wym2,
All speakers have trade-offs, none does everything well. I heard the YUGE Sound Lab Ultimate in my friend's average sized room, and it was awful--bloated, etc. This speaker is only suitable for very large rooms. The much smaller but still fairly large Sound Lab A3 sounded great in another friend's similar average sized room. To get big bass out of an electrostatic, they need lots of panel area. Then the midrange gets bloated, except in a YUGE room. For WC's average size room, I believe the best approach would be the Martin Logan CLX for midrange/HF purity and focus, and a dynamic woofer for bass. The ML Neolith is an attempt to have it all, but I have already discussed why I believe the CLX is a better approach, as well as being much cheaper.
|
stringreen, Did you hear the Merrill Veritas at home, or in what system? What amp did you compare it to? Thanks for your observations. My Mytek Brooklyn amp, an inexpensive class D at $2k, is neutral with slight warmth, detailed with no SS artifacts. It is competitive with amps costing many times more. |
Right, dasign. Also, live processed rock/pop uses crummy PA speakers and amps that are vastly inferior to WC's system. My best live acoustic jazz experience was at Preservation Hall in New Orleans in 2005 before Katrina. It was a small cave with only 3 benches seating a few people. I was up close, 5 feet away. This is comparable to many recording sessions where microphones are that close. There are spot mikes inches away from brass and near drum sets.
|
jlaz,
Thanks for your observations on Boulder. If the 2060 is warmer than the 1060, is the 1060 even more detailed and revealing, even though many might describe it as sterile? Maybe like the clearest possible black and white picture, which I would prefer to a blurry color picture? Isn't Boulder out of business? Where do you get them serviced? Would a competent local tech be able to service them?
|
jlaz,
Thanks. Have you heard the Boulder 850 monos? Boulder says they use technology trickled down from the 1000 and 2000 series. The Music Room has the 850 monos for $6500 (original retail $11k). Nice 45 day trial, and each mono only weighs 30 lbs. These amps have been sitting at The Music Room for some time, so it seems that resale may be an issue.
bill_k, Thanks for correcting me. Somewhere I read that Boulder was briefly out of business. They might have been bought with a nice cash infusion to get back on their feet.
|
WC,
There is nothing as natural and truthful as a well-designed electrostatic such as ML CLX, possibly the best of breed. The larger Magico models will probably have more of the bass you want, but that doesn't mean they are superior to your medium size S2 for midrange/HF accuracy. The flagship series are super expensive, but they are still dynamic speakers which won't compete with the ML CLX in what electrostatics inherently do best, which is the all important midrange. Years ago I heard a large Magico, just ho hum compared to the Wisdom Audio ribbons in the same room. Even the ML Neolith would be much cheaper than the flagship Magicos (I am not even referring to the ridiculous big horn which approaches $1 million). As much as I think the CLX would beat the Neolith for mid/HF performance, even the Neo would probably beat the big Magico for performance and value. I suggest keeping your budget relatively modest at this point, saving up for the probably ultimate commercially available speaker, the ML CLX. You could use your decent BAT amp. Just put the biggest sum of money into the best speaker you can get, such as the CLX which isn't all that expensive, plus the best woofer that is compatible.
|
grey9hound,
Thanks for refreshing our memories about the Lyngdorf room correction. I'll study it, but for now I think you are correct. Probably this would work for large dynamic speakers whose drivers are still much narrower than YUGE 3 foot wide curved electrostatic panels like the biggest Sound Labs or Neolith. These create lots of mutlipath effects with sonically confusing wave launches, as I have explained in my posts. Large dynamic drivers still create more focused sound, even if the nature of the electrostatic principle is lower distortion, but it has to be done with a proper panel concept. I don't see anything that can correct for these problems of big panels in small rooms, even though I am sure the Lyngdorf would help some aspects of the sound such as tonal balance.
|
jlaz,
Thanks. I can't tell if you actually A/B'd the 850 against the 1060 or 2060, but it would be simple to move your father in law's 850 to your place for a brief listen. That would be more interesting than the Mac/Boulder comparison, since I would expect the 850 to be far superior to the Mac in resolution, etc. I am not clear on what you mean by saying the 800 series is half of a 1000, or the 1000 is half of a 2000. The same circuits but just half power from half the number of transistors? If that is true, then the sound quality at most volume levels should be identical, although my small Bryston 2.5B SST2 is far superior in resolution to the larger 4B SST2.
I use no preamp, since I use the Rane ME 60 equalizer as a volume control, as I have explained before.
|
jlaz,
Thanks. I can't tell if you actually A/B'd the 850 against the 1060 or 2060, but it would be simple to move your father in law's 850 to your place for a brief listen. That would be more interesting than the Mac/Boulder comparison, since I would expect the 850 to be far superior to the Mac in resolution, etc. I am not clear on what you mean by saying the 800 series is half of a 1000, or the 1000 is half of a 2000. The same circuits but just half power from half the number of transistors? If that is true, then the sound quality at most volume levels should be identical, although my small Bryston 2.5B SST2 is far superior in resolution to the larger 4B SST2.
