ricevs,
Nice quote from your happy customer. At this moment, with 20 hours of break in at only 70 dB maximum for full small orchestra and most of the time at 30-50 dB, I rate my Rouge close to a 10 for delicate detail. With clarity like this, it is actually relaxing to hear so much of the music at a low SPL. Maybe I am having a lucky day with power quality.
I entertained the idea of getting a second amp and A/B'ing your modded amp with the original. Meanwhile, maybe you can be specific with each stock amp a customer sends you, compare to your mods after break in, noting the specific sonic ways your amp is better. |
rh67,
You have confirmed my belief that for sound quality, lower power amps are better than higher power amps of the same company. Jay found the lowest power Gryphon Essence to be the best G. He should try to find a Pass XA25 which would be enough to satisfy on the XLF for most music. |
Jay,
Some commenter on your video said that Nelson Pass is designing the new First Watt amps, leaving the old Pass sound behind. Try the higher power First Watt, still low power, but enough for quality music on the XLF. |
vini234,
Going WAY back, I had the Electrocompaniet original 25 watt/ch stereo, called "the two channel amplifier." It had good clarity, but was somewhat warm compared to my next amp, JVC M-7050. Reading reviews and speaking to a dealer, the newer Electro amps are good but with a warm character. I heard the Luxman M600A and found it more accurate than my original Electro. I never heard the Luxman 900 package, but surmise it is more accurate than Electro. I recommend you probably should stick with Luxman. I agree with Jay's assessment of Pass. Stay with Luxman. Actually, I have a guarded recommendation of my under $2K Rouge Audio as THE best value, and possibly near SOTA. Today, the sound is less sharp than yesterday, and sounds neutral with good clarity. Follow my break in journey with this one. |
zprr,
Reasonable definitions. Judiciously using an EQ such as my Rane ME 60 has enabled me to change tonalities according to the deficiencies of the speaker, recording, amp. If the sound is too warm, I lower 200-800 Hz to decrease warmth which is to say increase coolness. With less flexible tone controls of some preamps this can still be done. Lowering up to 1000 Hz allows higher freq to be more dominant--this is often a more gentle/tasteful way to achieve more HF brilliance without going over the top with HF boost.
For those closed minded people who disparage EQ, understand that the engineers liberally use EQ in your favorite recordings. If you don't like their choices, you can do your own EQ to achieve your desired sound. You may not have to sell your electronics at 50% loss. Read the glowing latest Stereophile review of the Accuphase DG-68 digital voicing equalizer. But even the reviewer doesn't fully realize the utility of EQ in different freq ranges and has much to learn. |
MrDecibel said, "Dynamics, fast detailed transients and smooth natural decay ( what you hear at live, uncompressed, non amplified performances ), ime, can only be produced by horn loaded loudspeakers."
I mostly agree, and that applies to loud SPL's especially. But for SPL's at 20-80 dB or so, electrostatics are king for resolution and fine detail. Horns are king among dynamic drivers. Avantgarde is my favorite low coloration horn speaker, although I haven't heard newer companies' horns. Horns allow low power amps, which are more likely to be SOTA than megawatt powerhouses with lots of parts.
|
Entertaining, Jay. Make recordings of the ocean at various distances, then play them back on your system when you return. A unique opportunity. |
Jay,
How do you lift the heavy boxes into your high SUV seats? I can lift heavy dumbbells off the floor, but am frustrated by bulky boxes. Can you recommend a good hand truck that can help with the lifting? Recently someone posted a hydraulic lifter that can lift 600 lbs, but the lifter itself weighs 178 lbs, a catch 22. |
Pokey77 liked the Nagra Classic in a system, and Logydoghan found Nagra Classic more neutral and transparent than Gryphon Essence. Neutrality and transparency allow the character of other components such as speakers to be heard more truthfully. It doesn't matter which speakers are used by amp designers. An accurate amp will make any speaker and the whole audio system sound more accurate/transparent. Nagra has a top reputation in pro audio for accuracy. I got great results in my recording activities with my Parasonic DAT pro recorder, but I lusted for the open reel Nagra-D digital recorder which was $25K in 1995. Before digital, Nagra electronics and analog recorders were top rated by pros. |
Logydoghan,
Yes, get the best speaker you can afford, which is not necessarily the most costly. The Wilson XVX, Master Chronosonic are too big for some rooms. I like the brilliant HF of the XLF, so even with a large room, the XLF might be the best performer. It also has the largest bass drivers of the top Wilsons, so bass could be most commanding on the XLF compared to the others. |
Interesting comments by Jay on the XLF. Kren0006 and I had a debate about what was responsible for the more brilliant HF on the XLF vs Alexx. Jay just reaffirmed that the XLF tweeter is probably not responsible, but more likely the crossover design is the main factor. For whatever the reason, the XLF is clearly (pun intended) more brilliant than the Alexx in HF.
I understand the position of thezaks that the Alexx + Boulder electronics sound better than XLF + lesser electronics. Somewhat an apples/oranges comparison, because on videos of the same speaker, the Boulder was demonstrated to be more detailed and neutral than the Gryphon Mephisto, esp noted by mrdecibel at the time. I then posted A/B videos of the Alexx and XLF on the same song, and admitted that the Alexx was not far behind the midrange/HF detail and clarity of the XLF. It is obvious that the XLF bass is totally more commanding than the Alexx bass.
