Could be Pass XA600 monos, maybe Constellation monos. Gryphon monos.
|
carey1110,
You said, "I think of a preamp as a sound shaper. Takes the raw signal and perhaps embellishes it to creat a certain type of soundstage or sound. All seem to be a little different at how they portrait the music. So many to choose from."
That is absolutely correct. So those people who want to color their sound in a certain way can look for a preamp that gives them what they want. But for me, I want the maximum transparency of the "raw signal"--an excellent description of yours. If I don’t need the increased volume of an added preamp, I don’t want it.
BTW, what preamp are you using? |
w1000i,
Thanks for mentioning the new Chord Etude. The British like to rate their amps at 4 ohms. This is 150 watts, so at 8 ohms it probably rates 75 watts or so. Bridging will allow 300 watts, but bridging is only comfortable into higher impedances. Forget about using bridged amps into low impedance electrostatics, unless you use high 90 dB efficiency hybrid stats and don’t blast the music. For dynamic speakers it may be OK. In the past, I heard the Chord 1050 stereo model against the higher power versions, and liked the superior articulation and detail from the lower power amp. The Etude may be promising in this aspect. In general, bridging does give more power and fuller sound, but articulation is sacrificed. For example, the Mytek Brooklyn amp reviewer in Stereophile compared a single stereo to 2 bridged monos. He liked the fuller sound of the monos, but noted that the single stereo had the better articulation at the expense of fullness. I found my Bryston 2.5B SST2 to be superior in articulation/detail to the supposedly same design of the more powerful 4B SST2. Unfortunately, WC won’t consider anything unless it is big, expensive, and prestigious. There is so much other great stuff, and thanks to you for bringing the Etude to our attention.
|
WC,
The Momentum is a good choice for all around neutral/powerful sound. The tonal balance is probably similar to your BAT, so let's see what all that money buys you. Be honest, as usual.
|
WC,
In a few years, your 2 year old will have better hearing than anybody you know and will be able to describe what he/she hears. Get the $2000 Mytek Brooklyn Amp which I promise is comparable in clarity/neutrality to anything you are considering, except possibly the Rowland 925, Lux 900u. Let your child A/B the Mytek and/or your BAT against most any big buck amp, and say "Daddy, I need money for my higher education, piano lessons because I have talent, etc. You can save a lot of money and still have great sound." So I suggest concentrating on your quest for SOTA amps, instead of getting side tracked with inferior products merely for your curiosity. Don't get mesmerized by big names, prestige. Most important, realize that SOTA or very close to it doesn't correlate with big money. If you ever win the lottery, the flagship Magico horn will KILL the Wilson WAMM at comparable prices. Aside from electrostatics and ribbons, horns have the lowest distortion and are superior to anything for dynamics. Magico has the wisdom to know this. Then you can consider low power amps which have purer sound than high power amps. If you found a horn speaker "shouty" it was probably an inferior example, poorly set up, etc. I found the Avantgarde Trio horn speaker very natural and lifelike at a NY show years ago, even in a small room! Not TOO expensive, compared to what you are considering. |
lemonhaze,
You make valid points about how important everything in the phono chain is. I am nearly as old as Mike Fremer and my extensive experience is consistent with his. I had a Linn table with Alphason arm with my Denon 305 cartridge. Nothing that expensive but great performance. I then transferred the arm/cartridge to a SOTA (that's the brand name) table. Then the sound became heavy, like lead, mushy and slow. The Denon 305 was a fast, dry cartridge that was big in HF excitement and light in the bass. So the sound was dominated by the SOTA table with its soft wooden plinth that made the sound heavy. I recovered the exciting sound by going back to the Linn. When I got the Goldmund Studio TT, its sound with the same arm/cartridge was more focused, but not as changed as when trying other cartridges. Both Linn and Goldman are excellent tables, so at that level the cartridge takes on more importance. I think Fremer was admitting that his $200,000 TT/arm didn't produce a life changing improvement like getting his choice cartridge. In a later review, he praised the $6500 Rega 10 TT/arm plus $5000 Aphelion cartridge for its fast brilliant sound. I might prefer the $2000 Apheta 2 cartridge. Of course, the compliance of the cartridge has to be matched to the mass of the arm. Think of the cartridge as a transducer like a speaker, which is more critical a factor than the electronics. The best arm/TT may be considered like the invisible fingers of God spinning the TT and holding the cartridge in place. The arm/TT is merely supportive of the cartridge which really produces the sound.
By the way, to accuse me of just regurgitating old statements, is to not understand my musical expertise, both as an accomplished musician and experienced audiophile. Please show the proper respect, thank you.
|
WC,
I agree that the Momentum Integrated probably sounds better with more accuracy that the ARC Ref 10 plus Progression Monos. The main reason is that the ARC is still tubey and sweetens the sound a bit even though you like that. Dag is SS all the way with some but less, tendency to sweetness, according to some people. Another factor is the general concept of integrated amps enabling you to eliminate interconnects which color the sound. The best approach would be to get the passive Luminous for under $1000 or so, and plug into the power amp. If the power amp has gain over 30 dB, the passive preamp would give as much volume as you would need for lots of music. The Dags tend to have lower gain of 26 dB, so for some music you can still enjoy the pure sound of the Luminous, according to the experience of mrdecibel. He and I agree that there is no active preamp that approaches the clarity of a passive. One of the models of Music First passive preamps has a switch for an extra 6 dB of gain. I don't know how they do it, but I didn't hear any difference with or without the switches' 6 dB of gain.
