What happened to the Ultimate horn speaker? I saw it not long ago on the website, so it must have been recently discontinued. $600K when last available, probably the ultimate horn speaker, indeed. Too bad. Did you hear it at the factory?
|
ron17,
I differ with Alon Wolf on the subject of HF and "air." I never liked the M3 and M6 that Jay demonstrated 1-2 years ago. But I like the S7 much more for clarity. So does Jay. Of course, the M series probably has superior construction and drivers to the S series, although I believe the S7 has a comparable tweeter to the M6. The differences in the tonal balance among S7/M3/M6 have to do with the overall design, most important of which is the crossover network. It is clear from Jay's videos that the S7 is brighter and more brilliant, with more HF air than the M3/M6. No, it is not due to Jay's top Boulder and Stromtank in the S7 system. When Jay had the M3/M6, he still had excellent electronics. I probably would have still preferred the S7 with those earlier electronics.
Alon merely has personal tastes towards less brilliant sound. A concertgoer who sits mid hall hears dramatically rolled off HF compared to the 1st row, and believes that from his mid hall perspective, many audio systems have too much HF. That is absolutely correct. But from the 1st row, the live sound has much more HF energy than most audio systems. Remember that many recordings use close microphone placement, so the 1st row is the true reference point, when comparing the live experience to the audio system.
|
ron17,
It would be interesting to ask Alon what degree of listening experience he has in concert halls of unamplified music. My guess is that he likes to sit at a fair distance. I said it is correct for the listener at such a distance to claim that live music has less HF than a good recording played on a good audio system. However, he is ignoring the reality of the vastly different HF balances coming from close vs far distances. I have done enough of these experiments in various halls to make my truthful statements.
It would be a useful exercise if Alon and I collaborated on making a typical good classical commercial recording which uses several microphones hung closely over several sections of the stage, designed to pick up full details of all the instruments, and skillfully mixed for balance, of course without junky processing effects of most pop/rock recordings. While the performance is taking place, we both sit in the 1st row and in the 10th row, and move back and forth to hear several sections of the music. Go home immediately and hear the playback of the recording. Try to remember the 1st row and 10th row sound. The 1st row will be a reasonable approximation of the recorded sound on an accurate SOTA system WITH extended airy HF. But on a Magico M3 or M6 that I heard from Jay, the sound will be rolled off in HF. Now boost HF on the Magico playback of the recording, and the result will be much closer to the reality of HF as heard in the 1st row.
Alon would never accept my invitation, LOL. No matter. I have done all this by myself over several years when I made recordings. That's how I came to create my system where EQ, especially careful HF boosts tailored to the music and situation are essential. My experiences occurred when I was much younger and my hearing tests were excellent. However, if anyone seeks smoothed over sound lacking some HF detail, that's their prerogative. Just don't be fooled by specious claims that most audio systems have too much HF. That is merely a statement of their personal tastes. I don't know if your recording engineer friend recorded classical music or what his sound preferences were. He may have been used to studio monitors and never heard superbly accurate electrostatics or fine electronics which I own.
The S7 is clearly a brighter speaker than M3 or M6. I even surmise that someone else at Magico designed it, because it doesn't fit with Alon's tastes.
|
I agree about movie theater close ups, with bloated overblown speaker sound. But unamplified close up natural sound at a sensible SPL is detailed and beautiful.
|
Right. I remember many years ago, before Magico was born, there were Alon speakers, maybe only 1 model. I wasn't impressed with what I heard.
I heard the Magico A3 for $12K a few years ago. I went to hear the Alsyvox Tintoretto planar ribbons at that dealer, and wasn't impressed at all, especially for $69K. The A3 was at least as good for its clarity. Of course the huge Alsyvox had a big soundstage, but who cares if the clarity was mediocre. This dealer was honest enough to say that the A3 was his best value, and the more expensive Magico series weren't much better. In those days, I would calibrate my ears at home with my system, but with no EQ, in order to get a reference point for comparison to when I later went to a dealer or someone's home. Still, the Alsyvox and A3 were veiled and muddy compared to my system without EQ.
