kren0006,
Also, for any system, digital or analog, spending more money doesn't necessarily equate to better performance. I don't know how much experience you have with turntables, arms, cartridges, but my experience is that my relatively inexpensive Denon 305 MC cartridge had more accuracy than much more expensive cartridges like Koetsu. Sound quality is highly subjective. Mike Fremer has reviewed many turntable systems. The lightweight, inexpensive top of the line Rega has lean, accurate tone quality that I would like, whereas massive TT often have bass heavy/slow SQ that I would hate. His latest S-phile review of the J Sikora TT at $45K has SQ that I would prefer over other TT's costing multiples of that.
As for digital, I would take my cheap Sony CD player over massive TT's with euphonic expensive cartridges and euphonic phono preamps.
Price has little to do with performance in almost everything audio. Judgment is always required to get the best performance. For example, in your bedroom system, the Magico S7 would show unbalanced heaviness. The S1 would be better balanced, but perhaps the best Magico might be the bookshelf A1, which still goes down to 35 Hz.
|
ricevs,
Thanks for posting this comparative review of the Alta and Magico S1 speakers. I agree with the writer's preference for 2 way speakers. The Alta and S1 are probably among the best examples of the breed. Yes, ribbon tweeters are better than beryllium/diamond tweeters. A few electrostatics like my Audiostatic 240 have still better tweeters than ribbons. Mine was more revealing than the Dick Sequerra ribbon tweeter at $1200/pr which I owned in 1980.
The S1 mid/woofer uses the carbon nanotube/neographene material which is probably more accurate than the aluminum woofer of the S7 and S5. Why do the upper priced S5 and S7 use the possibly inferior aluminum material for their 10" woofers? Maybe Magico had problems using the better material for the 10" woofers. Or maybe Magico designed the S5 and S7 for more power delivery, and the S1 and S3 for more finesse/accuracy.
|
I also heard Mark Levinson's mini monitor 2 way speaker using a ribbon tweeter 15-20 years ago at his Red Rose Music place in Manhattan. For $3k/pr, quite good. Not much bass, as the priority was midrange/HF. Still not as revealing as my electrostatic. I was envious of his 1/4 inch diameter recording microphone, which probably had better resolution than my 1/2 inch diameter Neumann KM 184.
|
Mike Fremer is the best living audio reviewer in print. Follow him where he goes. His tastes differ somewhat from mine, but he describes clearly how something sounds, using various types of music and other components in his system. He doesn't brag how much his system costs, and he doesn't say that something is better because it is more expensive. For example, he recently extolled the superlative accuracy and tonal qualities of the Paradox 70 phono preamp at MSRP of $2-3k (direct sale, it would be double through a retailer). He objectively compared it to his reference CH Precision phono preamp costing 30x more. Not to offend CH, and to hide his embarrassment about his purchase (even considering his reviewer discount) he searched for something nice to say about CH, but anyone who reads between the lines can conclude that he judges the Paradox to be SOTA for accuracy. In his review, he notes that the manufacturer uses the best parts, which in the hands of a typical major brand with a huge marketing budget, would cost $20k.
|
ricevs,
Agree that your mods in concept would probably improve my electrostatic, which uses some mediocre materials. However, all of the stats currently available have basic flawed concepts, such as large convex curved panels. Large straight planar panels like Maggies and Apogees suffer from similar problems. Think of a large panel as having a huge number of small drivers radiating to the listener with different angles of dispersion patterns. The result is a chaotic summation of sounds, creating time smearing. I was shocked at how mediocre the Apogees that I heard were--the original tall Apogee, Scintilla, Duetto, etc. The Maggie 20 original had poorer clarity although more bass than the 3 model at the time, the mid 80’s. The larger the panel, the worse the clarity from more chaotic hodge-podge radiation patterns.
You could certainly improve the sound from these poor designs with your mods, but superior results will be from better designs with even mediocre parts. Of course, the best result will be from better designs with the best mods.
My concept of the best possible panel is a slice of a spherical membrane with CONCAVE radiation to the listener. If you sit 8 feet away, the sphere has a radius of curvature of 8 feet, about 5 feet tall and 1 foot wide to get enough membrane area for loud enough SPL’s. Soundlab uses small cells, which is on the right track, but their convex curvature rolls off HF for much of the large panel that is way off axis to the listener. In my concept, each small cell curved concavely, would beam the sound directly to the listener. The only drawback is the need to sit in the small sweet spot. Anyone who goes through all the expense and effort in assembling a system should be willing to get the best sound by sitting in the sweet spot.
My Audiostatic 240 single panel is 5.3" wide and 48" tall as a flat straight panel. If I accidentally move the panel off axis, I hear the loss of clarity, which demonstrates the necessity of meticulous positioning for the best sound. Even though it dates from 1980, newer stats suffer from flawed thinking, resulting in sound that is less clear. My concept would be even better than my Audiostatic, but there is no market for an electrostatic with ultimate clarity in the minds of 99.9% of audiophiles--they prioritize bass and high SPL’s.
For dynamic speakers, I respect 2 way designs using the best drivers. Their obvious shortcoming is the relatively massive weight of their drivers compared to the near zero mass of stat drivers. But their strength is accurate imaging due to the small radiating area, compared to the bloated imaging from large curved panels which detracts from the benefits of their low mass drivers.
I still marvel at the excellent clarity from the Silver 8 (forgot the brand) 2 way speaker you posted 1-2 years ago.
|
ricevs,
No, driver materials and design concepts are the biggest factor. There is no dynamic speaker executed to the max, such as Magico, that compares in accuracy to a half way decent electrostatic or ribbon speaker. Of course, any design can be improved by mods, but the inherent limitation of inferior drivers and concepts reigns supreme. But yes, add super tweeters for more HF and better air, detail, etc. That is a basic design concept with better HF drivers, not a tweak.
Another example--you could tweak a conventional box speaker all you want, but any stock horn speaker will kill that tweaked conventional box speaker for macrodynamics. The horn’s 100+ dB efficiency says it all.
|
Despite my disagreements with some of ricevs’ claims, I regard him as making significant contributions to audio. I wish I lived near him, so I could verify his claims for myself. I did have a now deceased friend near me who had proprietary interconnect cables. He would buy industrial wire and modify it. I use his interconnects which approach and in some cases surpass some Nordost cables I also have. He was not an educated technologist, but just used his ears and experimented a lot. He designed cables with maximum clarity for me, and other sonic qualities for other friends.
Jay has an excellent system, but few people here will spend that kind of money. Ricevs is providing eye-opening alternatives which should be considered and respected.
|
mheinze,
Who do you think you are to call my posts, "uninformed opinions." What is your musical and technical background? No technologist in the past 40 years has the experience and thought process to approach mine with electrostatic speakers. Only Peter Walker, the designer of the original Quad 57, but his later Quad stats were far inferior. Ben Peters, the designer of my Audiostatic 240 was another great. All the other stat speakers of the last 40 years I have heard, and they are all inferior in the ways I discussed. What speakers have you designed or bought?
There is no opinion that is uninformed. Everyone is entitled to express their own experiences. If you disagree with something, either ignore it or discuss intelligently without any nasty overlay.
|
mheinze,
Well, thanks for enlarging my vocabulary, Dunning-Kruger effect. Not applicable to me at all. I don't have experience in all things audio, and neither do you. We might play different instruments, and are expert in some instruments and not others. What instruments do you play, and what music have you recorded? I have dabbled in recording as an amateur. I don't like most commercial recordings which have a distant presentation with mediocre clarity, but admire the immediacy of Mercury Living Presence and the Turnabout/Vox 1967 recordings of Rachmaninoff Symphonic Dances and Copland pieces. I got my inspiration from those recordings, and made superbly clear recordings of small orchestras and chamber groups.
