WC, it might be difficult for you to make assessments because there have been major upgrades to your setup, like moving targets. First, get your reference sound from the 20A outlets, Magicos, Mac 601. Since the purity of your sound with other speakers was best with the Lux M900u, it is unfortunate that you got rid of the Simaudio which you say is 2nd best in terms of purity/detail. The Pass will not be as powerful as the Mac 601 as I and others have opined. Will the Pass be as pure/detailed as the Simaudio? Probably not, but you will have the best guess, but won't have the opportunity of an A/B, only just go on your memory. D'ag is very expensive for what it is, a lot of money and weight going for audio jewelry and heavy casework, and I am not sure the M400 will merit $15K upgrade from the M300. When I visited a dealer in NY a few years ago, one salesman said the Momentum sound was dark and fat, but far inferior to Spectral in detail, accuracy, etc. Even the Parasound JC1 was respectable by comparison to the Momentum according to him, although I did not personally do the A/B since I didn't want to spend the money. Meanwhile, if you want to get an idea of the D'ag sound, you might consider the more industrial looking Master Classic 2 stereo available on A-gon for "only" 7 or $8K. Don't blow a lot of money on hyper expensive D'ag, especially since the resale value isn't so good. I still say 1 or 2 Lux M900u will probably give you more of what you want compared to anything else, at a reasonable price. The accuracy of the Lux combined with the accuracy of Magico, very tempting. |
WC, I would add that overall perspective should be a guide. The most important attribute of reproduction of any type of music is midrange accuracy, in which the ML CLX is near SOTA. You could spend a million bucks for the best amp to drive the Magico, but you will still not get the midrange accuracy of the CLX driven by any decent cheap amp. Of course, the Magico beats the CLX in imaging focus, bass, dynamics and maybe high freq. We each make our choice based on aspects of sound that we personally value above other aspects, but it is all a compromise in one way or another. Even a billionaire with money to burn cannot have perfection in everything. Get an amp where most of the money is spent on the electronics rather than cosmetics to impress the neighborhood. Get value in everything you do. I knew a very wealthy woman who didn't want to be charged incorrectly at the supermarket. She could afford to be cheated, but her moral compass was more important than anything, so she spent extra time in correcting the error.
|
techno_dude, your trade would probably benefit WC. If your goal is merely to simplify your system and get some money for the Mac preamp, power chord and interconnects, that is fine for you, although I think WC would get the benefit in terms of the best sound, although I have not heard either the Gryphon or the Lux. I did have the Lux M600A at home for a month and was impressed by it. Did you personally compare the M900u to the M600A for sound quality at the lower power levels of the M600A?
|
riaa_award, Cut your disrespectful crapola. My live music background and experience dwarfs that of most people on this forum. When I tell you that most audiophile systems are veiled and dark compared to the snap and precision of the real thing, RESPECT THAT STATEMENT. I have never personally had any D'ag (not Krell) in my home for audition, but I am just telling you that the salesman said that by comparison with Spectral, D'ag is RELATIVELY dark. When he listened to my Bryston that I brought in, he said that from his experience with D'ag in his store, D'ag was AGAIN RELATIVELY dark. That doesn't mean that D'ag is absolutely dark, and in comparison with lots of other gear of less resolution, those other gear would be darker. I and many people define "dark" as being rolled off in the highs so that the sound is weighted more toward the lower freq. It is often associated with loss of information and clarity. The way WC described the sound of the Lux M900u and from Doug Schneider's review saying that its highs had clarity beyond belief, my guess is that D'ag will be darker than the Lux.
|
minorl, I love the way you expressed the differences between live and reproduced music. Totally correct. I believe that a system must be played at the volume levels matching live. For most music of all genres, it is 70-80 dB average, with occasional peaks much higher. A guitar that is not being smashed, an interpretive singer who is not screaming, a bass player providing plucked accompaniment or a melodic line, even a relatively louder trumpeter playing a tune--all these are at fairly modest volume levels. Now, assume you are listening to a perfect fidelity dream system (in my fantasies, say, a full range plasma massless driver) at average level of 75 dB to match the live level of that particular piece. If you then turn the volume up 6 dB to excite yourself, that is not high fidelity--it is just plain distortion of the real thing. The sound will be bloated and less natural. |
brhatten, I don't know what DM means, or how to retrieve it if it is a message. I would look forward to an email from you--russlaud@gmail.com. Thanks. |
WC, I suggest you save your money and don't bother with the Mac2301. You are in the upper echelon of refinement with your Magico, Pass, possible D'ag Progressions (somewhat reasonable price, possibly more advanced thinking than the Momentums), and of course, the Lux M900u. Pass is a more refined version of Mac, if you like sweet and rolled off highs and somewhat loose bass. I haven't heard Pass or Mac amps at home, but years ago I A/B'ed my old excellent Belles OCM 200 with a powerful Mac amp in my friend's Soundlab system. The Mac was big and round, but the Belles killed it for clarity. At home, I A/B'ed the Pass XP15 phono stage with my excellent Belles phono stage. Compared to the sparkling clear and extended Belles, the Pass was sweet but markedly rolled off, with no snap on violins and muddy plucks of the harp. By the way, the newest Belles amps are rolled off and markedly inferior in clarity to my 1995 Belles OCM 200 which still sounds good. While I can't speak for the latest Pass amps, it is generally true that there is a sound philosophy from a designer throughout most of his products--Pass admits that he doesn't go for technical accuracy but believes that audiophiles should be "happy." Happiness to the typical audiophile means the rolled off sound in mid hall. Believe me, the mid hall listener is missing most of the information content that the much closer microphones are picking up. Anyone is entitled not to like "too much treble", find happiness in the rolled off sound of mid hall, but it is not high fidelity to what is on the recording. The Magicos are telling the truth by revealing the highs on recordings, so in the name of true high fidelity they should be lived with and respected/accepted for the truth tellers they are. I still predict that the Lux M900u is the best amp out there for you. Wait till you hear their clarity with the Magico! I don't know techno_dude, but I would take his offer of trade for your Gryphon. I'm confident he would trust you if he sent you his Lux first. Then you could A/B the Lux (with your preamp) and the Gryphon. If you prefer the Lux, you just send him his Gryphon. If not, you send back the Lux, with maybe a small fee for the privilege of the A/B. I like to do business this way out of respect for the risks to the seller and his lost time.