Way back, I posted that my Rane EQ used with any large Wilson could provide superiority in many sonic criteria to that of the flagship speakers such as the Chronosonics but without the EQ. No, the EQ could not let the Alexx have the same large scale of the XLF, XVX and flagship Master Chronosonic, but for important midrange/HF detail and clarity, EQ can greatly enhance any of these great speakers. The effect of EQ is much larger than the relatively subtle differences between great amps. Still, I go for the most transparent electronics and use my EQ to improve things further.
Jay, one point of disagreement. If you are playing the XLF at 82 dB with peaks up to 100 dB, the 90+ dB of efficiency will need only 0.1 watts most of the time, and less than 100 watts on the peaks. This is true outside the low bass, where hearing sensitivity is much less, so 1000 watts are needed for loud 120 dB low bass peaks. Spaciousness is best enjoyed at moderate SPL's, so you found the 50 watt Gryphon Essence to be all anyone would need. I believe the explanation for your findings about increased spaciousness from the higher power amps is that these amps have that type of intrinsic sound quality at both low and high power. Even a modest 100 watt ARC tube amp would provide lots of spaciousness that would be different from the accurate/focused type of sound from Boulder or other SS amps. The same enhanced spaciousness might apply to euphonic amps like Luxman, D'Ag. For 40 years I have observed this dichotomy between euphonic amps with their increased spaciousness but sacrificed clarity, and transparent/detailed amps which emphasize clarity at the price of spaciousness, depth. |
Jay,
I still disagree about the explanation for the increased spaciousness with high power amps. Rh67 just said that 300 watt class D amps don’t give the weight he wants. This illustrates that power alone doesn’t bring certain sonic qualities. You probably wouldn’t like certain 300 or even 1000 watt class D amps on the XLF or other speakers. Remember how the mere 175 watt Mephisto gave plenty of what you like on the Alexx. It would do even better on the somewhat more efficient XLF. I suspect that the new undisclosed amp (Block Audio?) is not super high power, but it has the qualities you seek. In summary, it is not high power by itself--it is the intrinsic quality and character of the amp. |
everestaudio,
ML electrostatics drop to below 1 ohms in HF. Mono M900u may have trouble driving low impedances and might be unstable, so the stereo M900u would probably be better. The ML hybrids have good efficiency, so the stereo would work well for the panels. |
Nothing to do with class A or AB. One of my first amps was a modified Dyna Stereo 70 tube amp--35 W/ch. It had classic tube sound--big, dynamic, full, rolled off HF, midrange/bass dominant. A friend got me into my first SS amp, a JVC M7050, 150W/ch, a "super A" class A imitation. This introduced me to SS detailed accuracy in the form of brilliant HF, tight controlled but wimpy bass. Its detail across the freq range taught me that the tube amp was bloated/veiled by comparison. These two amps were at opposite extremes in sound character. Today's SS amps aren't as vastly different, but the same principle applies that some amps are designed for "brute force, control, soundstage" as you say, and others are designed for delicate focused accuracy without the grunt. This pertains to both low and high power amps of class A, AB, D.
We both lived with the Merrill Element GaN class D--I with the 114, you with the 118. I compared the Merrill Veritas to the 114. The 114 had the big, bold dynamic rounded tube-like sound, and the Veritas was more neutral/delicate, much like my Mytek Brooklyn Amp. This illustrates that there is no such thing as "class D" sound. Class D designs vary as much as Class A or AB designs. Every amp has its unique character. |
As RIAA says, newer isn't necessarily better. Engineers all have their own sonic preferences, so what they think is better for them may not apply to someone else's preferences and standards. The technical/marketing dept throws in all kinds of technical gibberish that is not understood by most audiophiles, and other engineers may laugh at this specious technobabble as nonsense. Examples in my experience--Bryston Cubed is warmer than SST2--Cubed not my preference. The revision of the Mytek Brooklyn Amp was claimed to be faster than the original, but my listening comparison showed that the original was slightly faster and more detailed. They were close. |
Jay,
Another point getting back to the high power issue. The Merrill Veritas is 400/700/1200W, Merrill 114 is 200/400/800W. Both are high power amps with excellent power supplies. Yet the 114 sounds more powerful/dynamic than the Veritas at low and high power. So these specs are meaningless in explaining the different sound character of each. Can we make generalizations about the character of the Hypex NC1200 module used in the Veritas vs the GaN circuit of the 114? Hypex amps sound different from each other, and GaN is too young to draw any conclusions. As ricevs says, it is all about the implementation. |
Logydoghan,
I challenge you to find a more revealing, neutral and startling lifelike speaker than the L'il Audio Silver 8 on that video. You would have to prove your points by recording the same music on another speaker so we could A/B. The bass is not as powerful as the XLF, but detail/resolution on the Silver 8 is obvious, even if I don't know the music played.
You noted the superior transparency and neutrality of the Nagra Classic amp compared to the Gryphon Essence. I challenge you to try the Benchmark AHB2 amp. I almost bought it a few years ago, and believe it will be a good fight with the Nagra. I am not so impressed with my Benchmark DAC1. My Sony complete CD player has more snap than the Sony as a transport feeding the Benchmark DAC1. The problem may be the digital interconnect cable. Even D'Agostino at Krell said way back that integral CD players were the way to go. |
YES--everyone should listen to ricevs' video on the L'il Audio Silver 8 $3K system. I think it is THE BEST dynamic speaker presented in this thread, for clarity/neutrality. Whether it beats the XLF in these areas, I don't know. Recently I challenged Jay to record the same music on his XLF so we could compare. How come there were no comments from others on that speaker when ricevs originally posted it? Very few people here have the money for XLF and expensive amps and stuff. I see a longstanding offer for the XLF at $119K. Yes, it is a great speaker, and Soulution 700 series amps are great, but few have the money, and sellers take a beating.