Every audiophile knows that objective measurements are useful, but the defining characteristic of an audiophile is that equipment is selected mainly on the basis of careful listening. I have heard nearly every electrostatic speaker produced since the days of the Quad 57. My ears tell me that that Quad 57 is the only one that challenges/surpasses my own speaker for clarity. I am shocked that the general audiophile peer group of listeners extol the current crop of Soundlab, Martin Logan and later Quad speakers which are markedly veiled. Where were the ears of the designers to produce such mediocrity? All designers have to come up with something new, which in many cases is not better, despite advances in technology. The midrange of the Quad 57 has not been equalled, but few will admit it.
So much for objectivity and peer opinion. It is safer to have conventional approaches to give the masses what they are accustomed to. Creative ideas are ridiculed at first, then hopefully reconsidered, and then embraced after a period of time after more people understand the innovations.
|
Jay,
Your latest video is interesting. The 3rd song at 5:04 has very clear sound on guitar and voice. But the 2nd song at about 2:25 starts out with a muddy piano and then I get surprised by the voice which is very close miked and bright. I LIKE the 2nd song voice and the entire 3rd song, but I don’t know whether the discontinuity in the 2nd song is the fault of the recording (most likely), or whether the weakness of the S7 speaker is the too dominant bass, although only compared to the superlative midrange/HF. The 3rd song didn’t have much bass, so the whole sound is coherent and delightful. Obviously, the Boulder is the most perfect component, but I am questioning the S7 speaker.
My guess is that the S3 speaker has the most coherent sound, due to the more advanced neographene woofer, compared to the aluminum woofer in the S5 and S7. I suppose the S3 is the best of the S series for overall accuracy and coherence, while the S7 offers the most quantity of bass and macrodynamics. I hope you can go somewhere (Mike’s place?) to compare the S3 and S7. The S3 reaches down to 24 Hz, so that should please almost anyone who wants a full range speaker.
BTW, the only thing I didn't like about the Wilson XLF was its overblown bass. The Magico S7 is better balanced and more coherent than the XLF.
|
Jay,
I value inputs from both you and ricevs. We are all in the pursuit of excellence. It comes at all price levels. Suppose you re-titled your thread as "best sound at high prices" and ricevs opened up a thread as "best sound for DIYers and MODers." While your re-titled thread would still gather lots of attention, after most people laughed they would realize that it wouldn't give them much practical advice within their budgets. $50K for a total system is still big money for many people. Even you are increasingly recognizing excellence at more modest prices. I consider the M6 at $175K to be mediocre in sound and also poor value, certainly compared to the S7. At $76K, the S7 is better than the M6 by a mile for absolute performance. But I believe that the S3 at about $35K is still better, except for people who dig deep bass and loud SPL's.
But the top Boulder electronics is probably superior in every way to cheaper alternatives, so if one has the money, that is a valid choice. For accuracy, a superior combo might be the cheaper S3 with the costly Boulder 3000 series. I have contempt for the typical dealer who says that a cheap speaker should go with a cheap amp. That's just marketing that has nothing to do with assembling the best possible system.
Ricevs' info about other speakers is enlightening. I was impressed with the Lii Audio Silver 8 speaker. You could still appreciate your MSB dac, Boulder electronics feeding that speaker.
An open mind to all possibilities is called for.
|
Carey1110--agree about the benefits of diverse views and subjects discussed in one thread. Everything relates to other subjects, so it is appropriate to discuss how amps combine with different speakers, uses with different sources and qualities of recordings, etc.
Clearthink--agree about the vast possibilities of DIY. For me, I am not handy with soldering. With my car, I don’t mess with even simple things like oil changes, but leave the work to a mechanic that I trust. But I am at a very simple audio DIY level. My father, an engineer built his own amps and Altec Voice of the Theater from parts. He grew up poor, so just used plain zip cord for speaker wire. I continued zip cord, and was shocked to find out that many audiophile speaker cables were markedly veiled by comparison. I never understood why, considering the low quality of materials in zip cord, but my desire for musical satisfaction was the only thing that mattered. Later, I discovered EQ in my recording activities, and put it in place of my preamp line stage which I dumped. I thought my father would criticize my use of this analog Rane ME 60 EQ because it violated audiophile principles of purity, but he just said to do it and trust my ears.
Trusting your ears is the basis of all DIY activity. There are some people who buy entire systems from a single manufacturer. I don’t think that any one manufacturer knows what is best for any single audiophile, despite the tempting belief that the components are matched for best synergy. Although Jay denies that he is a DIY’er, I guarantee that there is not any other person in the world who has precisely the same combination of components as he. Although ricevs is the ultimate DIY’er, Jay still does careful matching according to his goals. This makes him a true DIY’er on his own level. Literally, he "does it all himself" by owning components and experimenting.
|
I am puzzled why the two Stromtank models Jay talked about have different sound characteristics. Jay's descriptions match the Audiodrom review from the Stromtank site. The only difference in the models is in the amount of battery energy storage. The goal is to generate a pure sine wave from the inverter in the S-tank. (The S-tank must be a 2 in 1 unit--battery plus inverter to generate the sine wave to feed the electronics.) Why should the sine wave be different in each model? The way Jay described the sound is like how people describe tube amps vs SS amps. Jay said the S1000 sounds more articulate (like a SS amp) and the S2500 as smooth (like a tube amp), making bright recordings sound more forgiving. The ideal power conditioner should not color the sound in a forgiving manner. I am confused about this technology.
Ricevs would say that the models may differ in the materials used, which would explain the different sound characters.
Your turn, Jay. Thanks.
|
The July 2022 S-phile article on the Stromtank S-1000 includes a statement on p 95 by the designer, Wolfgang Meletzky that is important. He said there must be the proper impedance match between the S tank output and the input stage of the power amp.
To me, this may explain the different sound character of both units. There might be a different sound comparison depending on your power amp, or preamp/dac or other components fed by the S tank. Jay should compare the S 1000 to the S2500 using other electronics. He had previously advised against using a power conditioner with power amps because of possible loss of dynamics, but I disagree. The whole point of using S tanks or other battery/inverters as mentioned by ricevs is getting rid of junky power quality. Even if the S tank were to limit dynamics as many power conditioners do, what is most important is power quality, not quantity.
So Jay should try other electronics with both S tanks and report on that. Since it isn't possible to test all electronics, it is prudent to offer any buyer a reasonable trial period, with a money back guarantee less restocking fee to cover the costs and effort required.
I am still suspicious if Jay says that the cheaper S 1000 is more neutral than the S 2500. By definition, a purifier unit is neutral, so if the S 2500 presents the music in a forgiving way, like a Dagnostino Momentum amp, then the S 2500 is not neutral and is just another euphonic device that colors the music in its own way, even if Jay goes ape over it.
|
Jay,
The bottom line is your ears told you that the S 1000 is more neutral than the S 2500, and the S 2500 shaves off unpleasant HF and is forgiving. All the technobabble doesn't explain what you heard. I don't want any D'ag Momentum type of forgiving flavor. Flavor is what S2500 gives you, and you like it, but it is not revealing transparency, meaning warts and all.
|
Jay,
Your business model is pushing high priced goods and getting people to pay good consult fees who would spend big money on products you recommend. You are just like many businesses, high end audio or outside audio.