One other thing. Many amps clip gracefully so that the clipped sound peaks don't reveal any obvious distortion. This can make it appear that the amp is very powerful, but unfortunately it means that frequent clipping is destroying the speakers. My little Bryston 2.5 clips on big peaks, and appears to be powerful, but the red flashing clipping lights tell me the truth. I don't know if the Pass 200.5 has clipping lights, but also its rolled off highs let someone push the volume higher with less obvious stress. You have noted this effect in reverse with the extended highs of the ATI Signature 6005. Pushing the volume on the ATI revealed the highs that you didn't like at that time, forcing you to keep the volume lower. But remember that live music has lots of highs, but the natural modest live volume levels prevents irritation. Nobody wants to listen to live music blasting in your face, such as a trumpeter pointing his bell at you from 5 feet away. So if anyone gets irritated by highs in his system, he is probably listening at unnaturally high volumes.
|
pwhinson,
What characteristics of the Pass X makes it better than the XA for your Thiel 2.4 or the Salon 2? Technical differences, tonal differences?
|
WC, interesting that the Mac 2301 is better in every way than the 601. This confirms my belief that bigger is often NOT better. 300 quality watts into your 4 ohm Magico is satisfying. What is the overall sonic flavor of the 2301, still rounded and tubey compared to the best SS you have had, such as Lux M9000u, Simaudio, Levinson 532, etc.? Audio Research is still probably the most accurate of tubes. How about the GS150 you loved some time ago? ONLY 150 watts, but remember quality is more important than quantity. The GS150 is probably the most accurate and refined tube amp out there. I bet the big D'ag is inferior to the GS150 in those respects, although it will have more balls. And the Lux M900u still the champ of all, unless you want to spend big bucks for the Rowland M925.
Also, you haven't commented recently about your Gryphon with the Magico. Maybe it is not in the running, so why don't you talk with techno_dude for his trade on the Lux? |
the zaks,
Usually or quite often, if HF are subdued, this gives more relative prominence to the voice, which is centered in the midrange. We agree about #2 showing "the vocal forward at the expense of everything else." Since the Ayre has more HF emphasis than the Lux, #2 is more likely to be the Lux, although we don't yet know the relative character of the Dag preamp.
|
Riaa, Since I haven't personally heard the ARC 160 monos or the Dag 400 monos, I would be interested in your OBJECTIVE description of the sound characteristics of each compared to each other, and possibly compared to other amps you have had at home. Do you have the top Ayre Twenty monos? Don't wax eloquently about the magic or emotional connection to the music--many people here would want to hear objectively about tonal balance, tightness of bass, extension in the highs, midrange tonal accuracy, subtle information retrieval, etc. Also, in what way was the ARC GS150 "junk" as you claimed? I can only speculate that it was not as romantically tubey the way other ARC products are, although as a whole, ARC has been less tubey than other tube equipment from Conrad Johnson and others. Many years ago, I did hear the ARC SP 6B and SP 10 preamps, CJ Premier 3 preamp, so I know the general characteristics of those companies' products. Thanks.
|
Riaa--musical preferences certainly vary, but even though I don't listen much to the music that WC prefers, I still value and respect his observations on the objective and subjective aspects of sound. Violins, harps, guitars, string bass are all plucked instruments, so someone's comments about unamplified guitars has relevance to me. High frequency extension of cymbals/triangles is greater than that of violins, so again someone's comments about cymbal/triangle sound is of great interest to me, no matter whether the cymbal is used in classical, jazz or other types of music. Many people here including me would like to hear your comments about the comparative tonal characteristics of the Dag, ARC 160M, Ayre VXR Twenty. Sure, it's not your thread, but I am sure WC appreciates all the input here from everyone, especially since he probably loses some money on many trials, but he is willing to lose some money in return for the experience and knowledge gained. In return for the knowledge and experience he has given us, I think it is appropriate for us to provide as much knowledge/experience that each of us can give.