It's fine to prefer the 10th row as your sound preference. However, I have always been interested in understanding the details/nuances in the music as much as possible, and building an audio system with that goal. Some recordings have a front row presentation, and others have the 10th row presentation. Microphones are usually placed close to the musicians, and there may be distant mikes mixed in for ambience to get the 10th row sound. I came to vastly prefer close up recordings, which on my tweaked system sound like the 1st row experience. The recordings engineers of these close recordings are skillful to keep the musical balance. With close recordings, all of the instruments have maximum detail and still are well balanced. However, with 10th row recordings, the balance is there, but all the instruments have drastically reduced musical info revealed. Kinda like equal opportunity mediocrity, the lowest common denominator for all. The same goes for live listening in the 1st vs 10th row. In fact, I have been dismayed at the marked loss of detail even in the 2nd row. But NOTHING is as exciting as the stage sound of all the instruments, not just my violin. Most fun were the rehearsals in a church basement where we were all very close. I heard the focused HF content of mid bass instruments like the French horn that I never appreciated from even the 1st row in the audience. The conductor was Arturo Delmoni, a famed violinist who made the rounds at Stereophile shows 30 years ago. Arturo smiled as I said how I loved the tuba's complete full spectrum sound. On most audio systems, it sounds like a leaden elephant with little HF content.
|
The more impressive job was from Jay, rather than the Magico factory tour itself. No doubt the workmanship at Magico is top level. But let the drooling wear off, and face reality. All the "perfect" measuring tools don't mean much if the tonal balance of a particular speaker is not to anyone's liking. Alon refers to the A series as "mundane" but the M project was driven by his sonic preference for a particular HF balance. Even If I were a billionaire, I would still prefer the S7 to M6 as evidenced from Jay's videos, and likely not care for the M9. Henry201 preferred the "mundane" A5 to the 2x the price YG speaker.
This show is basically promotion based on technical specs. A publication called Audio Science Review (ASR) is based on technical specs with absolutely no attention paid to listening. The ASR rightly gets no respect from most audiophiles.
Jay, don't lust over your next speaker based on high price and specs. You didn't care for the M6, but your favorite speaker so far is the S7 which is less than half the price of the M6. No, it is not from your great Boulders and Stromtanks--it is because you prefer the tonal balance of the S7. Even if you win the lottery, I doubt you would prefer the M9 in your room. And don't choose the highest price flagship speaker from another company--it could easily have a tonal balance you don't like.
|
I watched the whole video. I think it was in the 2nd half, nearer to the end. They go into the room just for the A series. Jay has a notice about the A series. Alon probably used the word, "mundane" or a similar word. In the earlier part, Jay lifted the heavy 50 lb face of solid aluminum cut from the 450 lb aluminum block. After all this impressive demonstration of the top materials used in the M series, maybe also for the S series, Alon notes the simpler cabinet materials in the A series. None of this matters at all. The main factors in the sound you like from your A5 come from the choice of drivers, crossovers, which determine the tonal balance you like.
About 10 years ago, I borrowed the Viola Labs Concerto amplifier, $25K for merely a 100 watt stereo class AB amp. The case was cut from a solid aluminum block, and weighed 53 lbs, a lot for a tiny case which would have weighed 20 lbs if conventional materials were used. All this fancy resonance reduction for an amp whose sound was nothing special. Beware of audio jewelry.
|
henry201,
Never mind money and prestige, showing off to your acquaintances what expensive equipment you have. Nobody should buy anything without listening first, unless you are well connected like Jay, who can buy at a sizable discount so that he can sell without taking losses. Based on my listening to Jay's videos, I prefer the S7 to the M6. I can easily afford either speaker. I wouldn't have the M6 in my listening room even if someone paid me the MSRP of $180K to be forced to listen to them.
But if you happen to prefer the sound of the M6/M3 to cheaper Magicos, then you can save up to buy them.
|
ron17,
No doubt the M6 would sound more articulate and revealing with Jay's present Boulder + Stromtank, than it did with his previous electronics on the M6. But you and I opined that the S7 is a brighter speaker than the M6. Alon himself stated his goal of the M project is to avoid the HF extension and air of many systems. He claims that this is artificial. I disagree, as I stated in several posts. It appears you have enough experience with Magico to know that the M series are warmer and richer sounding than other Magico series. Remember that differences between speakers are much greater than between electronics. The M6 will therefore have its character no matter what the electronics are, and so will the S7. So I predict that Jay would still prefer the S7 to the M6, even with his present electronics. I just hope he has the wisdom to know by now what the speaker does and what electronics do, and not have to spend crazy money on getting the M6 again just to confirm my assessment. It was one thing in the old days to get the inexpensive Luxman M900u amp several times to try in different systems, but speakers are ridiculously expensive and HEAVY. It is smarter to learn lessons than to continue to break backs and bank accounts for the sake of experimentation.