Jay, visit the LSA Voyager GaN thread which is very active and exciting. Most of my recent posts are on that thread. |
Logydoghan,
Expensive cars have more engineering and better performance in every way than cheaper cars. In audio, there is MUCH less correlation of performance with money. Most audiophiles have insufficient exposure to, and knowledge of, unamplified live music, so the high end designers take advantage of ignorance and put out mostly overpriced stuff that are poor attempts at high fidelity. Even Jay admitted on a recent video that most amps are overpriced. But anyone can perceive the performance of cars, which can be more objectively measured. Even at my low level of car experience, when I graduated from my typical American large car to a Honda Accord, I could feel how the latter was more responsive and fun. |
Jay,
Good post, except for one small but crucial point. You have definitely opened up to the possibility that great performance can be had at cheap prices, and not merely great performance per dollar. However, you haven't, and don't want to, discover that zip cord offers the best clarity of most any speaker cable, although it sacrifices bass/midrange fullness, which I consider relative bloat and fuzz. Next, the Rane EQ. For $200 on eBay, you could try it. As a line stage only, it probably doesn't equal the transparency of the Soulution 725 although it is more transparent than many, but the tremendous utility of the EQ function creates unique, vital benefits that you have yet to experience. Your quest is to experience any high performance equipment you can procure (you are willing to take a chance on the newest Luxman which won't be cheap), so why not have an open mind about zip and EQ? If you want to try what may be a SOTA EQ, read the latest Stereophile review about the Accuphase EQ for $25K, but it would be prudent to first dip your toe in the water with the Rane ME 60 (original version--the newer ME 60S is colored--deference to RIAA's point about newer not necessarily being better).
Next, the Benchmark AHB2 amp. You probably would prefer the relative warmth of your G Essence, Constellation, etc., but you would respect the AHB2's clarity/neutrality. Since you won't be able to get the Soulution 700 amps at an attractive price, the 725 preamp + AHB2 would give you the complete Soulution sound at a sensible price. Read the latest posts of yyzsantabarbara on the LSA Voyager GaN thread. He has lived with the AHB2 for a long time, and has found nothing more truthful/transparent. NO, I am not going to pay $3000 to buy the AHB2 for you. You spend more on shipping fees. Your total shipping fees amount to as much as what some people spend on their whole high performance systems.
NO SNEERING REMARKS FROM THE USUAL SUSPECTS WITH CLOSED MINDS. |
For pure business reasons, I think it is valid for Jay to devote his YT channel to expensive stuff that most viewers would not otherwise see or hear. My advice to Jay in my last post was purely for his own pleasure in his home system. I suppose there are a few high end dealers whose home systems have great sounding modestly priced components they can afford. Even if a dealer can get stuff at 50% off retail for himself, that is still uber-expensive for Soulution and the like, especially when he tries to sell the stuff and get only 30% he has lost money even with the dealer price. This industry is cruel. Why is there such hostility from some people when I offer a few names at cheap prices that really compete sonically with the expensive stuff? Ricevs brought to our attention the video on the L'il Audio Silver 8 speaker. I challenge anyone to record those video selections on their expensive speaker, and let's see if the expensive speaker displays clarity and snap equal to or better than that cheap Silver 8.
Logydoghan,
You cannot make honest statements about anything unless you have heard it in your own system--that's obvious. You found the DCS dac far superior to a Benchmark dac, that's fine. Maybe I would have the same findings since I am not impressed with my Benchmark dac. But it looks like you have never heard the Benchmark AHB2 vs Nagra. Don't fall into the trap that something expensive MUST be superior to something cheap. This is true about cars most of the time, but it is NOT true about several types of audio components, in my experience. I hate rolled off euphonic sound, so I wouldn't live with a $100K amp with that type of sound if you paid me that $100K. The same applies to someone who likes warm sound who would rather pay $100K for that warm amp than $3K for the accurate, revealing AHB2. |
All of the above posts saying that cheap amps cannot equal or outperform expensive amps are based on ignoring a few inconvenient truths. For example, claiming that the Benchmark AHB2 cannot equal or beat the Nagra Classic for clarity is based on NOT auditioning the AHB2. RIAA deserves credit for being the staunchest proponent of the need for personal audition to make any claim.
Second, designers all have their sonic preferences. The AHB2 design goals were clarity/transparency/neutrality, and they have succeeded according to my listening for 1 month, and yyzsantabarbara's longer ownership. All the Gryphon amps have some degree of warmth, according to Jay, even the Mephisto which was warmer than the Boulder, verified by several good listeners including myself and mrdecibel. Yes, all the Gryphons have better build quality and drive capability than the AHB2. I didn't buy the AHB2 because it couldn't drive my parallel electrostatic speakers without shutting down, but I loved its qualities at moderate levels. Many people have conventional, more efficient speakers, so the AHB2 drives them well.
Third, a more theoretical claim. It is a correct widely accepted notion that simpler circuits with shorter signal paths are the recipe for clarity/transparency. This should inherently reduce the cost compared to a larger, complicated circuit which costs more. All this assumes that your goal is accuracy/transparency. The AHB2 is an example of the above. But if your goal is brute force, by all means spend your money on big, heavy amps which are expensive.