How about experiencing reality yourself? You won't try lamp cord or EQ because they are at odds with the high price stuff you promote. Why don't you spend a few bucks to try the battery/inverter alternatives ricevs presents? That way you can get informed and give a real appraisal of a lot of products cheap and expensive in this area. To be fair, maybe you would try them yourself IF you truly have an open mind. However, you will likely not report any positive findings about cheap alternatives to your followers. If you do admit some positive things, they will be de-emphasized in favor of what sonic flavors appeal to your followers.
Keep in mind that high end audio is a great way to get poor for most audiophiles. The only entities that profit financially are those in the business. We have a tough economy due to the world situation. Most intelligent people here know this, but don't speak up.
|
Everyone should read the thoughtful piece in the current Stereophile July 2022 piece by Rogier van Bakel in the "My Back Pages" on p 130 (not online yet). Title--"Quackery, gullibility, and open-mindedness." Rogier is a new contributor who tells of a NY Times journalist who had an epiphany about the medical benefit of his newfound open-mindedness. Parallels are made between open-mindedness in medical and audio experiences.
My detractors are largely close minded about my ideas that conflict with their preconceived notions, or just that they enjoy hate speech. They have NOT tried zip cord or EQ, but protest that my info is akin to deadly blasphemy. I would not object if anyone said, AFTER they have tried my ideas, that they didn’t like such sound. They are entitled to their sonic preferences, and if they made statements such as "zip cord is too zippy, my speaker cable gives me more fullness and bass that I like," I would accept the truth of their observations and understand that my suggestions are not for them. I think that IF Jay tried my suggestions, he may or may not like them in his system, because he likes somewhat different sound than I do.
My friend Steve who represents the excellent GTA speakers and subs, heard my zip cord and Rane EQ in his system, together with me. We agreed on the objective characteristics of both items--greater clarity and more immediate/upfront sound compared to his speaker cable and Pass preamp used in place of my Rane. It was an obvious big difference especially with judicious EQ, which got him wondering about perhaps the best EQ of all, the Levinson Cello Audio Palette. In the end, he went back to his speaker cable and Pass preamp, which suits the tastes of himself and most of his customers. Whatever he likes is fine by me, but he has an open mind.
Jay initiated an important project, battery/inverter as the best route to pure power. As a NYC resident who is bothered at times by poor sound from polluted power, this is an important subject that goes way beyond A/B’ing power amps and such. Ricevs has reconmmended cheap items and claims that they challenge and possibly surpass Stromtanks. I don’t know, since I have no experience obviously, but I don’t dismiss his claims and tell him to get off this thread as so many people here do. I got interested in the Yeti Goal Zero products last year after he mentioned them. I contacted several Goal Zero employees, but they had almost zero experience in high end audio applications. I don’t see ricevs or myself purchasing $100K worth of Stromtanks and several much cheaper battery/inverters to do A/B’s with various electronics. Since Jay already has two of the S-tanks, he is in a position to seriously study this important area. I might purchase a Goal Zero or other products that ricevs recommended. If there is no money back guarantee, I would be out only a few grand for this experiment. Jay has just scratched the surface of this important project, and there is no audio reviewer who has done a proper comparative review. We should put our heads together to try to really understand what and why certain products seem to have a sound. Frankly, I am disillusioned that there is not a single product that does the sought after goal of purity, WITHOUT any drawbacks of introducing sonic flavor. Perhaps the S 1000 is the closest for neutrality and purity, but nobody knows at present.
We need more respectful, intelligent sharing of information, not childish close mindedness. It is OK for someone with other interests to decide to ignore my ideas, provided he avoids verbal venom and adopts silence.
Jay, please avoid the aggressive sales pitch, at least until you have done the comparative study I have suggested and have demonstrated you have an open mind to anything. You have an opportunity to become THE expert on these battery/inverter products, and after much more R & D, be able to recommend products at all price levels, just as you have done for electronics, speakers, stands, cables, etc. There may not exist a product with absolutely the purest transparency and lack of sonic flavor, but you will know the sound character of each product, just as you know about the other ancillary components.
Thank you.
|
Thanks for all your suggestions, ricevs. I am mostly a plug and play guy, so which audiophile unit do you recommend, or is the Stromtank the only one? The Goal Zero is plug and play.
In Jay’s post of 6/25, 7:58 PM, I found an informative statement by the S-tank distributor--"The quantum (2500) also has a different and better converter than the 1000. The converter is like a power conditioner. It has its own transformer and small capacitors like you would find in an amp."
So we are back to the familiar reality that converters (inverters?) have electronics in them. There is no such thing as a perfectly transparent piece of electronics. We want to remove dirty power artifacts, but we have to live with adding distortions from the electronics--S-tank as well as PS Audio and the units that ricevs mentions. Are added electronic distortions less than the benefits of battery power and the distortions on the power from the wall? Perhaps YES. PS Audio says that wall power can have 5% or higher distortion, and their units reduce it to a small fraction of 1%. A related observation is the benefit of EQ, which vastly outweighs the additive distortions of the EQ’s electronics, in my experience.
The bottom line is that every prospective customer for a battery/inverter should listen to that unit himself in his own system, just like he would listen to any other electronics he buys. If he doesn't like D’Agostino Momentum types of colorations, he will choose a unit with different colorations that he prefers. This may have nothing to do with the price of the unit.
|
Playing a recording without a reference point is meaningless. If the new component X is the greatest, let it break in for whatever time is required. Then record a song without X, and with X so we can hear the difference. Even if youtube sound is mediocre, the benefits of the Stromtanks or new X should still be obvious.
|
Jay,
New worlds are open to you with turntables, arms, cartridges. Although daveyf has experience with successive Linn models and follows the Linn contention that the top priority is the TT, then arm, and lastly cartridge, I have had findings at variance with this hierarchy. The analog project doesn’t have to be expensive. I don’t like the rolled off HF euphonic quality of Koetsu cartridges. As a first exercise, you will enjoy the differences in the VPI Avenger TT vs Kronos TT using the same Koetsu. But the AudioTeknica cartridge may be more neutral than the Koetsu, depending on the models of each. You might even prefer the overall sound from the AudioTeknica on the modest VPI TT. The differences from any of the TT/arm/cartridge combos are certainly much greater than from dacs. Money has little to do with all this. Most older audiophiles got their start with vinyl setups when we didn’t have much money. If you want clear/neutral cartridges, they can be much cheaper than euphonic pricey cartridges. Of the other way around. Listen with an open mind and ear.
Using the Boulder phono preamp is a great idea, which will better reveal the TT/arm/carridge differences. Later, you can try the cheap Paradox 70 phono stage, which Fremer said seriously challenged his CH Precision.
I don’t know the exact outcome of these experiments, which is for you to discover.
To make these comparisons more meaningful, get recordings which have vinyl and digital versions, otherwise you are comparing apples to oranges.
|
It's nice to have a sincere analog guy near you to get started. But seek the advice of many analog people here and elsewhere. Analog can be mellow/tubey, or fast/precise, with a vast spectrum in-between. A cartridge is THE most critical component, because it is a transducer, a speaker in reverse. You will find more changes in the sound from different cartridges than tonearm wiring and cables. The TT/arm is really the supporting cast for the cartridge to perform its best, but the cartridge determines the basic personality of the system, only exceeded in importance by the speaker. Ask your analog guy about compatibility with the tonearm using criteria of cartridge mass and compliance. Most important, read about the sonic personalities of each cartridge from users.