I use no preamp, since I use the Rane ME 60 equalizer as a volume control, as I have explained before.
|
grey9hound,
Of course, audition is a must to really know the truth, but have you personally heard the effect on large panel speakers (electrostatics or Maggies) in small rooms? These large panels have deficient bass anyway, so room correction yields less benefit than when applied to large dynamic speakers with much more bass. The problem with large panels is lousy imaging and bloating effects, in all except huge rooms.
|
WC, right. For dynamic speakers, stay with your present Magico for a good long time. For a move toward more purity/resolution, the ML CLX plus woofer would give the best performance, on an absolute basis and value per big dollar spent.
|
jlaz, thanks for your clarification. |
jafox,
Your post is interesting, but doesn't answer the question I posed to grey9hound about whether large panel speakers will do well in a small room with the Lyngdorf. Your 18x23 room is fairly large, so it would accommodate most SoundLabs without room correction, although there is the possibility that room correction might help. I find that a good distance of over 6 feet to the back wall is very effective with my Audiostatic 240's, so room correction electronics might pose a disadvantage. Which SL do you have? No, I have personally heard the A3 and Ultimate several times at my friends' homes, as well as at dealers' places. As electrostatics, they certainly beat dynamics for the reasons we both agree on. But I hear the ML CLX as being just about the best of breed in its focus and detail, for the reasons I have said, except it is clearly deficient in bass. The large SL's are probably comparable to the stat panel of the ML Neolith in their range. I have not heard the Neolith, and would guess that the large SL has the advantage in bass coherence and detail with the rest of the range.
|
I agree with you that for purity and getting closer to all aspects of the music, there is likely no preamp that equals bypassing the preamp. Like others, I heard almost no difference between the Ayre and Lux preamps on the Lux amp. But going back to your video of 4/21 comparing the ARC Ref 6SE and Lux preamps on the Lux amp, I heard the ARC as being significantly more transparent than the C900u. My best analogy is a blanket covering your speakers. The blanket causes veiling. The Lux C900u is like a 10 mm thick blanket, the Ayre preamp is a 9 mm blanket, the ARC is a 5 mm blanket. But eliminating any preamp is no blanket at all. Let's see how the D'ag preamp does.
But before you give up on preamps, try the Benchmark LA4 preamp for only $3K retail. The Benchmark AHB2 amp has close to the most purity of any amp I have heard, so I suspect that the LA4 preamp is the same. Kal Rubinson of Stereophile found the LA4 to be that, and a thread poster (forgot his name) was going to try the LA4/AHB2 combo against his Lux combo. If the LA4 is only a 1-2 mm blanket, it is worth considering for when you want loud SPL's with very good purity.
I don't think "synergy" of the same brand of preamp/amp is all that important. The ARC ref 6SE still beats the Lux C900u into the Lux M900U for purity and transparency. The C900u merely increases the blanket over the M900U.
Dag has warm, character in the manner of Lux, Rowland, Pass, compared to the purity of the Benchmark AHB2 or my Mytek Brooklyn amp. No, I haven't heard the Lux M900U or any Dag, Rowland or Pass amp, but I say this from you past evaluation of those amps. I did hear the Lux 600A class A amp and found it reasonably transparent, but still warm compared to Benchmark and Mytek. The Merrill Element 114 I found to be warmer than the Mytek.
If you find that the Benchmark LA4 is the most transparent preamp that you would find worthwhile for loud SPL's, then try the Benchmark AHB2 if you still believe in brand preamp/amp synergy. If a single AHB2 doesn't have enough power, you can get 2 and use as monos for only $6K retail. Deal with either Music Direct or Benchmark directly for their return guarantees so you don't lose money.
|
snafujg,
Aren't the Emotiva products great? I almost bought the newer XPA 3rd generation amp. (I haven't heard the newest more powerful Reference.) It was powerful, although strangely it shut down at the levels needed to drive my inefficient 75 dB electrostatics with impedance of 1 ohm in the highs. Tonally it was close to my great Bryston 2.5B SST2 for its detail and neutrality, although slightly warmer. There are no SS artifacts. People who say the Emotiva is harsh are just addicted to warm/lush sounds. The Emotiva is just quite neutral and satisfying. For your hotly recorded rock/alternative music, I think you would love it. It is amazing how Emotiva amps can sound near SOTA for so little money. This is a sad commentary on many uber expensive amps out there, some of which I have personally tried at home and which are ripoffs. As you know, you can try Emotiva risk free for 30 days. According to Emotiva forums, the XPA series has a different sound than the XPR.
|
grey9hound,
As I recall, you like rock/pop/jazz music. This tends to be played at louder levels than I listen for classical music. I understand your preference for laid back sound, because your music heard close up at live levels tends to be "harsh", excuse the expression. But what you might describe as harsh, others describe and crave the raw, raspy excitement of it. You would hear the same things as others, but describe it as harsh and prefer it toned down. As your preference, that is OK for your taste. As you know, my perspective is that of a musician/participant, so what I hear in classical music as a close-up performer is much more detailed than any concertgoer hears. If you sat with me at my music stand, you might describe the sound as harsh, but I describe it as exciting. A few professional musicians here, such as mayoradamwest and mrdecibel have corroborated my findings. In fact, sometimes professionals insist on special barriers to prevent hearing damage when percussion and brass instruments blast off behind them. I have seen a few patients in their 20's with documented hearing damage from playing in rock bands a few years earlier. I am thankful classical music can be enjoyed at much lower volumes. My exciting sound at 90-95 dB peaks is safe, but not at much higher volumes.
|
My guess is the Gryphon is the best amp you have for the purity and clarity that you now value. As long as you don't use the Cardas speaker cable which has the least clarity and causes hum anyway. You will probably come to the same conclusion that any preamp is a step backwards, with either Lux or Gryphon amps. So yes, I look forward to your shootout among preamps with the Gryphon. Then with the most transparent preamp, do the final shootout between DCS+preamp+Gryphon (or even Dag amp) and DCS+Gryphon (or Dag amp).