The S7 with warmer electronics and cables will still have more articulation and HF info than the M6 with the most ruthless and revealing electronics and cables.
|
Jay,
I agree with how you described the sonic characters of the S7 and M6. Just a further word on resolution. Perhaps the M6 is more beautiful, in its even tonal balance, which ron17 also likes. But more polite is equivalent to saying that HF are reduced, compared to the more forward tweeter of the S7. Many people don't like more HF, but the upper midrange and HF are the regions that convey most of the harmonics/overtones of voices and instruments. Also, the ear is most sensitive at 3-4 kHz. Often delicate HF details get lost in the M6 type of presentation, so having more HF output is an obvious way to hear more of the delicate upper midrange/HF detail. The art of HF boosting just enough but not too much, is what yields more information content while not destroying the beauty and balance of the music. The S7 has lots of bass to balance out the forward tweeter, so the S7 is musical in that clever way. The Wilson XLF also had this U-shaped freq balance--big bass and HF, relatively depressed midrange which made the tweeter stand out.
|
At 0:45, Alon recommends the early 70's jazz album, "Magico." I never heard of this, but many unamplified audiophile jazz classics come from that period. Titles like Jazz at the Pawnshop, The King James Version (Harry James as an old Big Band trumpeter; his heyday was in the 40's), Laudate (a choral group doing church music). Pawnshop is totally natural and intimate--you are sitting at the table close to the small stage, immersed. King James is more distant, but still upfront without garbage muddy reverberation. Laudate is more distant still, but with natural acoustics, again without garbage processing.
Get "Magico" on vinyl and compare it to the digital file. When will your vinyl setup be ready?
|
Meanwhile, you can go to Oz's place and listen to the LP/digital comparison with the same recording if he has a basic setup. Or maybe you can listen with your local friends who have good LP and digital systems. Better than nothing.
|
ron17 and pokey77,
On Youtube, I found the 1979 radio broadcast of Magico Jazztage from the Berlin Philharmonie. This is a large concert hall suited to the big audience expected for this distinguished group. The miking is close on the stage. Even with YT, the sound is exciting. Listen to the crisp plucks of the bass played by Haden. At about 5:00, look at the picture. The "reeds" are from the alto sax played by Garbarek. The sax family encompasses a large freq range, from bass to soprano. (BTW, I knew an amateur group called the Casual Sax Saxophone Sextet, LOL). The Magico alto sax has the crispness I remember from occasions on the NYC subway platform where I would hear groups like this. I stood 10 feet away for maximum thrills of the crisp tonality with bite. I threw coins into the instrument cases for a 2 min listen while waiting for the train. Better than the concert hall even the 1st row, and forget about the 10th row where the essential tonality is nearly lost.
All this is best reproduced with a speaker like the S7, with electronics that reveals the bite of all the instruments--alto sax, guitar, piano, bass.
|
bulldogger,
"Air" is a nonmusical terminology. The proper way to describe sound is tone, perceived freq balance, and other musical characteristics. The best live sound I ever heard was at Preservation Hall in New Orleans in 2005 before Katrina. I bet you know that place well. All the bench seats are very close to the stage. The sound crackles with excitement, nothing is laid back. I also love street musicians, whose sound is not spoiled by concert hall acoustical reverberations, etc. There is plenty of direct sound with lots of energy at all freq. No "air" but the sound breathes with freedom. The "air" in a mid hall concert seat is actually smearing and blur from reverb.
On vacations, I have enjoyed random street sounds, such as the bells from the trolley cars. There is no "air" but lots of coherent upper midrange/HF energy which startles.
|
ron17,
As I said before, live unamplified music from a distance has much less HF energy than the music close up. That is a fact agreed on by knowledgeable listeners. You LIKE the more distant sound, but there is nothing hifi about the close up sound. You just don't value hearing more details in the music that you would get sitting close, but it is incorrect to call the close sound hifi. The only way I get fatigued from close sound is if it is too loud, whether it is live or from a system trying to reproduce it accurately.
Go to Preservation Hall to hear great, detailed sound, or sit on or near the stage near where you live. This can be done at student concerts which may have lots of empty seats both close and further away from the stage. I have lots of experience being disappointed with my 10th row seat that I wanted to walk out, but the music fog was lifted when I got much closer and could then appreciate every aspect of the music much more.
Do you LIKE homogenized mumbled speech more than clear, distinct speech? The former is akin to distant sound, the latter is akin to close sound with full freq content.
|
Interesting part 3 with Alon. I get how bass reproduction is demanding and costly to eliminate boxy resonances. Does a SOTA speaker have to go down to 20 Hz? That depends on your preferred music that you want to reproduce. How about Alon's current favorite instrument, classical guitar? The acoustic guitar goes down to E at 80 Hz (ron17, you play guitar, am I correct, or does it go down to E at 40 Hz)? Most other classical instruments don't go down below 40 Hz. The grand piano reaches 27.5 Hz, but very little classical music for piano goes that low.