|
Hello ALL,
It is not fruitful to argue about what is "best" because "best" is a subjective opinion that is not useful to other listeners here. What is most important and most useful is to be able to OBJECTIVELY describe the sound of a component in the context of a system. Even though there are so many variables, a particular sweet sounding tube amp will sound that way in almost any system compared to a particular fast sounding SS amp in such a system. Instead of calling other people trolls because they have different opinions, just describe your sonic observations objectively and then let other people consider the component based on their own tastes and budgets. It also doesn't matter what kind of music you like, you should be able to objectively describe the sound of different instruments which are utilized in any type of music. An unamplified (not electronic) guitar will sound like itself no matter what the genre of music. The most obvious case is the human voice which we all hear every day in all kinds of settings. I even listen carefully to the sound of random street conversations involving single voices or groups talking, laughing or yelling. I listen to the sounds of nature like different birds, honking horns, buzzing saws/drills, banging hammers and dropping boards of wood and metal from construction crews, the fan blowing in my bedroom, etc. This is all part of education about what real natural sounds are like, and this forms the basis of all our perceptions about music, which is merely a unique type of environmental sound. I feel that WC has done a very thorough job in much of this with additional color from his experiences with cars, and he has inspired many of us to share our own experiences. That is what this forum is about, which is the free expression of our experiences, instead of snide attacks on other people from the attacker who probably has an agenda, business or otherwise.
|
Very important discussion here about the term, "neutral." Literally, it means that nothing stands out or is emphasized. For example, someone with legal blindness 20/200 vision may see everything equally badly, and someone with superb 20/15 vision may see everything equally clearly. Both people have "neutral" vision, but it is obvious that the person with 20/15 acuity is getting more out of the visual world, and enjoying more of it because of the increased information content perceived, unless you want to be cynical and say that he also sees more of the flaws and is unhappy. Most of us spend money and effort on systems to get more out of the music we enjoy, therefore the rational goal is to try to be objective and go for accuracy and information retrieval. You otherwise might take the subjective "happiness" approach of someone like Nelson Pass, seek to flavor your music any way you like. But you will probably get tired with the flavoring approach, especially if someone brings over a component with more accuracy that makes you wonder why you have been missing musical information--this is because you have been artificially flavoring your system. If you are a wine connoisseur and enjoy many types of wines, don't add sugar to each wine you are tasting, since you will obscure the true character of each wine because each will taste like sugar. |
almarg, thanks a million for your convincing technical explanation about why ARC amps sound as they do. In a related discussion, Bruno Putzeys of Mola Mola uses lots of feedback to reduce distortion to almost zero, and claims that it is an important reason for the accurate "nonsound" (colorless, my words) of his products. |
grey9hound, we would be interested in WHY you think the Tektron Double Impacts are so good. Don't just say they are "the best," or some other undefined value judgment. What are the sonic characteristics in tone, dynamics, etc. for music you evaluated? WC continues to elaborate on these qualities of different amps, speakers which I find informative. I am also looking for value, but I want to know what to consider, based on real criteria. If someone wanted me to evaluate a typical cheap component from Best Buy, unless he was my friend, I want a fee for my time probably wasted for the highly likely outcome that the component is mediocre. |
techno_dude and charles1dad, interesting discussion about colorations of both tube and SS electronics. I agree. 35 years ago, I tried the class A Bedini 25/25 SS amp. It was thickly syrupy sweet with rolled off highs, vastly inferior to almost any tube amp of that time in accuracy, information retrieval and of course, musical appreciation. That Bedini was equally far different from many other SS amps I tried. So techno_dude, I agree it is absurd to say that some tube designer is trying to make it sound like SS. It is more fruitful to objectively describe the sound of any amp, whether it is tube or SS. I personally don't care whether a technology is tube single ended or push pull triode or pentode, or SS class A, AB, D, G, H, etc. I have an open mind to whatever comes along, although so far it seems that even the accuracy oriented Audio Research still has vestiges (slight amounts) of loose bass, sweet midrange, diminished highs compared to most but not all SS amps I have tried. To realize this, just play recordings of sounds of nature like ocean waves, birds, crickets, the wind, feet crushing leaves, buzzsaws, spoken voice, etc. Then listen at the beach, continue to take walks to orient yourself to the real sounds of things. There is nothing sweet about the sounds of nature--these entities are just as they are, without any of the chicken fat cushion of most "sweet" electronics, whether tube or SS. These "sweet" electronics are like a beautiful woman wearing loose clothing. But take the clothing off, and you will see more of her beauty revealed by seeing her muscled, toned and delicately curved features that were previously obscured. |
jetter--with your attitude, I don't give a fk what YOU think. Many people here have acknowledged my contributions. A few have emailed me privately in appreciation for my extensive musical background which informs my statements. |
charles1dad, agree with your observations of the sax player. You didn't mention that you also heard his spit and detailed action of the keys which are glossed over by a lot of equipment. Also, maybe he was playing in a smallish room, that magnifies the body and bass content of the instrument, compared to the larger studio for recording or concert hall. I find the most useful environment for judging live sound is outdoors with plenty of space, obviously. There are no absorbing materials such as wood or other confusing acoustical variables to contend with. You get the pure, unadulterated quality of the instrument itself. Just stand close enough as you did, so you will get the appropriate volume level. Harry Pearson believed that there is an ABSOLUTE SOUND so he called his magazine as such. I think I remember that he referred to it as the sound in the concert hall, but I go further by saying it is the sound in the quiet outdoors. |