I like silver for everything. Does anyone want black coins for money in their pocket? LOL. |
grey9hound,
While taking a walk today, I heard the raucous sound of honking horns from American cars (Japanese cars honk politely like the "beep beep" of Road Runner the cartoon character). At about 80-85 dB, the honks are not ripping your ears off, but it is clear that their tone is raucous and would be unpleasant at louder levels. The tone of brass horns like the trumpet, trombone, sax, French horn, tuba has similarities to the honking car/truck horn. This is real life. Your statement that a laid back sound allows you to play louder without being harsh is certainly true, but it is not relevant to the quest for high fidelity to the lifelike qualities of real sound, in both correct volumes and accurate tonality. Real, live music is sweet and soothing much of the time, but there are raspy moments here and there which punctuate the sweet sound and make it interesting, providing variety and dynamic range. You could also consider the tonal spectrum from sweet to raucous as having a "dynamic" range of sorts.
|
grey9hound,
I think we basically agree on most points discussed. It is also telling that your last paragraph admits that upfront systems sound like the 1st row. Exactly my perspective! I don't know if you go to classical music concerts, but people have found most of the music from the 1st row to have SPL of 35-85 dB, occasionally down to 20 dB and up to 95 dB, and rarely only in certain big pieces up to 105 dB peaks on percussion. Sustained loud brass instruments only reach 90-95 dB. Live unamplified music has clarity at these levels, which are much lower than many audiophile amplified systems where they feel a need to make it louder to get the missing clarity at true live levels or to just rock out in "hifi" style. I find with neutral amps with extended HF, I am happy listening with the clarity at the modest levels of live classical music, but with laid back rolled off HF amps I am not happy unless I push the volume to higher unnatural levels. But at that point, I still don't get the clarity, and actually find the unnaturally loud levels HARSH. How about that!
|
grey9hound,
On a related subject, people have written about how Maggies don't sing unless cranked up to loud levels. (WC has noted the same thing about the ATI 6005 amp.) This is an admission that at low/modest levels, the clarity is not up to snuff. That means the speaker has problems with resolution, etc. A good system must have absolute clarity at all volume levels, which is certainly true of live, unamplified music. It can be true of amplified music as well, assuming that we are seeking a totally transparent, accurate amp, the so-called straight wire with gain.
|
grey9hound,
Yes, I understand how the Lyngdorf could tame the boominess of your Tektonics in a small room. I think this works because the speaker uses different drivers for well-defined frequency ranges and the imaging is probably tight so there is a relatively coherent image. But a huge stat panel like the Neolith is like having many full range drivers spread out over a large area with so much duplication and radiating in many directions that the image is diffuse and confused. Put another way, if you take a mini monitor pair which gives a tight image, and then use 30 pairs of mini monitors stacked horizontally and vertically, you will get a diffuse lousy image with poor clarity. So, even though electrostatic transducers are superior to dynamic ones in many ways, when implemented poorly as in huge curved patterns, such a big stat can be inferior to a good dynamic in many ways. In my early days, using the Maggie Tympani 1D, I loved the big panel sound, but grew tired of the diffuse imaging which wrecked the clarity. My next speaker was the little Rogers 3/5A mini monitor, which was so superior in overall clarity to that Maggie. I believe the Lyngdorf works to correct boomy bass in dynamic speakers, but its ability to correct the errors of large panel imaging is limited.
WC, the preceding paragraph illustrates why I think you would be taking a BIG risk going for the Neoliths. You already have experience with the CLX and love it. The midrange and HF come from a narrow panel which gives it focus and clarity, and the larger midbass panel gives it the spaciousness you would like. Just add the appropriate woofer which would give you everything you want. The brand of woofer would require more research, but a dynamic woofer would be right. Instead of making the elephantine Neolith, ML should have just designed a dynamic woofer to add to the CLX. The CLX bass panel goes down to 56Hz, so the woofer would be used and optimized for only a small range, unlike the hybrid models like the 15a where the woofer is used up to about 200-300 Hz where the purity of the electrostatic transducer is bastardized by the dynamic woofer getting into the lower midrange. Trust me on this. If you are still hesitant, you could live happily ever after with your present Magico.
|
WC, great advice from techno_dude and bigddesign3 above. Don't waste your money and time with the Focal, Dynaudio, Wilson. I have not heard all the models, but I have heard a few of each. As dynamic speakers, they are likely inferior to your Magico for detail/resolution and overall great sound in a nice relatively small package. Getting a bigger Magico will be counterproductive for your relatively small room, although Lyngdorf room correction may do wonders. However, Magico has designed your model S5 to be optimized for smaller rooms, so I don't see the point of getting a bigger Magico only to "correct" it with the Lyngdorf. And the bigger Magicos are way too expensive and still would not compete in resolution to the CLX or even the Neolith. To get better resolution, the best move would be the CLX with the REL woofer--thanks to bigddesign3. Even then, your Magico would be worth keeping as an alternate system for rocking out. She may not be perfect, but how would you feel dumping her? Save your money for speakers rather than amps. This way you have the best electrostatic and the best dynamic speakers for what each does well. When you get those big expensive mono amps in Nov, ask yourself how much of an improvement you get relative to your good BAT, and then contemplate how much greater benefit you will get by adding the CLX-REL system for much less money. Then you can keep the Magico as an alternate.