Fourth, an amp is not a high performance car. More money buys more power, acceleration, etc. I am not knowledgeable about cars, but I wonder if the high performance power cars can do the subtle moves required if there is 2 inches of clearance when driving between 2 vehicles, or avoiding a bicyclist, etc. Jay might say that the expensive car can do everything better, but the driver has to have more skill. For my average skills, I am safer in a conventional car because I couldn't properly handle a high performance car.
As an aside, some high end phono cartridge manufacturers employ small women with delicate hands and great coordination to do the skillful hand construction and adjustment of those cartridges. Such a woman would be out of place in an amp factory where strong men are needed to lift heavy amps around, even with assisting tools. This illustrates my contention that brute force is useful in some tasks, and subtle skill is for others. Different amps are designed with different priorities, for the consumer with different preferences. More money helps in some cases, but not others. |
But you haven't introduced your less new battery preamp and matching power monos, which I think are from Block Audio. Let's hear them before the tubes. A/B with Soulution 725 + Block (?) or Constellation. |
I like the snap of the Metallica songs. I never heard them before, but they illustrate the excitement of many types of music. No tube equipment will give the excitement here. They will make the metal sound a little soft, like wood. Maybe you have the VAC 452 iQ coming. Mike Fremer said they were the fastest tubes he heard, but admitted they didn't have the snap of his SS amps. Metallica should sizzle, not have "beautiful" midrange and polite HF. This is good demo material, and doesn't require lots of power, Most important is speed. |
"Layers in guitar amp distortion can sound beautiful and fantastic via a tube amp." Hmm. OK, not just the distortion, but also the main melodic content. But the "snap" or "sizzle" or whatever other words you can use, will be rounded off to various degrees by tubes compared to a good, neutral SS amp. When I heard Jay enthuse about Metallica, he is likely excited about the sizzle and not the beauty of sound. I bet this recording will have more sizzle with the Soulution 725 preamp.
In the 70's, SS was really bad. Midrange tonality was severely mutated so that an oboe would sound like a clarinet, etc. Back then, I sought refuge from SS by getting tubes. The midrange was beautiful. But the best tubes like ARC amps were muddy compared to even the modest Krell KSA50 back then.
Mike Fremer makes a large part of his living from reviewing. He travels worldwide and knows lots of important engineers and musicians. He has had a whale of a musical life--look at his video of his home system, record collection and the stories that go with it. He is a 75 year old legend. He was excited about the VAC tubes, but I have come to realize that he likes a good degree of euphonic, warm sound. His DartZeel ref amps he describes as less defined in bass and other things compared to the PS Audio M1200 he reviewed, a mere $6K/mono pair. |
At the end, Jay said he wants the adrenaline pumping his heart rate up. This means sizzle, not polite beauty. His last words, "There, I SAID it," and I second his feeling. |
rh67,
Of course, "sizzle" is a crude description of what we mean by HF transient excitement. But you seem to believe that some SS amps have "too much" HF energy and excitement. If you experience live natural sounds, both musical and nonmusical, you realize that ALL audio systems are hopelessly dull. A few days ago, I walked past a playground and heard a strange new metallic sound at about 70 dB. I looked around and saw a little girl sitting on the ground about 15 ft away from me. She was banging a metal toy in her metal pail, her version of Metallica. At that moment, I thought to myself that all audiophiles should have been there to hear this. Tubes cannot quite reproduce this to the degree that good SS can. We all know that tubes do unique things, but they are handicapped in delivering lifelike transients like this. Some tube amps sound clearer and sharper than some euphonic SS amps, but good neutral SS amps will show the good tube amps to have some warmth/fuzziness.
|
logydoghan,
You're getting there, but until you personally hear the Benchmark AHB2, you cannot say that any particular amp that uses more expensive parts must be better. Benchmark is devoted to the audiophiles who value transparency. The AHB2 could probably be improved by tweakers like ricevs who put in better parts and do the listening to show that the better parts are matched correctly to improve the sound.
Just close your eyes and listen to the sound. Someone should present an AHB2 and an expensive amp, not reveal the identities or the costs, and then you report what you hear. The fact that Nagra is paired with other expensive items and Benchmark is paired with cheaper items is a biased procedure of unscrupulous high end marketing, designed to perpetuate the myth that more expensive means better. There is nothing wrong with pairing an AHB2 with an expensive XLF speaker. Both are examples of highly revealing components that would enhance each other, although for crazy loud rock they might not be the best combo. If someone stretched his budget for the XLF he might rejoice in the fact the cheap AHB2 gives him the best clarity and transparency. Perhaps only the expensive Soulution 700 amps, but not the expensive other amps discussed here might better the AHB2 for clarity/transparency.
|
rh67,
I respect your pro experience in working with the well known musicians. But you may not be aware of my 60 year experience as an accomplished violinist. Believe me, we BOTH understand. Neither of our experiences are any more valid than the others'--they are complementary. But I encourage anyone to just listen to the random sounds of nature as I did with the little girl banging her metal stuff. The few seconds of listening to this teach people much more than going to audio shows listening to mostly mediocre high priced equipment that doesn't sound any more real than some modestly priced equipment. The concertgoer who sits 100 feet away is not hearing most of the sound from the 1st row where the main microphones are near. This concertgoer could learn a lot from that little girl.