jetter--sorry if my choice of words made it appear that I think the Tektons are bad, so thanks for alerting me to this, and I will be as considerate as possible in the future. I would not make such a pronouncement, mainly since I have not heard them at all. I just ask that everyone here try to provide as much useful objective information as they can, within the limits of their time. I have not heard WC's particular model of the Magico either, but since WC provided much useful information about them and he has a long track record of consistently honest and careful listening, I trust and go by his observations. It would be great if everyone can aspire to his level of disclosure. This thread is great because many people do just that. |
guidocorona, agreed. Your posts have been very helpful to me. Thanks so much. |
grey9hound, yes, I have read a lot of the Tekton thread, but as WC says, reviews are tainted by politics and advertisers. That's what makes WC's comments so refreshing. So I would appreciate your personal observations with more observations.. Like you, I believe in value related to sound/dollar at any level. For example, I believe the still expensive Martin Logan CLX offers extraordinary value compared to the big Neo, although the proof of that would have to come from a careful A/B of both. Right now, I have about 40 hours on the Mytek Brooklyn Amp. The sound is excellent in comparison to many far more expensive amps I have tried, and it represents superb value at $2K retail. More observations to come. |
grey9hound,
Thanks for your further assessment of the Tektons. I read the reviews, and can say that your comments are the most useful, in part due to the honest tone set by WC on this thread. I agree with you that anyone considering dynamic speakers at any price should be mindful of the Tektons. I also endorse your ideas about room correction, even though I never tried the Lyngdorf. I will go a step further, and now reveal my most controversial idea yet, which will earn HOWLS of protest and derision by many sanctimonious purists here. Drumroll....
The absolute necessity of an equalizer. I have been using my $600 Rane ME60 equalizer for 23 years now for both recording and home listening. It is a stereo 32 band 1/3 octave from 20 to 20,000 Hz, with each of 32 bands adjustable from minus 12 to plus 12 dB. The newer model has a choice of 2 curves centered on any band and another adjustment of minus 6 to plus 6. It is old fashioned analog but widely adjustable as you can see. I started recording my orchestra without the EQ. The hall is a medical school small auditorium, and the stage a small boxy affair not designed to fit an orchestra, but just a lecturer and a few things. When the conductor noted that my recording sounded heavy and dead, I then tried the equalizer, cut the overblown bass and boosted the highs. All very tastefully done, not with the aid of instrumentation, just by ear. After that, everyone was astonished at the clarity and impact. Nobody accused me of sound manipulation or thought the sound was artificial. At home for playback of commercial recordings that are usually recorded to give a more distant perspective than the close one I prefer (although the commercial perspective is still much closer than a typical audiophile likes who goes for the midhall sound), I boost the highs which makes the more laid-back recorded perspective sound more like the exciting sound I hear from being on stage immersed in everything. This works because high freq are the ones most drastically lost due to distance, so I compensate. Also, when I play my violin, the sound under my ear is MUCH more detailed than most any listener hears from a distance. I can skillfully equalize most recordings of solo violin to sound like what I hear under my ear. Your sound preferences may differ from mine, but you can experiment with the equalizer to get the sound you like. If anyone says that all this is manipulating sound and making it arbitrary or artificial, I say you all are doing just that with flavoring your particular soup with different preamps, cables, cartridges, different tubes, caps, fuses, etc. Most manipulations of sound are by speaker designers who make their personal choice of colorations and tradeoffs that THEY like. The next biggest sinners are recording engineers with their arbitrary choices, especially with processed rock/pop music. For ultimate sonic thrills, sit with me on stage or hear an outdoor unamplified performance up real close. Aside from that, which is what we are all forced to do with our commercial recordings, adjust the playback with the equalizer to what you like. For those of you who respect my sincerity, I can assure you that small tweaks of the EQ sliders will make much more of a difference in the sound than the differences between many amplifiers. If I were a shady audio salesman, I can get the customer to like any particular amp best, depending on a subtle EQ adjustment, all tastefully done to make it not obvious. Without my Rane EQ, there is no amplifier at any price that will give me the musical satisfaction I would get with the EQ and many modest amps. I still appreciate the better accuracy of a better amp, but this still is using the amp WITH the EQ. Another benefit is that my Rane has a volume control which enables me to get rid of the preamp. At the time I got the Rane, I was using the Spectral DMC gamma preamp, but the Rane electronics set to flat (no EQ use) was more revealing and transparent than the Spectral, so I happily dumped the Spectral. Bypass tests showed that the Rane is very transparent. Go try to find a totally transparent line stage preamp, but the point is moot because I consider the EQ a necessity to get the sound you really want. The only sacrifice I make is that the Rane is not a control unit, so I have to unplug to get another source. For those who feel that a preamp is necessary to get better dynamics (although they will admit that transparency and information retrieval is sacrificed more than a little), that's OK, just insert the EQ either before or after the preamp. You'll still get the benefits I describe here.