I will try one of the Merrill Elements soon. It seems like the 116 is the most popular, providing nearly all of the benefit of the 118 for "only" $22K rather than $36K. Search A-gon under Merrill Element to read the glowing review of the 116 from a professional musician, a Professor of Percussion. WOW. I've seen enough reviews to pique my interest. Now it remains to audition a unit that has enough time on it, as Guido has advised. Maybe wait to find out about the 114, which will probably be much less than $20K, and likely a great value.
WC, you have a long, happy audio life awaiting you. It is prudent to be patient to see what technology brings in the future. This is obviously true with computers and phones. Don't blow a lot of money now. Spend relatively modestly for great sound per dollar.
|
grey9hound, I am awaiting your comment about using the Lyngdorf with big panel speakers. If you have no experience with that, you don't know either. Lacking that experience, I can only speculate on theoretical grounds why it works for dynamic speakers but maybe not for large panels whose footprint is much larger. Of course, you are right that the Lyngdorf corrects the room, not the speakers. But it is more or less a semantic discussion, because the room and speaker work as a team.
|
Amen, mr_bill, about the CLX. Well said. |
WC,
To sort out a lot of the well meaning advice above, there is nothing wrong with walking into a dealer for Wilson, Dynaudio, Focal and getting a brief listen with your own music. I agree that it is morally wrong to waste too much of the dealer's time when you are looking for better deals elsewhere. But you will find after just 5 minutes of listening that these dynamic speakers will or most likely won't, have the accuracy and other qualities that you have come to appreciate in your Magico S5. I have personally heard enough mediocrity from several models of these other speakers to make that statement. You have reached a level and spent plenty of money to realize that the next speaker should be the ML CLX, 15a, 13a in that order. You can still keep your Magico for the reasons I have said. The 5 minute test should be enough to demonstrate all this and satisfy your curiosity, and then you can walk out and shake hands without taking any financial risk and suffering the heartache of getting your money back. In related matters, I can judge the sound of a violin within seconds of playing it, and the quality of a violinist within seconds of hearing him play. No need to worry about the BIG BUCKS involved in buying and selling violins.
|
The market will in time be awash with Alexia 2 or any other ho hum dynamic speaker. Magico has built a reputation for more advanced R&D, and so has YG but they are very expensive. Electrostatic technology is simple and 100 years old, so advances are likely to be minimal. This is why for accuracy/neutrality nothing beats a decently implemented electrostatic, especially at a much cheaper price than any dynamic that tries to emulate the stat for its resolution/low distortion. A nearly massless stat driver will have an inherent advantage over a more massive dynamic driver. A good analogy is that a 6 foot basketball player (the dynamic speaker) would have to have extraordinary jumping ability to compete against the average 7 foot player (the electrostatic).
|
klh007,
Great pickup. I pointed this out on a past post about the Tekton tweeters. I enthusiastically agree with you that the moving mass of 15 tweeter domes is less than that of the Neo diaphragm, so that the accuracy of the Tekton from 300-400 Hz is probably greater than the Neo. Depending on crossover slopes, the Neo dynamic driver may have corrupting influence up to 1000Hz. Thus, the great majority of the vocal fundamental range on the Neo is very likely to be inferior to the Tekton, although the upper harmonics of vocals would be handled by the electrostatic element of the Neo which would probably be superior to these higher frequencies from the Tekton. But again, I don't like the concept of the huge curved electrostatic panel which causes smearing of HF compared to that of the CLX. Even though the electrostatic principle has advantages, when poorly implemented as in the Neo, the Tekton design may actually be superior in the frequencies at which electrostatics are the best. So I wouldn't be surprised to hear owners of the Tektons say that they sound superior in most ways to several of these huge electrostatics. $3000 for the Tekton, compared to $85,000 for the elephant Neo. HA HA.