You WILL find a vinyl setup that will beat the MSB for clarity, accuracy of imaging and spatiality, but it won't be from euphonic cartridges like Koetsu on a $500K TT/arm. A simple top $7K package from Rega may do it. Follow Fremer's columns for cartridge reviews. The Lyra Atlas SL is an example of a top cartridge with neutral/revealing sound.
|
The key to avoiding musical boredom is expanding your horizons. Slowly dip your toes into classical. Great classical music has lasted 500 years or more. Why? You don't have to be a scholar to continue to appreciate and understand it, although there is a learning curve with every musical language. People expose younger generations to it, who recognize its power and depth. Despite my nearly 70 years of attentive listening, I know only a minute fraction of it, so there is much to learn.
Further, I have a comparatively small number of favorite pieces, but I never get tired of hearing them. The complexity of a classical piece means that I hear something new the next time I hear it. There is room for many interpretations of each piece. I have many recordings of each piece by different performers, and even by the same performer over decades of his career. I have recordings of the same performers on different record labels, so I can hear how the different engineers recorded the sound. The tone of the same violin is vastly different according to the recording techniques used. The same violin used by different players shows similarities and differences. When I hear the actual tone in concert close up, I can judge which recording is most truthful.
Equipment changes are interesting up to a point, but EVERY audiophile eventually gets tired of it all. Seek the music. Buy some LP's that have a physical presence, with interesting record jacket musical commentary and artwork. Watch Mike Fremer's tour of his house LP collection where he says that digital downloads are nothing compared to his stories of what he was doing when he bought that physical LP, and how the tangible feel of it brings back his memories.
|
Grey9hound has an excellent recommendation of the LP's of Dire Straits. This way Jay can definitively hear the LP vs digital versions of the same recording. This is the only way to tell the pros and cons of each format, otherwise it is an apples/oranges debate. Even on a $500K turntable/arm, with a euphonic Koetsu cartridge the LP will be far inferior to digital for clarity and overall accuracy. I can tolerate a little digititis but I hate veiled mush from euphonic cartridges. With SOTA neutral moving coil cartridges like Lyra Atlas, Ortofon MC Anna Diamond, plus the SOTA Boulder phono preamp, the LP will challenge and likely beat the best digital for overall accuracy and naturalness. In deference to daveyf, this may not be true with certain turntables. Years ago before I got a CD player, I had the SOTA Sapphire TT (the brand, not the SOTA hype) and compared my Linn Valhalla TT with the same arm and cartridge. The Sapphire was bass heavy and muddy, so it would have failed to compete against CD. I have no idea what the intrinsic tonal balance of the VPI or the Kronos are, but if they are bass heavy, then the lighter tonal balance of the Rega TT/arm would let the LP compete successfully against digital. Don't assume that expensive is better.
There are only a few examples of the same recording on both LP and digital formats, but it takes only a few to settle the vinyl/digital issue. When my Denon 305 cartridge was younger, the LP completely wiped out the CD on the same recordings in every parameter. The CD was hopelessly veiled, compared to even crude mass marketed vinyl setups. I did these comparisons in non audiophile friends' systems. Now my CD player beats my aging Denon cartridge, but the cartridge is still playing the music, so my laziness lets me just settle down. All this is true even with mediocre LP's. I have only a few expensive pressings, but my mediocre LP's will still beat the CD version when I get around to getting a new cartridge mounted.
Jay, when you are set up with a great, neutral cartridge, you can do an A/B shootout between LP and digital versions of the same recording. Even if there is record noise from the scraping needle, the increased information revealed from the LP should outweigh the noise.
|
I have a somewhat different view than daveyf, regarding what is most important--TT, tonearm, cartridge. We both agree that everything is important, as with speakers, preamps, amps, interconnect/speaker cables, power cords, and now battery/inverters. The exciting thing about analog is deciphering in what ways different items affect the total sound. To me, the cartridge supplies the tonal character, and the TT/arm affect the cleanliness of the sound. If you want warmth and mellow sound, get the Koetsu cartridge. This will be consistent on any TT/arm. If you want maximum clarity and resolution, and think you can beat digital's clarity, get Lyra, Ortofon, Rega Apheta (much cheaper than the others). Instead of spending $10K on an interconnect, take that money and buy a few cartridges. You'll get a vast smorgasbord of tonal flavors, instead of only relatively subtle differences from interconnects. You'll have a great time.
It is hard to obtain info about all these factors. Linn markets total systems, but a true connoisseur may take the top Klimax system and try different cartridges with that TT/arm. Who says that Linn knows best what is right for each customer? Their concept of synergy is different from that of someone else with good ears and different tastes. Their entry level Majik system includes a cheap moving magnet cartridge. Why not save money with the Majik but paired with the best moving coil cartridge of your preference? I don't believe any Linn dealer or user has experimented with all the Linn components in all the permutations. The truth is only known after all the possibilities are tried. No dealer does what is required to really know the truth. Marketing takes over, saying in effect, "Trust me. We have our systems approach." Complete utter BS.
|
Jay,
Just watched your video--sensibly put. Smart to go slowly and modestly at first. Try a few cheap but excellent moving coil cartridges. A few years ago, I was tempted by possibly the fastest one-the $7K Van den Hul Colibri (like the fast bird, colibri), but I was nervous about the exposed naked stylus. If you want detail, the Rega Apheta 3 at about $2K, is a top choice. Lyra is known for accuracy with some midrange sweetness, so you might consider their cheaper cartridges. Read the latest S-phile review of the Luxman LMC-5 moving coil cartridge, which may offer what I think you like--clarity with some midrange sweetness, for $2695. That would be my top recommendation for you.
I bought a refurbished Denon 305 recently for $500 from Cartridge Retipping, 69 Ballard Drive, West Hartford, Conn 06119. I forgot how I found this retipper guy, maybe eBay. He has a large selection and turnover of all kinds of cartridges, and would be a great resource. My 1982 Denon 305 until recently was the fastest clearest cartridge I ever owned, and on my Goldmund Studio TT + Alphason arm, beat the heck out of CD for speed and snap. You probably would find it too ruthless for you, but I mention it to illustrate that analog can have any sonic trait you want. Oz clearly likes euphonic components--tube electronics, Koetsu. You will probably at first like the excursion into euphonic analog with his setup. But later you will crave the digital precision you now have, although to make a fair comparison, physical analog should be compared with physical digital, using CD/SACD on a transport. Just don't make any definitive conclusions about analog vs digital until you have tried a sampling of TT's, arms, cartridges. Try a new Rega Planar 10 + arm + Apheta cartridge all set up and ready to go, for $7K. That is high quality at a cheap price that enables you to learn a lot by swapping different modestly priced cartridges. Some people, especially reviewers, have TT's with a few arms, to make comparison of cartridges easier.