So a smaller speaker that is flat to 40 Hz can be SOTA for 99% of classical/jazz music. I bet Alon could come up with a SOTA speaker that would be optimized for 40-20 kHz that would better the performance of the M9 in that freq range. The M9 is much more expensive because of the choice to have very deep and powerful bass. How about such a statement speaker for $200-300K in the still wide 40-20kHz range?
Similarly, the S7 was designed for bass freaks, according to daveyf. The S5 has 1 woofer instead of 2 for the S7. It still goes pretty low, and probably is really the best speaker in the S series in most of the freq range. Still, Alon points out that despite his goals of maximum transparency, with SOTA measurements, voicing is still required. Voicing is in effect judicious EQ by design of the whole speaker, including crossover networks.
|
I agree with Jerry's assessments. He has had extensive exposure to live acoustic music as well as amplified sound in clubs, etc. Like me, he knows the snap and startle of live acoustic music and finds that the S7 most accurately reproduces it compared to M3. The 3 10" woofers of the S7 are mathematically equivalent in air moving capacity to a single 14.4" woofer. How can a 14.4" woofer have the best bass impact he has ever heard in a room like this? I believe that the bass impact is enhanced in quality by the superbly accurate midrange and HF drivers, the non resonant cabinet and crossover design of the S7. These higher freq convey the overtones of natural bass instruments. Also important are the accuracy of the Boulder, Stromtank, MSB dac.
My skinny electrostatic speaker panels cannot reproduce any deep bass, but I get plenty of mid bass information due to the high accuracy of midrange/HF overtones which contribute to the realism of all instruments.
|
Here's my math. Think volume of the cone, rather than area. Volume of the cone would correlate best with volume of air moved by the cone. To simplify the numbers, 10 to the 3rd power is 1000. Three cones is 3000, then the cube root of 3000 is about 14.4.
We live in a 3D world. A tumor which is 1 cm in diameter has X number of cells. If the tumor doubles in diameter to 2 cm, then the number of cells has become 8X. That's a dangerous deterioration. Most layman think the number of cells has only doubled to 2X, but that is a big underestimation of the danger.
Math is fun. Take the two 12's. 12 to the 3rd power is 1728. So two 12's is 3456, more than the 3000 for three 10's. So two 12" woofers move more air than three 10" woofers. But which is more accurate, with tight, controlled bass? We don't want boomy powerful bass that teenagers like. We want a decent amount of power, but most important for musical understanding is tight bass. Larger woofers don't need as much excursion as smaller woofers to get the same SPL, so it may be easier to control the larger woofer. However, the smaller woofer is lower mass, so it could be more accurate and nimble. That may explain Alon Wolf's design choice for the S7 for enough bass, but higher accuracy.
|
Still, it is a good question whether area or volume of a driver determines air moving capacity. I wonder how much bass can be produced by flat drivers which have much less volume than cones with the same area. Probably much less, since the air moved by the flat driver is easily lost out the sides.
In reverse, think of a baseball catcher's mitt. It is a concave basket designed to catch a fast ball. Suppose you tried a flat, planar mitt. The ball would bounce off that mitt. So I think a basket is the proper design for the mitt, and in the case of the woofer, volume is the applicable criterion.
|
The hurricane track is a good distance away from Miami, so hopefully Jay has been spared serious effects.
|
How about using the Stromtank 2500 for the amps as well as in the source and preamp? If you play each song at average SPL of 82 dB, the power amps won't be taxed, and the S2500 should be able to handle the entire system. Do you have the S5000?
|
Another idea is to see which amp is favored and by how much over the other two. Then use this favored amp with and without the Stromtank. The S2500 costs roughly the same as any of the amps, so it would be interesting to hear how much of an improvement the S2500 makes, compared to the differences among the amps.
|
After listening several times on two computers, they are all pretty close. Forced to decide, I prefer amp #1 which has leaner bass and midrange than #2 and #3. Maybe #3 is my next choice, and #2 the last. #1 could be the Simaudio. I bet the difference between the winner alone and the winner with the Stromtank is much greater than the differences among all three amps as presented, so I hope Jay does a shootout with the Stromtank on the entire system vs without the Stromtank.
|
ron17,
What's important is not preferences, but the ability to hear the differences. If you like #1 the least, that is consistent with your preference for a warm, less detailed sound. If I like #1 the most, that is also consistent with my preference for a cooler, leaner and more detailed sound. Therefore we can objectively share information, which is the real purpose of any thread. In the future, if you prefer X to Y, then I know that for my taste, I would be interested in Y.
|
For under $30K, I'd like to hear a shootout between the Boulder 1160 (or 1161 for the low volume songs on these videos) and the top Boulder 3060, or the winner of the present shootout. The most useful A/B would be between Boulder 1160 (1161) and the neutral Simaudio 860 V2. All Jay would need to do is borrow a Boulder 1160 (1161) from Suncoast.
|
Jay,
Before you part with the Boulder 3060, hopefully you can record the same 2 songs with it so we can objectively compare it to the Sim, Luxman, Constellation.