WC, are you listening? Stay away from the ML Neo. Don't waste time and money on interim speakers. Just get the CLX-REL and keep the Magico S5, to give you everything you want for every type of music. Down to 56 Hz, the CLX probably kills the Neo in everything except overblown lower quality midbass. |
WC,
I sympathize with your anger at that dealer who dumped on your good faith offers to do business. Just realize that these guys are selling mainly overpriced mediocrities. There is NO audio item that is an investment, because everything audio depreciates with time and becomes a horse and buggy with advances in technology. These guys are just trying make the most money selling their overpriced mediocrities while they can. Look, I can come up with $500K in a few days, but I know the junk out there and I have better things to do with that money. I have a patient with prostate cancer, and I referred him for easy SOTA laser ablation treatment that cost him $27K. Any SOTA procedure is NOT covered by insurance. The main covered treatments involve major surgery and various types of radiation, all of which are associated with common major side effects of incontinence, impotence and many others that are too disgusting to talk about here. He is happy, doing great and is free of side effects. That is $27K well spent, instead of on some audio crap, except for the few things like the CLX-REL which is real value. Why should you care if one dynamic speaker sounds better than another, because they are all demolished by the CLX for clarity, etc.? Unless someone offers to pay you for your reviews, funds your purchases, pays for your medical care and missed work from back injuries in lugging around speakers the size of funeral caskets, don't waste your time and money. Yeah, the Musical Fidelity Titan is powerful and not too expensive, but why bother--just another euphonic piece of mediocrity, according to reviews of it and other MF products. No, I have not heard it, and don't need to waste money/time and hurt my back just to prove the point.
Meanwhile, I have decided to keep the $2000 Mytek Brooklyn Amp which I have had on 60 day trial. It has slightly rolled off highs compared to my peerless Bryston 2.5B SST2, although the highs are more elegant. The rest of the range is truly superb, and better than my Bryston in a few ways, with decent 300 watts into 8,4,2 ohms. It is approximately as good as anything I have heard at home up to $10K. With small tweaks of my Rane EQ which thezaks found for only $90, the Mytek is truly excellent. If it were $5K, I wouldn't keep it, because I regard it as a cheap interim amp while I wait for the Merrill Elements to appear and I can fully study and evaluate them to see whether their cost can be justified. Also, John Atkinson in the Nov issue of Stereophile admits that the Mytek does a nice job of driving the $215,000 Tidal Audio Akira speaker, but then snidely asks who would want to drive an expensive speaker with such a cheap amp. Yeah, he is sucking up to big bucks manufacturers who advertise in the rag mag which pays his salary. |
kw6,
Yes, 2 years ago I auditioned the Belles SA-100 at home for a week, comparing to my Bryston 2.5B SST2, and my 1995 Belles OCM 200, which has the same power as the new SA-100. The SA-100 was mellow and rolled off in the highs compared to the OCM 200. I found this surprising, but perhaps Belles is trying to cater to today's audiophiles who favor mellow sound in contrast to the past when SS was more brilliant. The OCM is still sweet and mellow compared to many SS amps, but it is more neutral and revealing compared to many of today's amps. For example, the $23,000 Viola Concerto 100 watt stereo amp auditioned at home for a week was more mellow and less revealing than the OCM. This is one of the most glaring examples of high priced audio mediocrity I have ever seen, especially since it comes from the hand of a former Mark Levinson engineer. |
About John Atkinson,
Yes, a fine fellow, as they say in Gilbert and Sullivan English operattas. His music background as a bass player means that most of his reviews emphasize bass qualities with much less analysis of mids and HF. Nothing wrong with that, as long as you know his point of view. The previous issue contained his glowing review of the expensive Constellation Centaur 2, and the issue before that contained someone else's enthusiastic review of the Mytek, which I totally agree with. I get the feeling Atkinson likes the Centaur, but didn't find it such a big blowaway of everything else, and leaves it to the reader to decide if it is worth the big bucks. I will tell everyone that probably nothing blows away the Mytek, but the Atkinson would not allow such a statement to appear in his mag, which caters to the big money manufacturer advertisers. |
WC,
As grey9hound, thezaks say, don't assume that because something is cheap that it is no good for you. Most people here who enthusiastically make recommendations to you are to be considered your friends who mean well, unlike shady dealers who are out to take your money for crappy, overpriced hyped up mediocrity. As RIAA says, we don't really know the truth about anything unless it is auditioned, especially in our home reference system. When I discovered that the cheap Rane ME 60 as a line stage (not even using the EQ capability) was more transparent than the expensive Spectral DMC 10 gamma, I was delighted to discover something that is cheap and excellent, and also delighted to gloat that the emperor really has no clothes, or that the flashy girl with thick makeup and tight jeans really is ugly without makeup with a dumpy body in more modest clothes. As a twist, I LIKE the idea that a (probably) fine sounding speaker like the Tekton DI may be considered ugly. In a way, the owner of the Tekton can make a statement to his guests, saying that "it's the sound, stupid--LISTEN TO IT." When they do listen, the weird look and the concept of such a design that yields fine sound, can turn a physically weird object into a thing of inner beauty. |
WC,
I understand your point about good looking components, but that adds a lot to the price, so you get poorer sound for the dollar. That Viola amp I criticized was a $23,000 gorgeous jewel made of a sculptured solid block of silvery metal. The manufacturer was looking to fool the rich guy who cares mainly about looks. (But the Viola or Mac amps still are ugly compared to a work of real visual art like a great painting, antique furniture or sculpture.) The sound wasn't bad--it was good enough to fool the rich guy who cares more about his image than listening seriously and critically to music and sound. Then we have the fashionable socialite at the opera who sits in the elegant Grand Tier to be noticed and photographed. Never mind that the sound there is rolled off and dull compared to the first row. She doesn't care what it sounds like, as long as SHE can be SEEN.
|
maplegrovemusic,
To keep WC's speaker quest alive after the Neolith, invite him to hear your KS 17's, which are probably better, and MUCH cheaper.