Never spend big bucks on any cartridge. High price is absolutely no guarantee of sound quality and whether you like that particular sound. MOST IMPORTANTLY, all cartridges have a break in process that is more dramatic in extent than any other component you have had. Worse, the lifespan for top sound quality is only about 1000 hours, although I got lucky with my Denon 305 which was superb for many thousands of hours. Most of my other cartridges became dogs after fewer than 1000 hours. Don't waste the lifespan of a cartridge when doing A/B tests of other components--that's why I used CD for such testing. Use the cartridge to settle down and enjoy the music.
|
Jay,
Passion is the lifeblood of analog devotees. The spectrum of variation is much smaller for all levels of digital, but a much larger galaxy of variations and options is what fuels analog passion. You don't have to be a tweaker like ricevs to have fun with analog. Simply trying a few TT/arms/cartridges is plenty enough fun. At one time I had 3 turntables in my room at once--Win Labs direct drive, Win belt drive, Goldmund Studio. I transferred my arm/cartridge combo to each TT, adjusted the TT springs if needed, and listened. Another time I did this with 2 turntables concurrently--Linn Valhalla, Goldmund. Of course the volume levels were the same with the same cartridge. This way I zeroed in on the sonic character of each TT. Yes--daveyf is right about the importance of the TT. But the real personality of the whole system is mostly about the cartridge. Do your own testing with your Kronos, but also with the cheap Rega RP10, and various modestly priced cartridges to find out for yourself. Regardless of various strongly held opinions based on others' experiences, it is YOUR experience that most matters to you.
This is a fun learning process you will want to do for your own benefit, but also to properly advise clients. Right now, you have the experience to tell someone who complains about lack of bass that he shouldn't spend big bucks on wires, electronics, cable elevators, stands, daunting room treatments and construction, but he should first ditch the mini monitor speaker with its 4" midrange/bass driver and get a larger speaker. If he has the Lyra Atlas SL cartridge and says the system is too sterile and he wants romantic sound, the first thing to tell him is get a Koetsu or Miyabi cartridge, or a much cheaper Hana cartridge. A good analog diagnostician will know what different TT's do, what arms do, what cartridges do. Then you can get fancy and try different tonearm interconnects, different screws for cartridges in the headshell. Brass screws have a more mellow sound than steel screws.
You are a power guy and love to lift heavy weights and do work on cars which all require strength. How are you with delicate cartridge mounting? How quickly can you thread a needle? You need good eyes and patient fine dexterity. Top cartridge manufacturers employ tiny women with these skills. Maybe your wife is best to help you with these tasks. Maybe even your daughter.
|
Jay,
Everything is important in the TT/arm/cartridge chain. But the details matter. I have had several turntables that were very different in tonal balance and other qualities, and it seemed that no cartridge would sound like what I wanted on a bad TT like the SOTA Sapphire. On the other hand, my Linn Valhalla and Goldmund Studio were much closer and both excellent, so the cartridge was more important in the overall sound quality.
Re: tonearms, on my Goldmund, I much preferred the more neutral sound of the Alphason arm over the Goldmund T3B straight line tracking arm. On my Linn Valhalla TT, I did more trials with different cartridges and different arms. I found that cartridge differences far exceeded arm differences, mainly due to the different tonal and spatial differences. Cartridge differences were quantitatively similar to speaker differences. It was like the big difference between a clarinet and oboe vs the more subtle difference between 2 clarinets.
Despite the generic pronouncements in manufacturer promotions, there is very little written on actual specifics. A good analysis would go like this. Take the entry level Linn Majik, middle level Akurate, top level Klimax TT's. Outwardly, they have similar design, look the same, but vary in materials mainly, but also in power supply quality. Add the Majik, Akurate, Klimax arms, then the Majik, Akurate, Klimax cartridges. There are 27 possible combinations of all these. The Majik cartridge is a moving magnet type, whereas the Akurate and Klimax cartridges are moving coils. All of the moving magnet types were vastly inferior in resolution/clarity to all moving coils I owned. The Majik TT is probably still an excellent TT, better than my much older Valhalla TT which was still fine. I challenge anyone to step up and say that he has heard all 27 combinations (in their own system and not at a biased Linn dealer) and claim that the still excellent Majik TT plus the top moving coil Klimax cartridge sounds worse than the Klimax TT with a grossly inferior moving magnet cartridge. I don't accept anyone parroting official Linn dogma about their hierarchy. Do the listening yourself, and report honestly. Don't merely say that one is better than another. A romantic Koetsu cartridge will certainly perform its "best" on the Klimax or other top TT, but what does "best" mean? More romantic, or more precise and less romantic?
All that said, I believe you are on the right track with the Kronos TT. From the review of the Kronos Pro in Mono and Stereo, the Kronos makes cartridge differences more dramatic than any other TT the reviewer owned, even the far more expensive Tech Das and Clearaudio Statement TT's. I recommend you spend good money on the top Lyra Atlas cartridge and settle in for now. Along with your top Boulder phono preamp, you will probably prove the superiority of that top analog system to your MSB and server digital system in nearly every way. Later, you can try other top cartridges like the Ortofon MC Anna Diamond, whose differences vs Lyra will be maximally revealed. And try the much cheaper Rega Apheta 3, with Oz's approval for cartridge/arm compatibility. The much more expensive Rega Aphelion cartridge is of similar design to the Apheta 3, and may be better or worse.
I love the Kronos design of the 2 platters rotating in opposite directions to cancel out vibrations. The Mono and Stereo reviewer particularly noted the strength of the Kronos in bass, so this TT may suit you best. But think about the lightweight Rega system, which Fremer thought noteworthy for midrange/HF clarity. Poorly understood is the effect of high mass/low mass and different materials in favoring different frequencies. Perhaps Rega is more revealing in higher freq, while Kronos is best for bass and still great full range.
So there is no easy, glib answer to the question of which component is most important. Nobody has done all the listening I suggested, and even if they did, they have not reported their findings.
|
OK, but in what specific ways did the Klimax TT + Majik cartridge sound "better" than Majik TT + Klimax cartridge? Did you listen at home, or a Linn dealer or a friend’s home? I have been fooled by listening anywhere except in my very familiar system at home. I can understand that a dramatically inferior TT + inferior tonearm using a detailed cartridge would sound worse than a superior TT + superior tonearm with a less detailed but reasonably decent cartridge. That’s kinda like 2 good factors against 1.
Regarding my experience with the bad SOTA Sapphire TT vs Linn Valhalla with my same great Alphason arm + Denon 305 moving coil cartridge, the SOTA was so muddy like a leaden elephant, that in this case I agree with Linn’s and your hierarchy. With my excellent Linn Valhalla vs Goldmund Studio TT’s, the reverse was true--detail on the Linn was slightly inferior to the Goldmund by X, using the same Alphason arm and Denon cartridge, but with other cartridges, the Linn + Alphason was far inferior by 100X to Linn + Alphason + the most detailed Denon 305 cartridge.
Another experience I told you about in the past, was that when my Denon 305 was younger, the Linn or the Goldmund TT’s with Alphason arm sounded 100X more detailed than my CD player on the same recording. But years later, when the Denon aged, the CD player was far more detailed. And yet, the aged Denon still plays music decently, so I haven’t been desperate to swap in my refurbished Denon. But the young vs old cartridge is like the life changing difference between the athlete before and after he fractures his hip.
The post by mglik above is most informative--
"IME, upgrading from my very good Myajima Shalabi cartridge to a Lyra Atlas SL was, by far, the greatest improvement ever."
So I conclude that sometimes the Linn hierarchy is correct, and other times the cartridge is most important. As far as Jay is concerned, he is getting the best of everything, as he usually does, so this debate doesn’t really matter. Still, I am questioning whether the Kronos TT + arm + euphonic Koetsu cartridge will bring the detail of his SOTA digital system, but I am very confident that the Kronos + arm + SOTA Lyra Atlas SL cartridge will blow away the digital system in nearly every sonic parameter. So I change my mind, and now advise Jay to get the very best cartridge. The increased cost of the Lyra Atlas SL over cheaper Lyra models will be amply revealed by the SOTA Kronos TT + arm. I also speculate that a $5K difference in cartridge cost will yield greater benefits than the $30K cost of the SOTA Taiko Extreme server.
