is much more diminished than testo. But the medical establishment has stigmatized both testo and GH because of abusively high doses used by body builders, making them difficult to get for appropriate doses through most doctors.
|
Jay,
A big question is how strong do you want to be. We should all try to be as strong as possible, but in order to get there, it is important not to get hurt in the process. If you severely hurt yourself, then your body building journey is over, and you wind up being crippled either by injuries or unintended mishaps from surgery. A goal of safe living is to NEVER have physical pain, which causes stress and shortens your lifespan. Hopefully you can consider judicious procedures as did JMeyers, but get proper diagnosis first, and implement general healthy practices.
I was never comfortable doing bench presses, but liked the upright chair doing the same movements. I haven’t been back to the gym due to covid. I am happy doing the equivalent pushups, although that is equivalent to doing the bench press with half the weight. I find a park to do chin-ups. Instead of leg presses, I climb 6 flights of stairs in my building by 2 steps at a time. None of this is as effective as using gym machines, but good results can be attained. I never met or saw anyone who can make a nickel in body building, so be careful to not let your ego cause you to get hurt.
|
rh67,
I salute your service, courage, and determined will to make the best of your life, including enjoying audio. Look into holistic treatments like prolozone, platelet rich plasma, stem cells. Frank Shallenberger, MD in Nevada is a great resource. Listen to Dr. Christopher Calapai of NY, drcal.net. Read Dr. David Brownstein's book, "Ozone, the miracle therapy." He describes his success for some types of back pain--sciatica, spinal stenosis--with carefully placed ozone injections. |
zprr,
You're right about focusing on audio equipment, but this digression about Jay's health shows that we care about his and others' well being. The greatest sound is not too enjoyable when someone is in pain. I sit in my chair with my neck flexed forward to hear the best sound, but if I had a neck operation which limited my mobility, I wouldn't hear the optimal sound. |
pokey77,
I heard the Luxman M600A at home. It had good clarity with only a little euphonics. It was remarkable how well this 30 watt/8, 60/4, 120/2, 240/1 drove my very inefficient speakers. It may have clipped gently so I didn't hear that. At way less than $10K, I thought it was good value for sound quality. I never heard D'ag at home, but from what Jay describes, I would rank this particular Luxman higher than D'ag for clarity/neutrality. Steve rated Luxman higher than Pass for clarity/neutrality. I just got my Rouge Audio IceEdge 1200 amp for way under $2K, and will report on it honestly after some break in. No customs charges from Italy--amps are duty-free, nice.
Ultra high end to Jay means expensive, mainly. There ARE expensive amps that I would probably like, such as Soulution, but there are many more that I wouldn't like. Same goes for cheap stuff. Money has only a small correlation with sound quality. I don't like the term, "ultra" high end. To me, "high end" means the designer listens to his product in a well set up room with different speakers and other components, as we do. "Low end" is just a quick design according to specs and budget, without the listening evaluation, but with the bells and whistles to appeal to the masses. There are high end audiophiles like students who care about music and sound. They assemble nice systems on a low budget. |
Part 1 is useful advice in general. Even if talking about your experience is appreciated, please don't stop doing A/B videos. On the video, you were vague about how the XS amps are better than the point 8 series. You say Pass is tubelike in general, but at the start you said that the XS series is strong in clarity and detail. When you owned the XS300 and XS150, this was before you did YT videos. Now that you do music videos, this would help listeners hear the differences for themselves to see whether they agree with your findings.
The legendary dac shootout between MSB and DCS Rossini was more informative for me than your descriptions of your findings. You and I mostly agreed on the objective differences, but sometimes I was confused about your descriptions. When many people posted their findings, I found the collective wisdom more useful than any one person. That was because we all listened to the actual music A/B's, going back and forth. So even if your more authoritative descriptions of what you heard in your room were informative, people could hear the actual music videos on various computer systems, headphones or speakers.
"A picture is worth a thousand words," and for music, the proof is in the listening. |
Jay,
I totally understand and respect your need to monetize your work, and you have the right strategy for doing that--more talking, fewer shootouts. In my medical office, I often give a patient extra time for the same amount of money for a visit, because they need more time, or because I am personally interested in them. The patient may be a body builder, and I relate my experiences with that. The extra time is like I'm with a friend enjoying myself, so I don't mind giving him extra time. But then he thanks me for the extra time, tells his acquaintances and friends what I offer, and that helps my total business.
Suppose you totally stopped doing shootouts from a pure "maximize your income, minimize your time" point of view. Viewers would not know what your system sounds like, to support your verbal claims, although they could always go back to the past record on YT. After some time, your insights would merely be one man's opinion, and wouldn't carry the same clout. Remember that you got your YT reputation based on your music videos. An example is the rapid increase in numbers of subscribers AFTER you did the MSB/DCS shootout.
Perhaps a good compromise would be to present ONE video doing a shootout for a major component change, such as an A/B between preamps on your choice of power amp. For this one video, choose brief 1-2 minutes of 1-3 well recorded songs with voices, brilliant percussion and other instruments. I believe that a preamp has its basic character no matter what the amp, so you don't have to waste time doing it again with other amps to come to much the same conclusions. Cables have much less differences, so it isn't worth your time to do shootouts between cables. Your verbal report would be good enough for that. |
Right. There are pictures of the product being reviewed in the magazines, and some sincere competent reviewers like Mike Fremer who claim they have lived with the product for months. For all the thorough testing they do, backed up by measurements by John Atkinson and manufacturer's comments, they have never demonstrated that they actually get great sound to corroborate their claims. There's where you have the advantage, which is showing the great sound you get from music videos.
I have seen eminent elderly violin masters give advice by talking, but if they are out of practice and cannot demonstrate by playing, they are not as useful as the masters who can talk and play. You can do both, according to your time, which I appreciate. |
At 10 hours of break in, my new Rouge Audio Studio N-10DM IceEdge 1200 is excellent. Powerful, neutral, detailed. I rate it 9/10. $1700 delivered from Italy including my option of WBT speaker connectors, better XLR's. If I spend $600 for Ric's mods, that's a $2300 gamble, since resale value is questionable. Even a total loss limits total risk. If someone values clarity/neutrality, this is a no-brainer and a keeper even as a reference, even if not absolutely SOTA. More to report after 400 hours of the recommended break in. |