What about the Gryphon Apex amp and preamp?
Boulder is still the standard for neutrality/clarity. Do a blinded A/B with the 3060 and this Boss 1000 lb amp, and let us hear what is so great with the Boss. I've seen you go through romances with what you think is the GOAT, only soon after to realize that something else is better. For example, the Gryphon stuff was bested by Boulder.
|
Near total speculation on my part since all three amps are pretty close. I voted #3 on round 2, changing from #1 on round 1, but still wasn't sure. #2 and #3 are most similar, with varying degrees of warmth and fullness. So I think that they are Luxman, Constellation. Lux is probably the most tubelike. #1 is likely Sim, #2 Lux, #3 Connie.
|
Based on what Jay said, that the Luxman and Constellation are in the warm camp, and Simaudio is more neutral, I believe #1 is the Simaudio, not the Constellation. In Jay's survey several years ago, the Simaudio was rated well for its neutrality, but that was when he used warm preamps like ARC, Luxman, D'Ag. Now using the Boulder 3010 preamp which is highly detailed and ruthlessly revealing, the Simaudio amp could be revealed as having some problems. I did find #1 (probably the Simaudio) to be constricted and somewhat threadbare in the midrange, but that's only by comparison to the fuller midrange in the other two amps.
So far the votes in both rounds favor #2, which I believe is the Luxman. That fits with the majority of the tastes on this thread, which is for warmer, fuller sound.
|
John Atkinson in Stereophile April 2022 described the Luxman M 10X as neutral/colorless, but that is in reference to his Parasound JC 1+ which he thought sounded identical to the Luxman. He found the JC 1+ warmer than the original JC 1. He prefers the JC 1+ to the JC 1.
Beware taking anyone's comments as the gospel truth, since what JA describes as neutral I would probably find somewhat warm. When Jay described the Sim 860 v2 as neutral with some warmth, that is probably in comparison to his Boulder 3060 which is probably more neutral and of course more revealing.
|
I nailed the identities of the three amps, along with their objective sonic characteristics.
Jay, please record the same two (or four, but two would be enough) songs on the Boulder 3060 and the new "Boss" amp. That is the best way to reveal their differences, and to show how they are on a higher level than the three good amps just presented. I also want to see how the reasonably priced Boulder 1160 or 1161 amps compare to the three amps already presented. Mike at Suncoast would probably let you borrow an 1160 or 1161.
Thanks again for the educational and fun shootout.
|
Jay, it's fine to hear the G Essence against the Luxman, but please use the same songs and recorded levels so we can go back to the shootouts and hear the Essence against the Sim and Connie amps as well.
According to the Connie sales rep Irv Gross several years ago, the cheapest Inspiration was sonically comparable to the bigger Centaur. At medium high power, the Inspiration would be an outstanding buy ($11K at the time). I actually chose the Connie Taurus (#3) on the 2nd round over the other two amps for the combination of the Connie's good clarity and smoothness.
|
Hell yeah--how about Chord DAVE vs MSB Select, for clarity and detail? Jay, I think you heard the DAVE in your room a few years ago--comment?
If you can only get the cartridge before you get older, that may "school" you to the point where you ditch the uber expensive digital stuff and be content with something like DAVE.
|
Jay,
Your weakness is clinging to your contention that expensive stuff almost always wipes out reasonably priced stuff. On your previous DAC shootout between the MSB and DCS Rossini, you said that it is foolish to spend more than $30K on a DAC. In that shootout, I preferred the MSB by a hair. Now is your chance to A/B the Chord DAVE against the MSB. Some readers here own the DAVE and are very happy with it, and kren0006 just requested inclusion of the DAVE in the shootout.
You are afraid of the possible outcome that enough people will vote for the Chord DAVE (or comparably priced other DAC) in a blinded shootout with the MSB. Similarly, Alon Wolf is afraid (but won't tell anyone) that recordings of the M9 against much cheaper speakers will not show the supposedly vast superiority of the M9. I predict right now that I would prefer the S7 against the M9 because I don't like the tonal balance of the M series.