Jay, I’ve following you for 5 years, and I have never before been as excited about your findings on your new vinyl endeavor. I predict this will be life changing for you. I can even imagine your daughter doing her own YT channel for kids on the glories of vinyl as she delicately does the setups.
|
Fantastic, more food for thought, Jay. Back to the source components as most critical. First, the purity of the recording. Then the preamp, which the Boulder 3010 seems to offer the BEST clarity/transparency. The 3010 seems to be the closest to the holy grail ideal of a straight wire with gain. If there is more distortion in the early stages, then the perfect power amp will just amplify the garbage. So I predict that the 3010 + your other amps will be better than the 2110 with the Boulder amp. But if the other amp is quite euphonic and subtracts lots of detail (Constellation, Luxman, D'agostino, Pass), maybe not. But with fairly neutral amps like the small Gryphon, Simaudio, the 3010 will be better than 2110 and Boulder amp.
All this will be even more eye-opening with your Kronos TT with especially the Lyra Atlas SL as likely the finest source for at least clarity/resolution. Your system is at the highest level where each change results in even more dramatic improvements. This is why I changed my mind and recommended you spend the extra money on the finest cartridge you can find. If you feel that the $140K is well worth the money for the improvements from the 3010, then much less money spent on the best cartridge will be worth it. You will probably sell the 2110 preamp, which will give you plenty of cash to get a buffet of great cartridges which you will appreciate, plus get a great LP collection.
Looking forward to your next video on more insights about the differences between the 2110 and 3010 preamps. Well done!
|
Jay,
Eagerly awaiting the Kronos vs Taiko/MSB comparison. But you will need the same recording in both vinyl and digital formats to make this an apples/apples meaningful comparison. Do you have a few of these paired recordings? Otherwise it would be an apples/oranges comparison.
The basic disadvantage of all digital systems is the tandem A/D and D/A conversions. As you have learned, especially with the 3010, is that all other preamps have electronic colorations. The same applies to tandem A/D and D/A electronics. Sure, digital has the elegance of storing numbers instead of complicated analog waveforms. Does the storage advantage outweigh the lack of purity from the tandem electronic stages? You'll find out.
Even though I have praised the detail of some digital, with some recordings sounding very natural, I admit there is some artificiality which sounds electronic. So I may criticize euphonic cartridges like Koetsu and many others I have had, but there is that analog ease. This ease is not the euphonic warmth or rounding off the edges, but it is the smooth character of live, unamplified instruments, which have superb detail AND ease.
It is good that you don't have to crank up the volume to be satisfied with the 3010 in the chain. So now you can reconsider a bypass test with the 3010. At low levels of 20-60 dB, I believe that using the 3010 will still add the slightest smidgen of electronic coloration, compared to eliminating it from the chain. NO electronic stage is perfectly transparent, although the 3010 comes the closest. Here is where there is a reasonable tradeoff for you. If the 3010 is 99.9% transparent, that is good enough so that the extra dynamics it provides for loud music is worth it. But all other preamps have been only 90-95% transparent, so the extra dynamics from those preamps come with a significant drawback of warm/fuzzy colorations.
A long time ago, I had this epiphany of transparency by eliminating the line stage, so I know the way you are feeling now, with the most transparent line stage--the 3010. The first 20 years of my audiophile life was using a phono preamp for my analog. In those days, preamps were for phono. Nobody talked about a line stage without a phono stage. Of course, the main reason for the amplification in the phono stage was for the RIAA EQ, plus the huge 60-70 dB gain required for low output moving coil cartridges. I found I had plenty of gain from the phono stage, so all I needed was a volume control, which I use in my Rane EQ. Those folks like mrdecibel who have dynamic speakers like horns do best with passive attenuators. My father mainly listened to his FM tuner with its volume control, and didn't need any line stage because he had plenty of gain and dynamics for his Altec horn speaker. You may have plenty of gain from your Boulder phono stage. The next frontier for you to explore is whether a top quality passive attenuator has better transparency than the 3010. Mrdecibel said there is no line stage that approaches the purity of his passive attenuator, but of course he never tried anything like the 3010.
|
deludedaudiophile,
You are absolutely correct. Vinyl has lots of disadvantages as you enumerate. Analog tape avoids lots of vinyl's mechanical problems, but tape as a physical medium still has its own problems. Despite these problems, A/D and D/A converters and digital jitter create unique sonic colorations. Analog enthusiasts accuse digital of having digititis, which mainly refers to high freq artifacts, but I have found these electronic colorations throughout the entire freq range. One would think that bass freq would be easier to avoid these problems because of fewer numbers, but people have found digital problems even in the bass.
As an MD (applied scientist) and former mathematician, I respect your technical perspective. As a "mathlete" I was solidly in the technical camp. When I became a doctor, I did have difficulty at first understanding and accepting clinical principles, which often merely described observations without a satisfactory technical explanation. The technical explanations are still as backward and elementary as a child learning to add and subtract. But we have to learn to accept certain clinical facts even if we only have a rudimentary understanding of them. So it goes with integration of subjective and objective truths in high end audio.
|
deludedaudiophile,
I respect and understand objective measurements AND my cruder ears. My ears cannot diagnose what electronic distortions are present, but standard measurements cannot pick up some of the things that the crude human ear picks up. Going back to early solid state amps of the 60's, THD measurements and flat freq response were the only thing that mattered. Golden ear types were scorned, but they heard unpleasant things not revealed by low THD. The technicians opened their minds and came up with TIM (transient intermodulation) distortion measurements. More data has since been collected, but the technicians still cannot correlate specs with the sound of an amp used in a complete audio system.
Do you actually have auditory experience comparing the sound of different preamps, amps, cartridges, interconnect and speaker cables, power cords? Or are you like the popular Mark Davis in the 70's Boston Audio Society who insisted that all amps with flat freq response and the exact same volume level sound the same?Most audiophiles who listen carefully know this is completely false.
Outside of hifi audio, I speak here as an accomplished violinist who has played internationally in all types of classical ensembles, played 100's of old master Italian violins, listened in worldwide concert halls from many seats closer and more distant, made recordings using ear-selected mikes and mike preamps. It is well established that despite all the scientific advances in understanding chemical analyses of varnish, dimensions and plate topographic thickness of violins, NOBODY today can make a violin whose sound approaches the brilliance and kaleidoscopic tone quality of 300 year old violins. Today's technicians are clueless about what makes a great sounding violin.
Respect both the art of subjective listening AND the science of measurement which are complementary. A great doctor is one who has the necessary clinical judgment to correlate subjective clinical info with objective test measurements. For example, when evaluating a man with fatigue, serum testosterone (T) is an important thing to measure. But T receptor function is not measurable, so in order to decide whether any measured level of T is significant, the best way is to assess the clinical symptoms which integrate the limited measurement of serum T with unknown T receptor function, and possibly other hormone and nutritional effects that interact. Too many MD's have a limited understanding of the numerous factors that go into the best assessment, just as there are many pure technical audio pros who don't understand sound as heard and experienced by the practitioner, the musician.
|
I compared vinyl and digital formats of the same recording in a few ways. One, I used 80's recordings of digital on an LP and the CD. In several of these recordings, the CD was veiled in the entire freq range compared to the same recording on LP, played on my Goldmund Studio TT + Alphason arm + bright Denon 305 cartridge. When my Denon aged, it lost clarity, and then the CD was more detailed, especially in HF.