|
klh007, thanks for your interesting observation about the tweeters of Tektons. I feel that dynamic tweeters are inherently superior to larger midrange and LF drivers, because they are smaller and more sensitive, lower mass, etc. BIGGER is often WORSE, as in size of drivers. So it is clear that much of the midrange is more accurately handled by the better tweeter, if you have enough tweeters to get the dynamics required. Dynamic tweeters can have electrostatic clarity, but forget about dynamic drivers for comparable midrange clarity. In this case, the several tweeters extend the electrostatic-like clarity into the midrange, so it is appropriate and interesting that you make an analogy with the ML hybrid stat. |
robc33, thanks for mentioning the Manley EQ. We ought to encourage everyone to get interested in EQ and see what products on the market to try. They can be used tastefully for tweaking, or used as major surgery to correct bigger problems. No need for expensive room correction software products--just use your ears with the far simpler and much more flexible EQ units. It takes time to tweak and listen, but the nice thing is that the learning curve is your own preferences, not trying to understand someone else's manual and frustrating software problems. This is so much fun, which should appeal to any audiophile who wants to tailor his sound in so many ways, big or small.
|
WC, excellent choice to get the BHK monos. The reviews describe them as accurate with a hint of sweetness due to a tube stage, which you will probably like in order to take the edge off the hot tweeter of the Magico for some recordings. For accuracy and information retrieval, I think the ultimate shootout will be the BHK/LuxM900u and possibly any Dag. See if you can get the original Rane ME60 equalizer which I think is more neutral/transparent than the later model. I can assure you that if there are small or even moderate tonal differences between any of these amp contenders, the differences will be swamped by small tweaks on the Rane. With RCA inputs, the maximum gain on the Rane is about 1 (0 dB), but with balanced inputs, the available gain is 4 (6 dB), much more than 6 dB on the newer model, so it will be fascinating for you to try the Rane, experience the wide flexibility in flavoring your recordings any way you like, from subtle to big differences. Set to flat, you will find that using the Rane as a line stage is very transparent. Eliminating your preamp will be a revelation for information retrieval. The Rane is sold in pro audio stores very cheaply, and it an outrage that this cheap pro audio unit is more transparent than a lot of audiophile electronics, which are marketed and sold at exorbitant prices to ignorant, gullible audiophiles with little musical background. I'll go further to say that using the Rane, you could get the Focal Sopra 3 to sound like the Magico, and vice versa. I know you sold the Focal, but you get my point. The differences with the Rane are that important and life-changing. The Rane will still reveal the tube nature of the Mac2301 and the refined SS nature of the other SS amps you are trying. If you really want fun, the Rane is it. Thanks to robc33, the Manley EQ is another option.
|
techno_dude, congratulations on your conversion to our EQ religion. But unlike religious wars, you can EQ any way you like, either subtle or in a major way. I agree that standard tone controls are very useful, although I think that professional grade EQ's like the Rane are much more flexible with so many more options. For example, if I want an even more analytic dry sound with maximum detail, I will cut the range of 200-800 Hz by about 2-3 dB and keep the highs unchanged, instead of boosting the highs more. If I wanted a more creamy midrange, I would do the opposite and boost the range of 200-800. There are so many possibilities according to your experimentation by ear. Cut 200-400 by 1 dB and cut 400-800 by 3 dB, etc. These settings are not set in stone. They will vary according to the music, particular amp, speaker, although I generally sit tight and don't change settings often since I am satisfied these days. The purists go crazy and even I don't know precisely what I am doing and am creating many overlapping curves because I am not using a spectrum analyzer, but who cares, as long as I am listening carefully and get the sound I want. Maybe I can't do a sex change operation and convert the SS amp into a tube amp, but how about creating a 55%male/45% female or 30% tube/70% SS type of sound? No problem, completely legal, and no audiophile social stigma attached to that! As RIAA says, who cares what other people think, as long as you satisfy yourself. Also, you don't have to pester the speaker designer to change the crossovers or the balance of the drivers. Just EQ the whole thing for yourself. Tremendous empowerment is yours. Yeah, man!! |
mikepaul, interesting question about audiophile happiness. Even though I have done a lot of work on the system, I now sit back and listen and am happy with what I have worked for. But I have been to lots of live concerts in the past few years and I am unhappy with a lot of what I hear LIVE. I want to get the seat in the middle of the first row, and am not happy with the duller sound from further back if I can't get my choice seat. If I am able to buy a ticket in the 10th row, I look for closer seats and scramble closer in the last few seconds until the lights are out. Even in that best seat in the first row, I still finds lots of things to criticize from an audio point of view. I am actually happier listening at home, although I admit that my sound is still not quite natural like the real thing. So at the concert, I accept the faulty sound and just enjoy the music itself. There is an obvious parallel to your relationship with your mate. She is not perfect, but hopefully she possesses a combination of attributes that make you happy. I also enjoy music in the car, and listening to music on youtube in crummy sound. The great legendary musicians in 1930 sound are more enjoyable than many of today's young musicians in SOTA sound. |
mayoradamwest,
Great to hear that your experience confirms mine. What instrument do you play? Where do you live? My favorite orchestra recordings are the close miked and EQ'ed high frequency boosts of Mercury Living Presence. Brilliant and exciting, mimicking what we hear when we play in the orchestra. I also love the Turnabout/Vox recordings from 1967 of the Rachmaninoff Symphonic Dances (this was promoted in the audio salons when I got started in 1978) and the Copland popular pieces--Rodeo, Fanfare for the Common Man. These are upfront sounding recordings with wonderful presence and impact. (I can't stand the sound of most other recordings of the Symphonic Dances--you can hear the echoes and distant murky ambience which kills the life out of those performances.) I was inspired by these recordings, and developed my recording technique to mirror the excitement of these recordings. I place the pair of directional cardioid Neumann KM 184 microphones right over the conductor's head, angled about 100-110 degrees with microphone diaphragms about 12 inches apart in a modified Blumlein technique. When he heard the playback over headphones right after a concert, he said that it was just like the live sound he heard as he conducted. I'll say it was "better" because I boosted the highs to make it more exciting because the live sound on that cramped stage is boxy.