|
mrdecibel,
Interesting comments about pro drivers. In general, pro gear offer better sound value per dollar than audiophile gear, because with pro, only the sound matters. I never claimed that the Rane as a line stage is SOTA. The real value of it is the very flexible EQ capability which is all-important. I was about to dump my new Mytek Brooklyn amp because the highs are not as extended as my Bryston, but a little tweak of the Rane made me happy with the highs and everything else on the Mytek which makes it preferable to my Bryston in nearly all ways. So I rejoice and keep the Mytek. What value for $2000! There is no guarantee that the much more costly Merrill Elements will beat the Mytek sufficiently to justify the cost, or even whether the Elements are ANY better at all. I won't know until I listen to a broken in Element. All of this is made possible by the Rane. Although it may not be as transparent as the Luminous, it is still very good, and the EQ function makes it a game changer and overrides everything else. Please experiment with the EQ in your Rane. There is the risk that baritones will sound more like tenors, etc., but you will be discerning enough to do it intelligently. Don't alter the midrange, but try tweaking from 8000 to 20,000 Hz. By boosting this range, you can turn a muddy distant sounding recording into a more upfront one, tremendously increasing the clarity without getting a gross disco sound.
Did you personally do the modification on the Rane, or what modifier did it for you?
|
skootb,
I use a single Mytek Brooklyn amp in stereo. If I am happy driving my inefficient 75 dB electrostatic speakers with it, getting peaks of almost 100 dB, nobody with much more efficient speakers should be unhappy, assuming they are listening at sensible levels that avoid hearing damage. If the music is very loud on peaks, the amp shuts down for only a few seconds and then is fine after the peaks. No big deal. Using 2 of them would increase the cost to $4000, which may still be a good value, but I don't want to spend a lot of money now, until I evaluate the Merrill Elements. I can afford anything, but it better be a great value, or else I say, forget about it.
|
techno_dude,
Thanks for relating your story about the expensive mediocre DAC. I have heard the Wilson Sasha, Sabrina and can say they are mediocre for the money, trounced by the CLX at similar prices for clarity, etc. Here we have a SOTA electrostatic at an affordable price, and then a mediocre Wilson which becomes an oversupplied drug on the market. Yes, the Alexia 2 may be superior to the other Wilson's, but it won't compete with any SoundLab or Martin Logan electrostatic in important criteria. At nearly $60,000, I wouldn't count on it being superior to the Tekton DI for $3000. The Magico S5 at $40K probably offers far superior clarity to the Alexia 2, so represents better value. If the Magico has better clarity than the Tekton DI, at least both are good choices at their price points. All this is my speculation of course, since I have not heard the Alexia 2, Magico S5 or the Tekton DI, but let the owners speak.
|
kw6,
Thanks for mentioning the Alsyvox ribbon speakers. I believe that the smallest model, the Tintoretto, is the best for clarity, focus and suitability for most rooms. The only advantage of the larger models is a little deeper bass extension, but the smallest one still is respectable at 25 Hz. It is still large enough to please those who like big sound fields. The efficiency is high at 93 dB, so dynamics should please most people. In the case of planers, smaller is usually better, although the Tintoretto is still pretty large. Many years ago, I compared the small Stax F81 to the F83, which was merely two stacked 81's. Of course, the F83 had more output, but it was far inferior to the F81 in clarity. Highs were rolled off, and the tonal balance was bass heavy by comparison. At that point I learned a valuable lesson that large panels exhibit time smear in midrange and higher frequencies because of multipath and time delay effects and therefore suffer in clarity. Smaller is better. If you get these ribbons, or just keep listening to your Magnepans, I strongly advise toe-in to get the midpoint of the sub-panels aimed at your nose. The narrowest HF ribbons have excellent dispersion, so it is most important that the body of the speaker containing the wide midrange panel is aimed at your nose. The wider the driver, the more directivity it has, which you can use to your advantage by aiming for your nose. This will make a BIG difference in clarity.
|
klh007,
Yes, you are correct about the Alsyvox being planar magnetics, not ribbons, except maybe the ribbon tweeters, similar to Maggies. My friend in LI has the GT Audio speakers for the low teens without subwoofers. For almost all music, the subwoofers aren't needed, since the main speakers have great power down to 40 Hz. If the Alsyvox costs $100K, that is a real ripoff. The finest full range ribbon speakers I have heard are from Wisdom Audio at a MUCH lower price for still large models. The GT Audios sound great, especially when toed in the way I described. But electrostatics are still superior in resolution to any planar magnetic or ribbon, just as capacitor microphones are superior to ribbon mics. The electrostatic is just a huge capacitor. The ML is still best sounding speaker for resolution, etc., and is relatively modestly priced.
|
mrdecibel,
Thanks for your info. You may be satisfied with your system, and I trust your findings that the Luminous passive conduit is more transparent than the Rane without EQ, and it probably beats any megabuck line stage for clarity, etc. The Luminous or Music First units are "pound the table" recommendations for anyone here to consider. Just as they ought to be open-minded about this, I urge you to do the same for the Rane for its EQ feature. Believe me, a subtle adjustment of EQ yields bigger differences than two competing SOTA amp contenders, and this effect overwhelms the loss of transparency from going from the Luminous to the Rane as a line stage only. I really hate many European concert halls for their over-reverberance, in real life and on recordings, such as the Concertgebouw. I can take these muddy and distant sounding recordings and make them sound much more like the tightly clear Boston Symphony Hall in the first few rows, using the EQ tastefully. There is no other way to do this. If you still don't find this useful, I would be happy to buy your Rane. Is it the earlier one or the later one with the choice of 2 different curves (6 or 12 dB, etc.)?