Second, I have a 1961 RCA analog original recording which I compared to the AAD CD of the same recording. Also, several Columbia (now Sony) 1959 to 1965 recordings compared to the AAD versions. Same findings as the previous paragraph.
Third, I had an 80's LP recording of the Haydn Military Symphony no. 100. Side A was mastered from the analog tape, and side B was from the digital tape. I did this A/B when my Denon cartridge was young and detailed. This time, both recordings, played on my same TT/arm/cartridge and phono stage, were much closer in overall sound than on my other test with the LP vs CD. The salient differences were in the HF. The digital showed the typical early digititis of brittle artificial bright HF and seemed more brilliant, but it was unnatural. The analog was smoother, more lifelike with more layers of depth to this orchestra piece. But it was somewhat of a tradeoff as to which version someone would prefer. Digital was brighter and more upfront, but more hifi character.
The digital measurement specs were probably better than the analog. But it was early digital, with many improvements in naturalness to come. Has digital matured to now compete with great analog?
|
Grislybutter, good analogy about being ON the beach (LP) vs looking AT the beach (digital).
Deludedaudiophile, you have a valid point about the difference in mastering between the LP and CD versions of the same recording. Going back to my post about the 3 ways I did comparisons, several LP’s were far different than the corresponding CD, but using an LP with analog and digital versions was much closer. With my young, pristine Denon 305 cartridge, and even on friends’ modest TT systems with receivers, the CD was markedly rolled off in high freq. This was consistently true. I don’t know much about mastering LP’s, but it seems that a lot of the mastering process involves use of EQ. Since we have no control over the mastering process, we just have to accept what finished recordings are available, listen to comparable LP’s and available digital versions and see what we prefer. In addition, I began using EQ for playback after I started with CD’s, to correct deficiencies in any recording. If I don’t like the recording technique and mastering of the engineers, I can do it my way with my Rane ME 60 EQ.
Also, it was perceived that the digital process of recording was more accurate and revealing than various analog processes and playback with euphonic cartridges and tube phono stages, so I noticed that classical recordings in the digital era were more laid back and distant than my LP's from the 50's through 70's. Digital engineers probably moved the mikes more distant, to reduce ultra revealing edginess from closer mikes. The classical recordings from the 50's and 60's are particularly bright on Columbia and Mercury LP's.
|
thezaks,
You said, "Perhaps someone will prefer digital, because they prefer the way it's mastered, regardless of the other variables."
YES, that's agrees with what I just posted.
|
Deludedaudiophile,
No, only your 1st option is correct. When I bought a CD player in the early 90's, I had a low opinion of digital vs analog. I also listened at a dealer, and he said the same thing--CD's were rolled off in HF compared to the LP version. An audio buddy at the time had the same findings. He was the one who introduced me to the Linn LP12 TT and Grace 707 arm. I brought my flagship Denon DD TT with the same Denon 103D cartridge he had on his Linn. His Linn wiped out my Denon TT with the same cartridge in his system. We both had excellent ears and well set up systems.
I totally agree with your last paragraph.
|
The only electronics for amplification that is truly necessary is the power amp. But there is NO preamp that is 100% transparent. What remains for you to explore is how close to 100% is the 3010 preamp. If you choose a recording with music at an appropriate SPL where you go from the source straight to the power amp, then compare to when the 3010 is inserted at unity gain, you will learn more. When you get the Kronos and use your 2108 phono stage, there is a choice of 60 or 70 dB gain, so you can do this experiment with more recordings. Of course, you need a volume control for fine tuning of output, so the question is whether the best passive volume control unit is more transparent than the 3010. As ricevs would say, even the best passive unit has wires and resistors which have a sound. Going by the principle that less is more, I would expect the massive amount of circuitry in the heavy 3010 to have less transparency than the passive attenuator. Using 70 dB of gain for phono will likely yield enough gain to be able to have enough SPL with a passive attenuator.
If you are past your former prioritizing of dynamics at the sacrifice of transparency, and now value clarity and transparency as the highest goal, this exercise will be the next level of inquiry.
|
To correct the usual single nasty critic who lacks deep understanding, I will clarify again. This issue about preamps was discussed about 1-2 years ago on this thread when Jay had the dcs Rossini I recall. A few knowledgeable people here said that the DAC's have an amplification stage which cannot be bypassed. Even if there is a fixed gain output, the preamp circuitry of the DAC is still in the chain. So by adding an external preamp, there are effectively 2 tandem preamp circuits in the chain. Jay did acknowledge that adding his past preamps slightly reduced the detail and transparency of the whole system, but he vastly preferred the additional preamp for its benefits in larger soundstage presentation and dynamics. This entire issue should not be framed in terms of whether the DAC preamp stage is better or worse than the external dedicated preamp stage, but whether 2 tandem circuits are better than 1. With all prior preamps Jay has used (all excellent), he preferred the 2 tandem stages for the benefits I just cited. Of course, the 3010, being the best preamp by far, produces wonderful results, better than any other preamp he has used.
As I posted recently, my bet is that there is only a barely audible difference in clarity/transparency between the 3010 and bypassing it. But with his latest Magico S7 speaker which is far superior to his prior speakers, and the Boulder 3060 which is far superior to any power amp he has used, he is now enjoying the clarity/transparency of his entire system like never before. He said that he doesn't need to listen at high SPL's to get enjoyment, the way he needed to listen with less revealing equipment. So I began to wonder whether his priorities have changed, and if he now values clarity/transparency more than before. It was natural for me to again raise the issue at this time regarding preamp or none.
Jay, it is a worthwhile exercise for you to try the DAC direct into the 3060 amp and compare with the 3010 inserted, using music played at very low SPL's of 20-40 dB. I suspect the 3010 is so good that there will be only a slight benefit in transparency direct without it. I don't think YT has the resolution needed to demonstrate this, so only you and visitors who know your system will be able to assess this. This will also be a great test of your ears to see what differences you notice. The 3010 is superb, but I doubt it is totally transparent due to lots of circuitry. If it is 99+ % transparent, you may find that the added 3010 yields benefits in macrodynamics and spatiality that are still the deciding factor for you. I might feel the same way, if I primarily listened to large scale music with large macrodynamics. Since I primarily listen to more delicate music for ultimate clarity, I would choose source direct, without any preamp, using the best attenuator. For less frequent large scale music, I would reconnect the first rate preamp to regain (pun applicable) the large dynamics.
One nice feature of a TT system is that the cartridge only needs an RIAA EQ circuit to play LP's, plus a large gain of 70 dB to deal with low output moving coil (MC) cartridges. In many cases, this is plenty of gain to yield everything--clarity and macrodynamics. If this isn't enough gain, an additional gain stage can be considered. The most transparent line stages have low gains of 6-9 dB or so, which have the best chances of providing maximum transparency. Medium and high output MC's don't need much gain, an advantage, but generally the most detailed and neutral low output MC's needing more gain still produce the most detail. Low output MC's have the lowest moving mass and fewest turns of wire, offering the most clarity, other factors being equal.
|
Time to take off the kid gloves. Jay has repeatedly said that his statements are just one man's opinion. His equipment choices are his preferences and not necessarily THE TRUTH.