Again, your claim that I listen to midfi equipment is false because you have not heard my stuff. It is midfi in cost, but not in performance. Until you get over the myth that only expensive equals SOTA performance, there is nothing more to say. You have not heard my particular Bryston 2.5B SST2, Mytek Brooklyn Amp, Rane EQ properly used. Most important, you have not heard my Audiostatic 240 electrostatics enhanced with Enigmacoustics Sopranino tweeter. For clarity and transparency, they beat any current expensive speaker available today. Only the original Quad 57 rivals it for midrange clarity. But perhaps you don't value clarity as much as I do, and listen for big scale dynamics of other music, where my speakers have limitations. |
logydoghan,
In theory, the perfect amp or speaker should do it all. In practice, it doesn't work out that way. We all have to make choices. For amps and speakers, I have found that full bass products sacrifice clarity in the midrange/HF. I am content with 50 Hz bass or even higher. My system has high accuracy for the higher overtones, so the low bass while quantitatively reduced is still there and suggested. A string bass on my system reveals the bow scraping and distinctive overtones that show the bass instrument to have different character than the cello or tuba playing the same bass notes. Crude analogy--the lowfi phone can still enable you to recognize familiar voices quickly, although it is often difficult to distinguish "a" from "eight."
Live music gives you everything well presented. I know Arturo Delmoni, a violinist who studied with Heifetz and Josef Gingold, and who was popular at early Stereophile shows. He conducted an orchestra I played in. One rehearsal I told him I loved the deep bass coming from the tuba. But the most accurate electrostatic/ribbon/planar magnetic drivers alone cannot reproduce the dynamics of the deep bass, which need less accurate dynamic drivers to do that.
I have enjoyed playing in the orchestra and occasional solo performances. Arturo liked to play in orchestras when he got the chance. Both solo and ensemble playing are rewarding. I made my solo debut playing the Mendelssohn concerto at the old age of 40, then Mozart 4th concerto, then Lalo Symphonie Espagnole. Particularly thrilling was standing toward the front of the orchestra while hearing the dynamic brass blasting at me in that piece. There it was, EVERYTHING. All audio systems are necessary compromises--I was still happy that my system generated that immediacy of clarity that I experienced in the Lalo piece. My first great violin teacher was Henryk Kowalski, a student of Myron Poliakin who was in the same Leopold Auer class as Heifetz, and Jacques Thibaud. Kowalski inspired me. He once chastised me for not practicing much, and said that I could be a second Kreisler. Fritz Kreisler was my favorite, combining good technique with ultimate charm and nuance.
For your musical and audiophile enjoyment, I recommend the 2015 recordings of Mozart concertos 3,4,5 by soloist Henning Kraggerud with the Norwegian Chamber Orchestra. The Naxos CD, available also by download has excellent sound, medium close with spaciousness. You can also find these performances on YT videos, where you can see the location of the musicians on stage, which enhances your appreciation of the better quality audio recording. Kraggerud is surprisingly more accurate, faster and more impressive than the several Heifetz recordings of these Mozart concertos. I never thought Heifetz could be topped, but as in audio, something better often comes along. Kraggerud is faster, but still misses some of Heifetz' bowing tricks and romantic sound. On the other thread, LSA Voyager GaN, I have a running commentary with yyzsantabarbara about hearing very soft "sniffs" by Kraggerud. See if you can appreciate them at 0:08, 1:12, 4:35.
I love all the great old violin masters like Kreisler, Elman, Heifetz, Thibaud, Szigeti, Zimbalist, Menuhin, Enesco. I studied a little with Aaron Rosand, the next generation. There are no great living violinists with the romantic style of these old names, but we keep our ears open to newcomers like Kraggerud. Arturo Delmoni is close to the greats, with his romantic style. |
Bartholomew,
You are right, Grumiaux had elegance and precision. But his Paganini concertos sound tasteful like Mozart--interesting to hear, but Paganini needs devilish, wild abandon. I forgot to mention Ivry Gitlis, who died recently at age 98. Gitlis was the devil for Paganini and Wieniawski. I met him at a summer music program. A 15 year old violinist played the 1st movement of Lalo Symphonie Espagnole more accurately than I, with good sweet sound. But I watched Gitlis who was bored at this performance. He didn't offer the boy any technical or musical advice, but talked to him about life and asked what hopes and aspirations the boy had. The purpose was to teach him that to play Lalo with the Spanish verve it demands, the violinist must have passion in addition to good technique and sound.
Jay, you have Spanish blood, and I know you would enjoy this piece. It has 5 sections, with the 3rd often omitted. But the 3rd is like a bullfight, a real showpiece of daring combat. I love playing and hearing it. |
Jay's video is an honest appraisal of nonsonic qualities of amps such as build quality, reliability. It is only loosely based on which amp's sound quality is best, since everyone has different preferences. Jay says that all his statements are his opinion, which is true. Ignoring price levels, which still seem to be his main criterion of what he considers ultra high end or midfi, recently he said that he wondered how anyone could like the Nagra Classic amp/preamp. Logydoghan commented that the Nagra is more transparent/accurate than the Gryphon Essence which he likes and owns. Assuming that the Nagra behaved the same way in Jay's system, this means that Jay prefers the warmer sound of G Essence. Nothing wrong with preferring the G Essence, but to say that it is the best amp under $25K is only true if it has the sound someone prefers. Someone who goes for maximum accuracy/detail would seek a different amp. Believe me, cheap amps with accuracy exist, such as the Benchmark AHB2, although they can't drive certain speakers for certain music. That also doesn't mean that they are midfi because they are cheap.