charles1dad, listen to the saxophone solos in the first movement of the Rachmaninoff in that Turnabout recording (Donald Johanos conducting the Dallas Symphony). It is close miked and immediate. On my system, it is very live and realistic. A similarly immediate recording of brass is the "For Duke" audiophile recording by M & K. |
grey9hound, thanks. Someday I'll do all this.
|
WC, wonderful to get a good taste of reality for a small (gulp?) fortune. Try the Rane ME60 for a few hundred bucks, or the suggestions of robc33 and grey9hound for other EQ systems. If you love tubes, the Manley tube EQ mentioned by robc33 may be the best way to go. You might be able to do without the ARC preamp, and wind up with fully flexible sound that will do EVERYTHING you like EVEN BETTER. I am very confident about all this.
|
grey9hound,
Thanks for informing me about your digital/internet EQ. How much does all that cost? Whatever it costs, it is worth it and is likely a much more productive investment than $50,000 or so in amps. I am still in the dark ages with my cheapo Rane ME60, but it works so well and is almost infinitely adjustable by hand. The Rane electronics is so good that being analog all the way as a preamp with its EQ is great. The simplification mentioned by techno_dude is also a good way to go, if he is really good at fine tuning his tone controls. My present setup is the CD transport going into the Benchmark DAC1, then analog output of the Benchmark into the Rane EQ with its crude dual mono volume controls all the way up, then into my amp. Volume is adjustable via the Benchmark DAC. As an aside, I am worried about the coming 5G. I don't want wifi at home, and am studying which meters to buy to assess my bedroom, which probably must be shielded from EMF pollution.
|
mayoradamwest, thanks for relating your experience. Just wondering--how does the sound of your trumpet under your ear compare to the sound heard 5 feet away with the bell projected at him? I suspect that listener gets much more energy with piercing high frequencies than you are hearing. Correct me if I am wrong. My guess is that the trumpet is highly directional with most of the energy right on axis and a big drop off axis, probably a bigger difference than my directional cardioid mics where most of the drop-off is only in the high freq. By contrast, my violin projects with fairly large dispersion, and the sound under my ear is MUCH louder and MUCH more detailed than any listener perceives. As far as listening in the audience, once I made the mistake of sitting close and far left. Much of the first violin section had their backs to me which smothered the sound, rolling off the highs especially. So if I cannot get my choice seat slightly to the left of center in the first row in line with the soloist, I would rather sit slightly to the right of center so all the first violinists project their sound at me, but not too far right, otherwise the cellos are dominating.
I love the recordings of Maurice Andre for his mellow legato trumpet sound, although I never heard him live. Although not quite high fidelity, I love the sound of the NBC Symphony under Toscanini. The crisp horn sound of the Berv brothers is exciting. Also, the recording technique is close and projecting. After 1950, the sound of those recordings is truly exciting. I have never heard anything more exciting than their Verdi Overture to La Forza del Destino from 1952. I also love the nasty crack of the brass section at the opening of the turbulent section of the William Tell Overture and the forceful but controlled impact of the tympani. Everyone knows the final section with the piercing trumpet calls and impactful tympani. HOT DAMN! I hate most other recordings of this piece where the brass and tympani are mellowed out and smothered in stupid ambience so the impact is dulled.
With violinists, I learned that the rich, sensitive sound of the great masters was created with NARROW vibrato, paradoxical as it seems. Watch the videos of Mischa Elman who had the richest sound of all, but his vibrato was so narrow that if you were to watch his video with sound muted, you could not predict the characteristics of his sound. Most of today's young violin soloists have a wider vibrato which actually creates a harsher, cruder sound. I particularly hate the sound of Anne Sophie Mutter, whose gross vibrato makes her sound like a truck driver. As with overpriced, overhyped audio equipment, big name musicians often sound mediocre to the truly informed connoisseurs, and better musicians without media hype are often struggling to make a living, just like many great smaller audio companies.
|
charles1dad, the general performance level is very high these days because of all the competition in a field where everyone loves to make music. An average Juilliard student puts on a good performance. Even a good amateur like me is capable of pleasing most audience members. There's a cute girl named Tiffany Poon who plays piano on youtube. I like her sensitive performances of some pieces more than Vladimir Horowitz. Despite all her clever videos which attract lots of viewers and several patrons, she is not making it, despite her extraordinary record of competition wins. So she is going to enter Yale to get a masters degree. She doesn't need any more education--she plays better technically and musically than many of her teachers. But she needs to play the politics and marketing game more--that's what it will take to get the recognition and the career that she deserves. I think Anne Sophie Mutter is a decent but ordinary soloist, but she has played the game well, using her womanly charms, first with Herbert von Karajan and lately with Andre Previn whom she divorced.