I respect Jay's opinion, not the nasty excretions of one obvious individual here. We need reasoned inputs from all followers of this thread who are interested and have something useful to say, not this nasty individual. I appreciate the technical contributions of people like deludedaudiophile, as well as the subjective listening evaluations of others. This nasty individual offers neither, but contributes nothing but negative energy to this thread, all aspects of a CLOSED MIND.
|
My gf in NJ has a Generac unit for almost the entire house. The installation was roughly $10K, 2x/yearly maintenance. It turns on for 15 min on Sat mornings. Great peace of mind investment for you. You spend multiples of that on any single component. This should give you perspective.
|
Yes, Dire Straits with the S1000 has devastating impact and clarity. Does the S2500 make that song more polite, as I suspect?
|
OK, same song, California Dreaming. On prior video with S1000, starts 2:43. On later video with S2500, starts 5:58. Unfortunately, on later video, it is recorded louder. Trying to match volumes, never an exact experiment, I heard more neutrality and focus with the S1000. S2500 seems rounder and warmer. This is only one song, so I would like to hear S1000 and S2500 with matched volumes on the better recorded Dire Straits song.
The generator is merely to provide basic survival comfort while awaiting the return of AC power. The ultimate sonic result will be from the upgraded AC, and a battery/inverter. I reject the claim made by power amp manufacturers that the best result is gotten from plugging the amp into the wall. In terms of unimpeded power delivery they may be correct. However, the audiophile seeks maximum power purity, which is likely best obtained by the battery/inverter, getting you off the polluted grid. Only the S5000 has the capability to handle the entire system with high powered amps. Then the question is whether the comparable capability from products mentioned by ricevs produces better purity than the much more costly S5000.
|
carey1110,
Did you listen to California Dreaming on both videos back and forth? I indicated the timing on each video for easy reference. At first I thought the recorded level was louder on the later video, but later it seemed the volume levels were matched approximately. YT quirks? If the volumes seem different on your setup, match the volumes as best as you can, then listen without bias.
Dire Straits is a much more revealing and challenging recording, so I hope Jay presents this song with both S1000 and S2500, and then later when he gets the S5000.
|
carey,
Again I heard greater clarity/neutrality on the S1000 for California Dreaming. The opening guitar has a bit more focus, and the upfront lead singer has more breathy HF content with greater delicate nuance. The S2500 is warmer and rounder on the voice especially. I am suspicious of other high priced German products like MBL which are on the euphonic side, according to many reviews.
|
Jay, thanks for the tip about the other song on both videos. Prior video with S1000, song opens at 0:00. Later video with S2500, opens at 3:00. This is a much more revealing recording than California Dreaming.
I hear the attractive increased spatiality with the S2500. The S1000 is more upfront with less depth and spatiality. There is a little congestion with the S1000, suggesting that there is more distortion in the S1000. For this song, overall I prefer the S2500. Perhaps on another recording, I might prefer the more upfront S1000. For me, the ideal would be more upfront presentation with still excellent spatiality
|
Sure, a company wants to make their more expensive product sound "better" than their cheaper product. But what does "better" mean? It could mean warmer, richer sounding. Maybe the wealthy customer wants to settle down after the stresses of their financial/business world, and relax in the luxuriant, smooth sound. Some time ago, Jay found the more expensive ARC ref 10 had a richer, smoother sound than the cheaper ref 6 or 6SE. That was the marketing approach of ARC. Stromtank could have the same goals to appeal to their more wealthy customers.
In the opera world, the wealthy prefer the Grand Tier location, which is directly over the back of the orchestra, over 100 feet from the stage. The line of sight there is excellent, but the sound is much less detailed than from the very front of the hall close to the stage.
After trying different volume settings, I still hear that the S1000 is more detailed, while the S2500 offers relatively luxuriant, warm, smooth sound, at least on the Cal song. The Dire Straits song would offer a better test.
|
kren0006,
Not at all. Cal Dreaming is a poorly recorded song that led me to a different preference than the other song which I don't know. But I have an open mind to report what I hear, and change my mind when the evidence is clear. On the other song, the 2500 had clear superiority in many aspects, and overall I preferred it.
Switching gears to live unamped music heard at different distances, mid hall sound is definitely more spacious than 1st row or stage sound. Close up sound has more HF content than distant sound, and can sound congested and harsh. Now the 2500 has set a standard for spatiality and naturalness, so the question is how will other units such as mentioned by ricevs compare? I still perceive that the 1000 has more HF content, but now believe that a fair amount of that HF content is distortion, compared to the 2500. Will another battery/inverter unit reveal the comparable spaciousness of the 2500 plus more HF undistorted content which are the characteristics of live natural music heard close? How will the flagship S5000 do against the 2500? I expect Jay to find out for himself, and then demo it for us.
This Stromtank has been a great learning experience, which I think is just the start of great things to come, as other battery/inverters are properly compared in different systems and with different recordings. Better recordings will tell the truth, but lousy processed recordings are not worth the investment in the best power products.
|
No, I call a spade a spade. At first listen, there is more HF energy in the S1000, but further listening shows that this HF (or possibly upper midrange) energy has a significant amount of distortion in it. No question that the HF content of the S2500 has more purity and naturalness. A simple analogy is an old radio tuned slightly off. At the center of tuning for 710 AM, the sound is fine, but at 709 or 711 there is more HF energy heard, but it is obvious that this added HF energy is all junky distortion. This analogy is highly exaggerated, but the S1000 appears to be a tiny bit like the mistuned radio producing more distortion and less natural music than the S2500. It remains to be seen whether the cheap units mentioned by ricevs will produce more distortion than the S1000.
The simplest thing Jay can do is to demo the system with and without the S1000. We might laugh our heads off saying how pure even the S1000 is compared to without it. Looked at another way, if the reduction of perceived distortion via the best (say the S5000) is 99%, what is the reduction of perceived distortion via the cheap unit, or the S1000 or S2500? That will determine how much money to spend on the very best, or settle with the best buy which is still a significant improvement.
I still say that the entire system, including the power amp will benefit, so the S5000 may be the ultimate cost-no-object way, and also the best buy, because even the S2500 won't be enough for the high power amp as well. The cheap units mentioned by ricevs can handle the entire system. This fact alone may make cheap systems compelling for most people, even for Jay if he doesn't want to go for the massive and extremely pricey S5000. Or Jay could use the S2500 for his front end and try the cheap unit for the power amp. Or a 2nd S2500 for just the power amp. A worthwhile speculative $6K trial against the superb $27+ K S2500. A much better speculation than over $10K for a euphonic flagship Koetsu cartridge. Expensive cartridges are not returnable, like used underwear.
|
That said, musically but not sonically, I like the lead girl's voice on Cal Dreaming. Lots of humanity. She deserves an unprocessed natural recording team. Are there any good recordings of her? If anyone has examples, I would enjoy them, thanks.
|
I was not totally wrong. With the better recording, I instantly heard the superiority of the S2500. With the lousy Cal Dreaming recording, I heard junky processed sound that confused me. The finest speaker/amp/preamp/dac in existence could not make natural sound from this sonic trash even with the perfect battery/inverter. But listen again to this song with the S1000. There is greater quantity of upper midrange/HF output than with the S2500, but a lot is garbage, not natural content, where the S2500 is superior. We will get a lot of laughs if Jay plays Cal Dreaming without any power product at all--I anticipate even more garbage.
|