The best takeaway for someone who is considering spending under $25K who wants maximum clarity, is to audition the Boulder 1161, 150W/ch. Yet Mike Bovaird of Suncoast Audio said that Boulder is tubelike compared to Soulution. Too bad the Soulution 700 series doesn't come cheap, and reports imply that the cheaper 500 or other series don't have the clarity and neutrality of the 700. My top recommendation for this listener is to try the AHB2 first, with suitable speakers and music. |
Jay,
I hope you get the Boulder 1161 and review it--I will be interested in your evaluation and will know how to interpret your remarks. For example, if you prefer the G Essence and say that the 1161 is a little too dry/cold for you by comparison, in the manner of the Nagra Classic, then I will know that I should consider the 1161. For someone who likes warmer sound, they will prefer the G Essence, if those are your findings. Both types of listeners will appreciate your findings, as long as they are presented objectively and honestly.
An added bonus of the 1161 is that anyone can lift it, and it uses the conventional AC inlet. The 1160 is very heavy and requires that special AC inlet. |
At a high price level, Boulder 2160 was more neutral/detailed than the G Mephisto. Similarly, at a lower price, perhaps the Boulder 1161 will be more neutral/detailed than the G Essence. We'll see. |
troidelover1499,
Follow my posts and those of tweak1 on the LSA Voyager GaN thread, and his own comparison of the Voyager and his EVS1200. In short, these are giant killers, not just good for the money. My stock Rouge Audio Studio N10-DM (an Ice Edge 1200 AS1) at 400 hours break in time is also a giant killer with its neutrality/clarity. I will most likely send my Rouge to ricevs for his mods. All these are dirt cheap--under $3K. I have no experience with the Audion.
|
About 1 month ago, I believed that Block Audio was Jay's next preamp/amp. It wasn't denied, unlike the quick "Nope" when other guesses were made by others. Jay is getting ready to present Block. |
Grannyring had a good post 1:28 PM today, confirming most of what I have been saying. It is also interesting that he values things like "soul" for the sound of SOTA electronics. This is consistent with what Logydoghan said recently about how expensive electronics prioritize a certain type of flavor. He said that the Nagra Classic has some tubelike warmth, and the Gryphon Essence is even warmer.
Those like me who strive for neutrality/clarity/transparency are interested in high fidelity to the original music source, and NOT finding some elusive color or flavor. The Benchmark AHB2 is the most well known readily accessible amp that exemplifies this ideal of high fidelity. It is cheap, because it doesn't take much money to build a simple circuit that is transparent. It can be objectively demonstrated that inserting a Benchmark preamp like the LA4, and doing a bypass test shows little difference. Yyzsantabarbara did this, and Kalman Robinson of Stereophile did the same. Probably the Soulution 725 does this also, but then I wonder how the 725 could be so heavy, complicated and transparent at the same time. Maybe the Benchmark LA4 shows less difference than the 725 in a bypass test? For those who want more dynamics in a preamp, all you need is 10 dB of gain to get some headroom. But with most common preamps mentioned here, this extra dynamics comes at a price of detail/transparency loss.
If someone disparages the concept of high fidelity and insists that deliberate flavoring is their preference, that's fine for them, but don't say that flavor A is better than flavor B, C, etc. If I sent Jay the AHB2, or a ricevs-modded IceEdge 1200 AS1, he probably wouldn't like it, because he is in the flavor camp with a little dollop of warmth of cream in his coffee. All that would prove is that Jay doesn't like the transparent amp, which he is entitled to say, but it doesn't prove his statement that ultra cheap stuff cannot be SOTA just because he doesn't like it.
Getting back to grannyring and "soul," I say that the "soul" is in the real, live unamplified music, and the job of the audio system is to reveal the real "soul." His meaning of "soul" is the popular emotional attachment to warmth, which is his ticket to enjoyment. My ticket to enjoyment is maximal revelation of the subtleties of music, which is realized by neutrality/clarity/transparency. The common audiophile meaning of "soul" is the rounding off of edges which removes some of the live/subtle details of the real music. |
Grannyring,
There is a universe of difference between the body and tone of live unamplified musical instruments (LUMI) and that of an audio system trying in vain to reproduce it. LUMI varies with the size and unique character of each instrument/voice, the size of the room it is played in, the materials of the walls/ceiling/floor. I have heard large pianos in rooms and large and small concert halls. The body and tone is much fuller in the smaller room, yet even here there is neutrality and clarity if you know how to listen for it when the body can overwhelm you. Contrast this NATURAL body with the artificial, distorted body from an audio system attempting to produce fullness. Tubes and tubelike euphonic SS amps, large dynamic speakers produce this type of "body" but such sound is distorted and colored with all its warmth, sacrificing to some extent detailed musical information. But LUMI give everything--body, tone, AND neutrality/clarity.
What about female singers with naturally beautiful, sweet voices? I have been surprised hearing them at close range, where the microphones would pick them up for recordings, and finding they are much colder and less sweet than I thought they would be before hearing them. They are more neutral than warm and sweet. But heard from a distance in a hall, they are warmer and sweeter due to all the reverb acoustics and soft wooden walls, etc. Many listeners at a distance design their systems around the distant sweet sound, but it is not the true tonality heard up close where the mikes are.