Alon Wolf certainly has excellent qualifications as a former violinist with current technical competence. But he said he is no longer an amateur audiophile, but now he is a business man. Note that "amateur" literally means a "lover" and doesn't imply that an amateur is less competent than a professional. In short, he is primarily focused on making as much money as possible, and the same is true for you. Nothing wrong with that, since I believe in free market capitalism. But a few business people are successful by engaging in open minded exchange of ideas and experiences, without bias for selling overpriced stuff. They earn the highest trust from their customers by doing that.
As for you, you stretched your finances to get the Boss amp. You also did the same to get the outstanding Boulder 3010 preamp. Both of them are worth the money to you for their significant virtues. I would predict that the DAVE would give the MSB tough competition, and you could save lots of money for things like the Boss and 3010 that make much bigger differences in your system than the MSB.
|
Interesting website. Unique are the offerings of esoteric stands/isolation components I have not seen elsewhere.
One suggestion. Change the wording of the three membership levels. Low-fi and mid-fi members who still pay a significant fee are striving for the best hifi components they can afford don't consider themselves low-fi or mid-fi. Excellence can be found at all price levels. How about this for the three membership levels--good, better, best. OR--tier 1, tier 2, tier 3. Arts organizations that seek support have membership levels such as--friend, generous supporter, angel benefactor. Etc.
|
The Luxman is just a typical warm SS amp for lovers of tube sound. Compared to the G Essence, it is fuller/richer in the midrange and bass, just like tubes. This fullness yields more dynamics and an easy going tonal balance. The G Essence is less full in the midrange, so it appears less dynamic, in a manner like the Simaudio. I agree with everything Jay, Carlos and Oz said about how the Essence is more focused, revealing with a more open soundstage than the Luxman. Oz rated the Luxman at 7, and Essence at 9.5. I agree. The Essence is smooth and actually more musical than the Luxman, in the sense that it is more accurate and true to life, revealing more of the music. So I give the Essence the reigning award for high fidelity at its price.
Jay, if you have the opportunity, a great shootout would be the Boulder 1161 vs G Essence. Both amps cost about the same, with the 1161 having more power than the Essence. They are probably in a similar sonic camp. Does class A guarantee better sound? Within the Boulder line, yes, as more class A power is available higher up in price. But even the 1161 runs class A at low power where low level resolution resides. It would be interesting to see if Boulder's overall design makes up for not being fully class A vs Essence.
Small point. At 7:06, you said the ESSENCE has more richness and bass, and then 30-40 seconds later you said the Luxman has their qualities. I think you meant the latter, so you might want to edit at 7:06.
Thanks again for this shootout, with the added bonus of comments from Oz and Carlos.
|
Jay,
Yes, that’s a good deal--you play the LP’s and they play with the power cords. Try to get several examples of the same recording on LP vs digital. Someone said that CD’s could be mastered differently than LP’s, so if you have a few pairings of CD or other digital format plus LP, that will help you best answer the question of whether you prefer analog to digital. If Oz has analog tapes of the same LP, then you have 3 formats of the same recording, and that will be most informative. Then you can present at least 2 formats of the same recording on shootouts for the world audience to judge. At this high level, this has not been available before, and I guarantee your subscriber numbers will skyrocket. Oz seems to favor analog, but Carlos has both, and he could make another video appearance with great interest from all.
Otherwise, if you don’t have the two formats to present on the same recording, it will be an apples/oranges comparison, and nobody will be able to draw any valid conclusions about the best analog vs best digital.
|
Jay,
When you initially hear the TT setup, it will be a shock, but many things will have to settle. Don't draw quick conclusions as to whether analog or digital is best. My experience with many cartridges is that at first the sound is bright, and then after 100 hours or so, the sound mellows out and stabilizes. The cantilever suspension is probably tight at first, then loosens up. Years later, an aging cartridge is like people who get sagging skin and muscles as they age. Then you can try loading options on the phono preamp. Higher loading brightens the sound, but too low loading causes loose, rolled off HF. Raising the vertical tracking angle by raising the arm pivot brightens the sound and rolls off bass. Lighter tracking force increases HF at the risk of mistracking, You can do all these adjustments judiciously based on your tastes.