|
About threads. Charles1dad is very thoughtful, and mayoradamwest is the revered musician of this thread. WC has created a wonderful community here. Charles has made so many contributions and everything related to music is welcome here. Whatever Charles wants to discuss is welcome here. Mikepaul has asked probing questions about coping with the medical illness called Audiophilia Nervosa. Even WC is beginning to think that his present happiness with his system will endure, and he not have the wandering eye that much in the future. So this thread has psychological ramifications. It's not just about the equipment. Let's keep this happy community going. I think WC approves. Besides, the last day or so has been intermission fun while we all eagerly await WC's assessment of the BHK and Pass. Then WC will be the star of the show again.
|
Charles1dad, you're right about Monk, Davis, etc, but how about all the undiscovered great musicians that you never heard because they didn't have the other personal qualities needed for managers to promote them. Also, in athletics, there are very objective criteria of talent which can be measured, like speed, strength, agility, etc. However in music, all the competitors have excellent technique, and their interpretations and personal images vary so much, that it really becomes a game of politics of subjective opinion about who will be successful in making a career. Equally brilliant lawyers on both sides of a case have trouble convincing the judge and jury to accept their arguments, so that it becomes arbitrary who wins the case. Such is the situation with judging musicians. AND DO YOU THREAD ISOLATIONISTS SEE THE RELEVANCE OF THESE ARBITRARY CRITERIA TO AUDIO EQUIPMENT?
|
WC, regarding your question about more vocals on the right side--a slight difference in speaker position between L and R may be a factor. Tweeters, especially the fine ones in the Magico must be angled equally, and are most sensitive to this effect because of the smaller wavelengths of the highs. Personally, as long as one speaker is not obviously overdominant, precise localized imaging is not as important to me as tone, frequency extension, inner detail, clarity, etc. Many people at live concerts note that natural instrument placement is nowhere as precise as stereo system imaging.
|
WC, other possible reasons for differences in right/left balance could be aging tubes in your Ref 10 preamp, R/L differences from other components in the chain. Try unplugging and reversing R/L in each different component to try to diagnose this. In any case, this imaging anomaly seems to be a minor annoyance in that other qualities such as the tubes give you so much pleasure.
|
browndt, agree that all the factors you mentioned make a difference. I am interested in your observations about furniture which I haven't yet explored. What audio furniture do you recommend, and what were the sonic characteristics? For example, in the old days, some writers recommended light furniture for the Linn Sondek turntable. |
WC, the BAT SS and tube amps have similar tonal balance, according to some people I have spoken to at Music Direct. The BAT tube amps may be more prized than the SS. There is some bias because I believe BAT owns or has a major financial interest in Music Direct. Music Direct frequently offers major discounts on BAT, and the 60 day no risk policy is attractive. I have bought a few items from them, but because I have returned more, they give me a minor penalty of having to reimburse them for round trip shipping for any item returned. I don't abuse their policy because I only try likely contenders, but like you, I am very particular. Not so bad, and far preferable to losing much more money even if you get a good deal elsewhere and still take a loss when selling privately.
|
While we are eagerly awaiting WC's observations on the next amps and as disappointed as he about the delays, I thought many people of all sonic stripes would be interested in my long history with SS and tubed electronics. My interest in hifi was ignited in 1965 when my father built his own large enclosures for the big Altec Voice of the Theater horn drivers, driven by his own custom made low power tube amp. Drop dead gorgeous, powerful, musical and natural. In 1978, my first serious system included SS Rappaport preamp and Bryston 4B, the original amp Impressive in dynamics and detail, but the midrange was wrong. Voices had a coloration that made them sound like clarinets or oboes. I then got a Dynaco PAS 3 tube preamp which was greatly improved by Frank van Alstine who said it mimicked the ARC SP 3a. I also got a Dyna Stereo 70 tube amp which was modified by van Alstine who said it mimicked the ARC D76a. I was so happy with the musicality and the realism. Later, I got the first Theta tube preamp. It was so much more detailed and open than my Dyna-Alstine tube preamp, but the sound was less sweet. I started to believe that accuracy is associated with dryer, less sweet sound. I then spoke to Roger Majeski of RAM tube works, who was selling various grades of tubes according to his distortion measurements. I got the top grade with the best specs, the most expensive and select. Now the Theta preamp sounded even dryer, less sweet, but far more detailed. This confirmed my belief that accuracy is associated with these qualities. Later, about 1990 I got the SS Spectral DMC10 gamma preamp, which was even better than the Theta in all those ways, but was still musical and not tonally crazy like those earlier SS products. By this time, SS was coming of age and becoming refined, yet truthful and accurate. I then considered the most accurate tube amp by ARC and compared it to the SS Krell KSA 50 driving the original ML stats. No contest--even in the store, the ARC was murky and veiled compared to the Krell. So all you tubaholics, I get it and hear you and agree in many ways, and if you like relatively laid-back sound, tubes are king. For me who wants detail and high freq extension to the max, SS is the way to go. But I agree with techno_dude that the Lux M900u may be a contender for the best of all tube and SS qualities. |
WC, my mistake. I thought the BAT 655se were tubes. Their tube amps are of low power so they probably are of no interest to you. But the SS BAT amps are probably the sound type you are seeking. Perhaps BAT is a newer, better version of McIntosh which makes both SS and tube. You might try Rogue Audio tube amps, some of which may be dynamic and powerful enough for you. Reviews suggest Rogue is a cheaper and even better alternative than ARC. Meanwhile the BHK should be a superb contender for you. Probably similar in character to the Lux M900u. That'll be the real shootout.