My final point is that whatever the natural tonality is, all audio systems impose their own tonal personality on the natural tonality. This is why people who strive for system neutrality and clarity want to hear the REAL TONALITY as closely as possible, and shun deliberate colorations from equipment. Let the system disappear, in other words, be as transparent as possible. Also, more nuances will be revealed by detailed, transparent systems. |
Grannyring,
OK, but what do you mean by "Don’t think the “giant killers” get as close as the amps Jay is reviewing?" Specifically, how about, "as close as?" Close to what? To me, maybe you, "close" means high fidelity to the original sound, which means as much transparency as possible. However, to listeners who don't strive for transparency/accuracy, "close" may mean close to their heart, soul, etc. Actually, since I love music, I also want it to be enjoyable, close to my heart. The difference is that most regulars here are not familiar with classical music, and specifically how much more complex it is than rock, pop, etc. Looking at the printed score (written music) of a classical piece shows many more details than anyone has ever heard both live and on an audio system. I am still learning more of these details and nuances every time I hear a piece again. The more I appreciate, the more the music is closer to my heart. My enjoyment is correlated with better understanding of the music, which can only come with hearing more details of it. |
Docdan50,
My experiences exactly as you said.
|
Logydoghan,
The reviewer JVS likes warm sound in general, so he gravitates to D'Agostino. His assessment of the G Essence is in the context of his warmish preferences. More informative was your own assessment that the G Essence is a bit warmer than the Nagra Classic, which itself you found to be somewhat warm with tubelike character. I think it would be enlightening if you try the Benchmark AHB2 to see what I and yyzsantabarbara are talking about when we rate it tops for neutrality and clarity. When I had the AHB2 on trial, I was comparing it to my unique Bryston 2.5B SST2, as the most neutral amp with clarity of any amp I tried (other higher powered SST2 and earlier Brystons were mediocre, some at the midfi sound quality level). Up to about 3 weeks, the AHB2 had a slight lead over the 2.5B SST2 for clarity. After that, the AHB2 got more rounded and warmer, but I still rated it high. I rejected it because it couldn't drive my low impedance electrostatics as well as even my little 2.5B SST2, and it ultimately lost the transparency contest anyway by a hair. See what you think.
Perhaps before you started posting here, I talked about the differences between appreciating live instruments vs audio systems. As a violinist, I have spent some time playing about 13 Strads, 500 other great 16th through 19th century violins, as well as a few thousand mediocre violins that I didn't want to play for more than a few seconds. The great violins were all different, like people. Each had character, but it isn't appropriate to speak about a natural instrument's transparency. I just strive for an audio system to be as transparent as possible to the original character of the instruments and voices. The live instrument has character, but the ideal audio system shouldn't impose its own character on the intrinsic natural character of the real music.
|
Yyzsantabarbara is incredibly generous with his offer to send Jay his AHB2's and ricevs-modded Voyager GaN amps. His assessment of the AHB2 is authoritative due to his experience with it. It is in the transparency/accuracy camp whereby there is a sacrifice in grunt and fullness, which I also found from my 30 day experience with it. I predict that Jay will vastly prefer the Voyager to the AHB2, since the stock Voyager has been well described by yyz and the other owners to be on the warm side with still excellent detailed sound AND with grunt and power. We don't know yet what ricevs' mods will do to the Stock Voyager sound, but Jay will likely scratch his head and say to himself, "boy, this is THE BEST $3800 (with Ric's mods) amp, and may challenge the supremacy of the G Essence below $25K." Personally, I would still try a single stereo AHB2 as well as monos. The monos will do better on very dynamic music, but for 82 dB music, the stereo might have greater purity when grunt isn't needed. Then again, the monos have more trouble at very low impedance loads, so it is not guaranteed that the XLF with its low impedance in the bass would be comfortable with the mono AHB2, especially since bass is where lots of power is useful for certain music.
Still, it is respectable for Jay to devote himself to his unique business interests of his YT channel presenting and discussing expensive equipment that few have seen or heard. All of my comments to him are suggestions for his own personal enjoyment, outside of his business interests.
|
Logydoghan,
Good question from you, "Why do you think an instrument can have a character. But electronics shouldn't?"
I thought I already answered this, but I can add a few more insights. All electronics have various types of distortion, both by objective measurements and subjective sound. These deviations from the classic concept of a "straight wire with gain" constitute the character of the electronics. Benchmark caters to people like me who don't want electronic character, but who seek as much transparency as possible.
The musical instrument has the character, but if an audiophile seeks character in the electronics, they are changing the character of the musical instrument, more than the audiophile who wants to hear the character of the instrument as closely as possible.
If I lived close to you, I could come over and demonstrate what a violin (the only instrument I play) sounds like at different distances, close and further away, in different halls and rooms, etc. I don't know how much intimate experience you have hearing instruments close up--the average concertgoer who sits in a hall further away has little idea of what the instrument really sounds like, as best approximated by microphones placed close; i.e., what its true character is, without the overlay of hall acoustic smearing from distance, hall floors with carpet, soft wooden walls, etc. The natural resolution and detail of any natural instrument is in another world compared to most audio systems. The natural character of the musical instrument is in an archaeological domain that when attempted to be reproduced by an audio system, is buried by the veiling distortion of speakers and electronics. The audiophile hears live unamplified music presented with clarity, and he wonders if it is sweet/warm OR cold/sterile, etc. The answer is that it is neither. It is akin to being in present day Israel, and understanding that there were several past civilizations buried under your feet, but being totally unable to tell what they were. What is desirable is to excavate as an archaeologist, and recognize/understand what used to be invisible. That is what I feel like when hearing a typical audio system. I know the original music from all my musical background and experience, so I am like an audio archaeologist whereas the audiophiles with minimal real world unamplified musical experience are like the tourists who can only perceive what the veiled/distorted system shows them.
|
thezaks,
You're right, except for one crucial point. Recordings are made with the main microphones close up, about like the 1st row in the hall. A listener is entitled to "like" the sound from mid hall, but if they are interested in high fidelity/accuracy, they would benefit from listening from the 1st row to provide a reference point to the recording of that music. There are many reviewers who state they love their mid hall seat, and then say that the sound on their audio system is like that mid hall seat. If that is true, then the system is inaccurate, because it would sound like the 1st row if it were accurate. The above assumes that EQ and processing are minimal to absent, as with most classical music recordings.