|
mikepaul,
No I don't have the ML CLX. I have not found anything to beat my 1980 Audiostatic 240. I only use a single panel for each channel, whose radiating area is 5.5 X 50 inches. I use a yardstick and aim each side at my nose. The support and other unused panel serve as a baffle so I can get more bass, but most people would find the bass deficient. The flat panel is a better concept than the curved one of ML, though the CLX has the narrowest panel for the mid and HF. My beloved old Audiostatic has probably lost some highs, but it still has better highs and midrange than any other commercial speaker out there. I enhance the highs with the fantastic Enigmacoustics super tweeter, but unfortunately that company appears to have folded. Together, the Audiostatic/Enigma combination is unmatched for clarity, although I admit that I have learned to hold my head in position to obtain ecstasy. It is a one listener ultimate experience. The CLX comes in second place, so it is the best commercially available speaker. Everything else is hopelessly veiled. The original Quad 57 stat has great midrange, probably the best ever designed, but lots of other limitations. The newer Quads are hopelessly veiled in comparison.
The latest Audiostatic design from Dutchman Ben Peters, is seen on his website for 3000 euros. I listened to the other models from the 1990's, which were not as good as my 240. I told him a few years ago that I am still very happy with my 240. But he didn't return my emails asking about his newest model. He is now old, so I am not sure if it really exists. Still, I probably will take a flyer and just order it. Not much financial risk. This man is my audio hero. I even considered traveling to him in Holland.
|
klh007,
Thanks for your clarification on the Alsyvox. So the complete planar magnetic design is then inferior to the top Maggies and the GT Audio. What a ripoff. My friend in LI who has the GT, posted under his ID, faxer, I recall, but if I am wrong, his business is Sound Insight, in Massapequa, NY. It is better than any Maggie, especially when toed in. It is tall and skinny, similar to the Wisdom Audio ribbon speakers. The GT and Wisdom are of comparable quality in sound, and both illustrate the superiority of design that I advocate.
I have heard Roger Sanders hybrid stats. At shows they sounded lousy with veiling, rolled off highs, etc. Could have been the small dead room or the DSP not set up properly. I made a trip from NYC to Maryland to hear the top model in a private home. They sounded much better than at the shows, but still not quite as good as the ML CLX, and nowhere as good as my Audiostatic 240. You have to understand my perspective with the unique Audiostatic, which makes my comments about nearly all speakers at variance with the enthusiasm others have for whatever speakers are available today. But everyone should read Sanders' white paper (website Sanders Sound Systems) on why curved panels are not optimal. Originally, he designed curved panels but realized his mistake and switched to flat panels. To get the total purest sound, you just have to accept the need to sit in the sweet spot with the panels toed in to your nose, ears. I agree with his writings, and go further with my analysis of the multipath and dispersion effects that create HF smearing. I have not heard the smaller narrower model of Sanders, but I predict it will have more precision although less output than the larger wider model, for the reasons I have discussed.
Actually, THE best commercially available stats are from King Sound, in Hong Kong. But distribution and availability have been lousy. They are flat panels, with a wide panel for freq below 1200 Hz, and a 3 inch narrow panel for freq above that. The narrower the panel, the more dispersion, without any HF rolloff. I have heard the King and Prince models and can say that 2-3 people can enjoy the total sound. The original King model was great, better than the CLX, but not as good as my Audiostatic. There is a guy from Norwalk, Conn on USAudioMart selling these for less than $3000, a steal if you can accept the risk of no company backup. The next best thing is the KS 17 that maplegrovemusic mentioned. The only problem with the design is that it is very tall, so the height creates some vertical time smear from multipath effects. The narrow width is a plus, however. Recall that I found the tall Stat F83 (2 stacked F81's) to be inferior to the F81 in precision and HF balance.
So the best commercially available speaker is the ML CLX, because the mid/HF panel is narrow and the whole speaker is not tall. The design resembles the King stats, which are still better because of all the flat panels.
Apologizes to those who don't find all this relevant to their needs, but I hope others find it useful.