|
WC, as a few people said, try different tubes in the BHK before you finish with it. On p 63 of your thread, I described how Roger Majeski's best tubes with the lowest noise transformed the tonal character of my Theta tube preamp to more neutral, less sweet, more extended highs. He is still in business at RAM tube works, or tubeaudiostore.com. Call him and discuss your needs, or ask anyone with tube experience on this thread where they get their tubes. I also find it enlightening that you find the Mac2301 so superior. I have an open mind to any technology that produces the lowest distortion and the sound I want. I remember you said that the 601 reduced the highs on the Magico a bit, but since you heard more highs from the 2301, do you find that the 2301 has better highs than anything else you have heard? Perhaps the "pop" you describe from the 2301 relates to more transient response in the highs, or does the "pop" apply to all instruments from bass to treble? That 2301 is certainly a keeper, and may be the best tube amp out there for so many criteria. The 2301 also deserves experimentation with the best tubes. It may involve moderate cost and maintenance, but as you said about the Magicos, it is worth it. |
Thanks to everyone who enlightened me on the true character of the Rogue. I had stated that my knowledge of the Rogue only came from reviews, so I am thankful for the real reports from users with personal experience. |
ricred1, thanks for your comparison of the Rowland 625 to the BHK. How would you characterize the mids/highs of the Rowland--warm, or neutral, or cold/dry? |
Guidocorona,
Thanks for your honest assessment of the Rowlands. I have enjoyed reading your reviews and comments the past few years. As for the M925 which uses the NC1200 like the Merrill Veritas and Mola Mola Kaluga, I wonder if you have heard the Mola Mola amp and can comment on the relative tonal qualities and resolution of these 3 products using that NC1200. I had thought the Mola Mola uses the best implementation of the NC1200 since Bruno Putzeys is the designer of the NC1200 and wanted to make his own Mola Mola stand out. It is the most expensive unit, except for the Rowland 925 which is much more costly. Sometimes words like neutral, warm, cool, dry, dark have ambiguous meanings to different people, but if you compare products using whatever words you want, things take on a closer meaning, especially with reference to different pieces of music, as you have eloquently done in your reviews. As for the warm word, I don't refer to it as pertaining to emphasis on lower frequencies, since I have heard amps that are diminished in these lower frequencies, but they have sweetness and harmonic richness in the midrange which I characterize as warm. As I have said, take a walk outside and listen to the sounds of nature--the wide open space of the wind, birds, and the harder sounds of crickets, hammers/saws, car and truck honking horns. Then listen to street musicians and singers outdoors uncorrupted by the acoustics of soft auditorium materials like wood and chair fabrics. These natural sounds are not harmonically rich, they just ARE as they ARE, produced by the friction of rubbing or struck surfaces or air turbulence, just like musical instruments. For example, Boston Symphony Hall has no carpeting or fabric on the chairs, and the sound is cooler, less harmonically rich than Carnegie Hall with its plush chairs and carpeting. That's what I have heard in both halls. |
WC, thanks for your initial comments on the BAT amp. What is the tonal balance--mellow, neutral, extended in highs/bass, sweet or neutral or cool in the midrange, etc.? I thought you were going to try the BAT 655se. I am most looking forward to your listening with the Lux M900u--it should be a treat with your Magicos.
|
WC, how do compare the BAT600se to the BHK300? Maybe the BAT is an even better bang for the buck, and even better on an absolute basis? Also, we were referring to tube rolling for the BHK, although doing so for the Mac2301 and the Ref10 and the BAT Rex opens up so many more possibilities. Try Roger Majeski's tube service. He also has made Music Reference tube amps for years.
|
jafant, I don't know much about BAT except what I read. My guess is that the 655se is an update to the 600se. The 2008 Absolute Sound review of the 600se says it has a hint of loss of highs. Has roysq personally heard them and agrees with that assessment? WC may need more time to verify this also. Music Direct owns BAT, so their opinion is probably biased. I get the impression that the sales staff at Music Direct is too busy with diverse orders that they don't sit down and listen much, the way old fashioned dealers do. Certainly the opinions of WC, roysq and others here with personal experience carry more weight with me. |
techno,
I am waiting to hear about speedbump6's personal experience with his Wilson speakers vs his soon to arrive Tekton Design Ulf and Moab models. The brilliant Tekton designer has taken commonly available tweeter drivers in an array able to cover the midrange down to 300 Hz. The Tekton owners are delighted with how the whole freq range has such greater than expected resolution rivaling electrostatics. On p43 of the Tekton Design Moab thread, there is a link to a Facebook group which lists owners by state, so you can hear them. Eliminating dealers keeps the price low. The Moab at $4500 looks to be great value. Upgrading to all Be tweeters which cover 300 Hz to HF, at $14K, still a great value. Go challenge any dynamic speaker at any price to beat those sonics, so say the Tekton owners.
Grey9hound should chime in here, since I have not heard Tektons.
|