You will need at least 1-2 months to explore all these TT/arm/cartridge/phono loading options. Meanwhile, you can share your experience at various stages of experimentation. This will make great content.
|
It's good to have a setup man like Oz to get you started. However, his tastes differ from yours, and it really is easy to make slight adjustments as I mentioned. I am not much of a DIY'er, but these are easy things to do, just like trying new cables. These things affect the sound much more than you realize. Daveyf said that tonearm cables matter a lot, but even I haven't bothered with that, because that is like getting under the suspension of a car. Like you, I wouldn't mess around with that.
|
fastfreight,
Several years ago, I went to Bill Parish's wonderful home and listened in several great rooms. First time, he discussed how the Mola Mola Kaluga class D amp was the best amp for neutrality/clarity. Bruno Putzeys had supposedly tweaked his MM Kaluga after hearing Bill's Soulution 700 series amp. Bill said the MM was better than Soulution. I didn't get to hear that comparison. But we listened and compared an Audionet (neither Stern nor Heisenberg) to the MM. We agreed that MM is for people who prioritize clarity/neutrality, and Audionet has some warmth. Not surprisingly, most of his customers prefer Audionet.
|
Jay,
I just watched your video where at the end you say you don't have the time to tweak vinyl. From all your business activities, I get your priorities. But just like you made an about-face with the Boulder 3060 in favor of the new $200K+ amp based on the sound, you could easily get smitten with Oz's TT setup. Then you will want to tweak it on some simple level just as you have tweaked your other components. Even if you don't tinker with Oz's setup, you will find it rewarding to experiment with the Boulder phono stage loading options. Oz likes tubes and mellow Koetsu cartridges, and might prefer a loading of 100 ohms or so, but for your desire for neutrality and speed, you probably will prefer 1000 ohms, the highest setting on the Boulder.
Haha, I have seen this movie before!!
|
fastfreight,
As I read you, you found the Tambaqui DAC a small, but significant improvement over the Auralic Vega DAC. Did you try the Chord DAVE?
I like cathedral ceilings, which turn an ordinary low ceiling room into a concert hall with more free spaciousness, sort of like a horn speaker. I would think you might prefer the upstairs to the downstairs system with the same components? Easy to try.
|
Interesting revelation about the Boulder 3050 vs 3060. Of course, 1500W class A gives you more power than you can handle. I am puzzled about how the huge class A power doesn't feel hot. Usually pure class A is hot even putting out low power. Even the G Essence 50W pure class A runs hot.
Even the 3060 has more power than you need with the S7. How do the amps compare at low levels for their tonal signatures? Even at 82 dB, the amps are not drawing much power. If the 3050 sounds round and smooth, and the 3060 sounds more speedy with more snap, then you can't say that one is superior to the other. That is just your current preference. Time will tell. For certain music, you will want speedy, and for other music, relaxed and smooth.
This reminds me of your experience with ARC ref 10 vs ref 6 preamps, where the flagship 10 is smooth like a yacht (your same words then and now), and the 6 is like a speedboat (same words again). I recall you liked the 10 sometimes, and the 6 other times.
Preferences and superiority have nothing to do with MSRP.
|
Jay,
The membership pricing is fair, so that only serious contributors are entitled to extra content and closer interaction with you. My only reservation is the naming of the three tiers. "Low-fi" and "mid-fi" are insulting terms that imply that those members are seeking low and mid fidelity systems. The truth is that they are all working hard within their budgets to obtain the best possible system. I suggested alternative names, such as good, better, best, or simply tier 1, 2, 3.
|
smodtactical,
Thanks for your explanation of the sliding class A technique used in the Boulder 3050. Long ago, I had the JVC M-7050, based on a sliding class A technique called Super A. Krell Duo series utilizes a similar technique. I don't know why Boulder does this in its top flagship amp. Marketing people may believe that very powerful 1500W class A sells better than 300W of pure class A, but 300W doubling to 600/4, 1200/2 and 2400/1 in pure class A probably offers any sensible listener plenty of quantity with the highest quality.
|
yyz,
An amp that doubles power capability as the impedance halves means that its power supply is good, by maintaining the same voltage capability. Similarly, pure class A offers the highest linearity and avoidance of notch distortion. BUT BUT--
Pure class A maintained all the time at any power level and load runs HOT. I have had negative experiences with hot electronics. The most famous of pure class A amps was the Mark Levinson ML2, 25 watt mono. It weighed 65 lbs, perhaps the highest weight/watt ratio. In the late 70's, MSRP was about $2000/mono, or $4000 for a measly 25 watts stereo. It put Levinson on the map as the most expensive amp by far. I bought it used around 1980. Initially, it was wonderfully neutral and revealing, so I worshipped the man Levinson. But after a few hundred hours of use, the sound melted into a syrupy morass. I began to think that its excessive heat also melted the sound. I had a similar experience with the stereo Bedini 25W class A which ran hot. The Bedini was even a more syrupy puddle of molasses. I owned a few tube amps like Grant Lumley and ARC which had much more neutral sound than Levinson and Bedini. Similar experiences with 2" high Spectral and Goldmund Mimesis amps which ran hot.