WC, I know my quest may not correspond to your present approach with resale considerations, but I just mention products that have real excellence and value by being cheap enough that financially you will come out ahead. You can just get the CLX-REL and be done with the speaker quest and save a lot of money.
|
skootb,
Yes, I recall the Mytek reviewer said that used as 2 monos, the sound is fuller. This is not my taste, but you can see what suits you. A single stereo offers good power, especially for even moderately efficient speakers. No need to blast your head and ears off. Two amps gets more expensive, and I prefer to save for the potentially SOTA Merrill Elements. Aside from more power, I believe that bridged monos of any amp are inferior for purity, because more circuitry is in the chain with opportunity for added distortion.
|
mrdecibel,
Yes, we agree that passive has a big advantage by avoiding line stage circuitry. With all the preamps I ever had (in those days most preamps were really complete, with phono stage and line stage in one unit), I would bypass the line stage, taking the phono stage output directly into the power amp. I would choose music where the volume was just right, since I also bypassed the volume control. In every case, there was such a remarkable increase in clarity, transparency that I thought I discovered America. But you admit the value of EQ in your recordings. Digital has proved that compression is not needed and is inappropriate. Personally, I keep the EQ settings for most recordings the same, so there's no trouble or extra work. A particularly muddy and distant sounding recording will require a different adjustment, but that isn't common. Besides, I remember all the recordings and adjustments, just as musicians remember the character of other musicians they have played with. If I ever forget, I can instantly make adjustments the way a violinist rapidly retunes between movements of a piece. Actually, the biggest reason I use EQ, is that all speakers have such large deviations from reality, combined with room problems. I have the rare nerve to believe that I can make a speaker sound very close to a real musical instrument or voice. As musicians we know the difference between a box stuffed with electronic parts/drivers and an instrument made of natural materials like wood, metal or a human voice of flesh. This YUGE difference is why if you want to do the ultimate, EQ is required. If possible, email me close-up pictures of your Rane if you still want to sell it. russlaud@gmail.com. |
grey9hound,
Yes, why would we be interested in things we cannot afford? A few people here can afford anything, but prudently refuse to spend the big money on mediocre performance, which is the case with many of these items where image and glitz is the thing. I know we feel frustrated that WC doesn't consider high value cheap things like Tekton DI, Rane EQ, Mytek/Emotiva amps, Lyngdorf, Luminous passive, etc. Still, he is a nice guy who generously shares his experiences with us. It's like reading an entertaining novel with fictional characters. But better, because some of us know these characters as they pop out of the page.
|
WC,
Good luck, and I hope your back gets better. But you can most likely top the Ref 10 for neutrality and clarity for under $1k with the Luminous passive. One day you will realize that neutrality and clarity are most important. You want a variety of flavors in your music, but starting with wine sweetened with sugar is not the way to do it. I just hope you don't incur financial strain before you learn this. If you still want sugary wine, there are many much cheaper ways to get this. It is really hard to get neutrality and clarity. Pricy fine wines are not sweet. But many wine connoisseurs have chosen cheap wines as preferable to expensive ones, in blind taste tests. There's a BIG lesson there, totally applicable to audio.
|
WC,
I just had a look at the pictures of maplegrovemusic's KS 17 on A-gon offers. In the background to the left is the original King Sound King model, 6 feet tall and about 28 inches wide. I heard this in NJ at a dealer and GUARANTEE that it is better in every way except maybe deepest bass extension than everything you are considering or have ever heard. The KS 17 is taller and narrower, a more recent design. It probably has comparable performance to the original King. It may actually perform better in your room since the KS 17 is narrower than the King. I don't know maplegrovemusic--I am just trying to be helpful. Unbeatable deal at $9500 asking price, even if the speaker develops a problem later. |
bigddesign3,
Thanks for your interesting comments on CD. Totally agree. As for vinyl, many years ago I had a well functioning relatively cheap Denon 305 cartridge on the Alphason HRS titanium tonearm on Goldmund Studio TT. Listening to the same recordings on LP and CD, the LP was MUCH more open with HF extension. I did this A/B on much more modest TT with modest cartridges and preamps, and the LP still walloped the CD. Today's CD's and digital recording technologies are much better, and I find CD's good enough to use as material to do extensive A/B tests. With cartridges, you never know from one day to another how the sound may vary vastly, so it is much harder to do meaningful A/B tests. Too many tests will wear out the cartridge. Today my Denon cartridge is so old that now the setup is inferior to the CD, so I need a new cartridge. For my tastes of clarity and brilliance, the Rega Apheta 2 at less than $2000 looks like a great performer at a good value, unlike stupidly expensive things like the top Koetsu or Lyra Atlas. Also, consider stupidly expensive TT like Mike Fremer's Continuum Caliburn. I cornered Fremer at a NY show years ago, and he admitted that the cartridge is the most important and cost effective part of the vinyl setup. For my tastes, a great package might be the the Rega 10 TT with Apheta 2 cartridge, discounted as a package by Music Direct for about $6500, but I will probably save money and just get the cartridge for my own TT/arm. Another problem is that nobody will let you return a cartridge for refund if it doesn't work out. Rightly so, because one slip of the finger will destroy a cartridge. I would never buy a $10,000 cartridge for that reason.
|
techno_dude,
Although we agree on most things, I would say that the Neolith or 15A would still be superior to any dynamic speaker for mid/HF clarity. You are probably right about bass, though.
|
kw6,
Glad you appreciate my comments and tastes. What is your system?
|
WC,
I would love to see your video of the arrival of the speakers. Include yourself smiling and standing next to the big crates and showing your muscles lifting them. Another piece of evidence suggesting that the speakers are the biggest ever, the Neolith. I doubt you are going for the still bigger Magico horn system! I have a friend who had all his systems in a photo album from his early days. Since I have no children, I found this more interesting than the usual albums of the family, etc. Let us know how to access or search for your video on youtube. Do you have any previous videos/pictures that are still on youtube? We consider you family.
|