BTW, some time ago you said you like hearing the guitar from a medium distance of 10 feet or so. I noted that this is fine concerning personal preference for distance (sometimes I like this also), but asked you whether you believed that this medium distance should be as clear as possible. I think it is fine to have a medium distance preference, but maintain that it shouldn't sound less clear, just as it is not desirable to mumble words, but better to say what you want clearly. Music is a complex message of sounds. Classical is often an extremely complex message, so I seek maximum clarity. How about you?
|
Logydoghan,
You said, "I know it is far from the truth and doesn't sound like the real deal. Most of the instruments I have heard are actually pretty bright if we think about it... I believe we have all heard what damage a violin beginner can cause :)."
Exactly what I am saying. That's why I strive for maximum clarity/transparency, to capture much of the brightness/brilliance of live musical instruments. And you are right that beginner violinists can sound unpleasant. If I had 20 more lifetimes, I could practice to hear all my favorite violin pieces the way I want, but it is less stressful and more real-world practical to listen to great violinists' recordings and try to make them sound as brilliant and lifelike as possible.
|
audiophil88,
The Hegel H20 is one of the amps I have recently considered. My dealer recommended it as the most neutral/transparent amp he carries. Although the product came out years ago, at around $6K it probably represents great value. I didn’t get around to trying it, because IceEdge class D and ricevs’ mods caught my attention.
My stock Rouge Audio IceEdge 1200 AS1 (well under $2K) is shaping up to be probably at least as good as the similar custom IceEdge PS Audio M1200, but without the warmth associated with the PSA. Mike Fremer found the PSA to have extraordinary detail, and couldn’t think of any amp anywhere near its $6K price to equal its exciting clarity. For bass power and tightness, he thought even a Boulder was no better, although his comments about that were based on memory of when he had it in his system, not from a side by side A/B.
|
thezaks,
Certainly you are right about the many variables in recordings. Some have a close perspective, others have a more distant one with lots of ambience. There are the engineers with their processing effects. This is why classical recordings with their minimal processing can eliminate that variable.
But it is not correct to say that "ACCURACY is in the eye of the beholder." If you sit in the 1st row at a live unamplified concert, see that the mikes are near where you sit, talk to the engineer who tells you he is not processing the mike feed, then go home and listen to the recording, you can judge whether the audio system is a reasonable facsimile of what you heard in the 1st row.
One may LIKE the sound from the 15th row as one looks at the much closer mikes nearer the musicians, and then say the correct thing that "BEAUTY is in the eye of the beholder." My experience of the 15th row is that the sound is so murky and dull compared to the 1st row, that I would rather hear the recording on most any audio system even with all the processing and euphonic electronics.
I'll ask you again whether you want maximum clarity at whatever distance you prefer. |
Logydoghan,
The small minimonitor speaker is ideal for small scale chamber music such as string quartets, trios, piano trios, acoustic guitar/jazz with limited bass extension, in a smallish room. One should figure out the main type of music listened to, look at room size, and then choose the appropriate speaker. In Jay's room, perhaps the larger XVX and Master Chronosonic are too big, so the XLF is the best match for his room and favorite music. A nice aspect of the XLF is that it has the brilliant HF of certain minimonitors and a small number of electrostatics/ribbons/planar magnetics, as well as powerful bass for certain music. |
shannere,
Good point about a symphony. The 1st row emphasizes the detail of individual instruments, and shortchanges the overall perspective of sitting further back. Several times at the same concert, I tried many locations. The 15th row certainly blended all the sounds together, but every sound was murky and dull. What good is blending when every instrument is equally dull with no separation? Some people have told me the 12th row is their ideal for overall sound. I moved up to the 3rd row, and perhaps this was the best compromise between balance of all instruments and enough detail for each. I admit that I am spoiled by my very close experiences as a performer, where the sound on stage makes even the 1st row sound way less exciting.
Another problem is large orchestras on a deep stage. Just prior to covid, I attended a concert of big pieces. The cymbal and other percussion were in the back row on that deep stage. I knew that piece very well, so when the cymbal crash came, I was horrified by the extreme murkiness which was caused by the great distance to anyone in the audience, as well as all the reverberation coming from the great distance. The worst lowfi audio system with euphonic electronics has more clarity playing a mediocre recording with lots of processing, than this live cymbal crash. But the string instruments close to the stage edge near me had excellent brilliance and clarity. Some small chamber orchestras perform on a shallow stage with only a few rows on stage, and even sometimes spread out like a crescent moon in a single row which is close to the edge of the stage. This is the ideal situation--maximum right/left separation and closer distance to any audience member, so clarity of individual instruments is maximized. For those sitting in the 3rd to 5th row, they have good overall balance, and still maintain excellent clarity by hearing and seeing the enhanced separation. |
Jay,
Yyz offered to send you his AHB2 once he gets back his modded Voyager, which should be soon. Then his modded Voyager. This is a rare opportunity to hear two superb cheap amps, so be a little patient. If there are further delays from yyz, at any time you can swap all the amps. |