I believe that heat stability is a major factor for circuits. Transistors change characteristics with temperature. Whatever the circuit, it performs best at a certain, stable temperature. But I intuitively believe that very high temps are bad. So I believe that buzzword phrases like "power doubles with halving of impedance" and "pure class A that runs hot" are misleading goals for purity of sound. Boulder is undoubtedly aware of the risks of hot amps, and cleverly offers class A operation to some degree, but maintains the temperature at a sensible level for best sound and long term stability.
There are many factors that contribute to great sounding amps. The two I have mentioned--power doubling and pure class A cannot be the sole criteria, any more than very low THD. So I hope Jay can get the opportunity to A/B the comparably modest priced Boulder 1161 class AB against Gryphon Essence class A.
|
smodtactical,
Too bad your posts got deleted. I remember reading that you said Nelson Pass doesn't like "biased" circuits. Maybe you meant "high bias" but class A is high bias, so I don't know. So why does he make true class A amps that run hot?
|
kren0006,
I understand your reasoning--
"1. Gryphon Essence has already lost head to head versus Luxman M10x per WC. Ie, that was WC’s assessment, plus the overwhelming consensus of those who voted - 3 to 1. Therefore, why would he go back to a losing (in shootout, per him) amp?"
In terms of popularity contests, you are right. As for me, I am not a groupie, but I seek some objective truth about what components sound like in the context of a whole system. I believe that most readers who are here or on other threads want some objective assessment of any component. To say that listener A prefers X and listener B prefers Y is nearly meaningless to listener C who wants some objective assessment. For the sake of simplified communication, we often have binary criteria such as neutral vs warm, but the reality is that there are subtle differences and nuances. In a simplified discussion, Jay and I might say that the neutral camp includes Simaudio, G Essence, Boulder 1161 at that price level, and the warm camp includes Luxman, Constellation. But go deeper. From my listening to the video, Luxman is warmer than Constellation. So Constellation could be classified in the neutral camp, compared to Luxman. But we don't know whether G Essence is more neutral than Constellation, because they weren't directly compared in the same video or with the same music. From Jay's and Carlos' comments, we know that the G Essence is more neutral than Luxman. I speculate that Boulder 1161 vs G Essence would be a challenging fight for the award of detail/neutrality at a similar price. Even though the prevailing taste on this thread is for warmth, and I do see your point that many listeners who seek warmth wouldn't be interested in this comparison, there are still lots of people who seek neutrality/detail, and they would be interested.
Jay, I respect your efforts and the difficulty of obtaining any product at an attractive price. On the other hand, it seems like Carlos is an asset to you. He values some degree of neutrality/detail, and might be interested in whether Boulder 1161 gives him more of what he wants than G Essence. Mike of Suncoast might be willing to let you borrow his 1161 or even 1160, so you could take it to Carlos' place. You have given Mike lots of business yourself, and given him more public recognition as a high quality dealer. Of course, listening at Carlos' place is not as revealing as your system, but when you make good recordings they are useful for comparison purposes.
|
fastfreight,
I have no experience with streaming. I don't have wifi and internet for audio, since I have electrosensitivity, which affects a small % of people with ill health effects. I only have CD for digital, so I can't answer your question, sorry.
Can your answer my question about what are the sonic qualities you heard from the DAVE vs Tambaqui? My tastes are neutrality/detail/clarity, which might be somewhat different than yours, but I would still appreciate your objective findings. Thanks.
|
roxy54,
You said, "A number of times you have incorrectly used the word objective in the place ofsubjective. Any opinions of what sounds better or worse by their nature must be subjective."
I would appreciate it if you can give examples or quotes of what I said. This is an important topic for discussion which I'd like to pursue if you can do that. Thanks.
|
Certainly your top Boulder electronics + Stromtank will make any of these 3 speaker contenders sound better than when you last heard them. The Magico M6 is my prediction for the most disappointment. The M6 has a laid back sound compared to the S7 which won't change even if your electronics are now tops. The Wilson Alexx V would be my recommendation to replace the S7. I liked the Alexx and the XLF for their brilliant HF, and perhaps the Alexx V would be even better. The Alexx V is not so expensive, another plus. The Sonus Faber Aida 2 is a new beast which you haven't had before, and might be interesting, but it is the most expensive.
I am most looking forward to the turntable/digital comparison, on the S7 which we are familiar with. I doubt any of your new contenders will match the S7 for clarity.
|