By the way, your journey is not a one way street without freedom of U-turns. It is all a moving target. One day you will decide that you love the Avantgarde Trio horn speaker, and then you will want a low power amp with the purest sound, for example. Only upon death is there no U-turn. Keep your health, lose weight so that final event is FAR away. Best wishes.
|
bigddesign3,
There is no doubt that Krell/Dag amps have excellent power supplies, simply revealed by the specs that power output doubles into each half reduction of impedances down to 1 ohm. Mathematically, this is equivalent to the current capability doubling at the same rate. Very few other manufacturers live up to this standard. Listening I have done reveals the power. The only question is whether you like the chosen tonal balance and what is the level of resolution which is much harder to quantify, and that's why listening to it and anything else must be the ultimate deciding factor before purchase. |
mrdecibel,
What were the problems with the stock Klipsch La Scala, and what modifcations did you make? What are your other favorite horn systems? Have they made any advances over the LaScala? That AG trio I heard in a small room at a NY show seemed uncolored with superb HF extension. The music was low in volume with voices and light instrumentation. The superior quality of the system was obvious even at the low volume. The 100 dB or more efficiency of horns enables use of a passive preamp for all types of music, a big advantage, although I still enjoy the ability to dispense with an additional line stage with my much less efficient speakers. |
WC,
I agree that Chord electronics take a longer time to sell than Dag, which is good old USA. Anything from overseas is higher risk. It better be a bargain to justify the risk. And yes, I think you made a good decision to get the Momentum Integrated, which will give you the essential Dag sound. If you find that it is a big improvement over your great BAT, you can go further with Dag. But remember, the ultimate goal is to see if the Rowland 925 can be beaten. It is in a similar price league to top Dags. When you heard the 925, you liked sweet, fatter sounding sound and speakers, but now with the Magico S5 and I suspect a higher Magico model soon, it is possible your tastes have changed a little, and that the Dag might have a more neutral sound than the Rowland. Will the Dag beat the 925 for resolution/clarity? Also, you can go to shows to hear things like the Avantgarde Trio horns, to see whether they should be considered. No need to take a totally blind approach just because you find great deals and hoped-for ease of resale. I just have a hunch that these horns might be the best speaker choice for you, because their clarity is unmatched except for choice electrostatics, and the power/dynamics far exceeds any other dynamic speaker. |
I like curves in women, and natural musical instruments, but not in electrostatic panels.
|
4425, totally correct.
WC, it was a smaller Sonja 2 series of the YG that I heard, probably the 2.2. They are 88 dB efficient, so my guess is still the Wilson Yvette. But that Sonja YG was just about the most natural dynamic speaker I have heard. No hifi-ish character. It did well in a medium sized room at GTT Audio in NJ. Bill Parrish, the owner, had a dozen or more leading reviewers at his place to hear the flagship Sonja XV. It was written up a few years ago.
|
Going by 86 dB efficiency, the Wilson Yvette fits that. Electrostatics unlikely, because they do best at least 3 feet from the front wall. I have heard the smaller YG speakers--superb for dynamic speakers. I don't know the specs on YG, but they will seriously compete against Magico. YG is revealing but smooth.
|
WC,
I am sure you will enjoy some aspects of whatever speaker is coming. The problem is that your reference sound has changed so much. You declared the Rowland 925 the best, on which speaker? It would have been informative to hear the 925 and whatever amps are coming on the Magico. I could just advise getting the best speaker system, the CLX+REL, and then seeing which amp you like best. It is more efficient and cost-effective to do that, but I know you enjoy the journey. It just makes it harder to truly learn the character of each amp when you are changing speakers and you cannot afford to keep all the amp contenders around while you are changing speakers. Still, it is great that you have the BAT as reference. The BAT+Ref 10 is good enough to A/B with the Gryphon and Momentum integrateds, even though the Ref 10 imparts a slight sweetening effect according to your descriptions of it. You can get the very cheap Luminous passive that mrdecibel raves about, and then BAT+Luminous should be a true reference for neutrality/clarity, at least for some of your music that you appreciate at moderate volumes. Then you can see for yourself whether the Momentum integrated is worth the money.
|
WC,
Based on the specs, Eggleston is it. I heard it in Brooklyn at a small studio of a young mastering engineer who had worked with Bob Ludwig. It was smooth and good for a dynamic speaker. The former YG flagship Sonja 1.3 looks interesting. Its bigness appeals to you, yet the smaller top modules would keep the mids/HF focused--nice design. The spec of 88 dB puts it out of the running, but John Atkinson measured about 85 dB, so it is still a possibility. The Neolith is not in the running, because it is over 90 dB and you would not be placing it so close to the front wall.
|
Not the Nola with its 91 dB efficiency rating.
|
By now, WC has probably listened to the Momentum Integrated on his old Sonus Faber speaker, unless he's been busy with work. His silence is deafening, since he is usually excited to report early impressions when he likes the sound. WC, you are in training to become a host of an awards ceremony who builds up suspense over who the winner is, HA HA.
|
techno_dude,
As I recall, you just wanted to swap your Lux 900u with WC's Gryphon just to try the Gryphon and simplify your system, getting rid of expensive interconnects, etc. This doesn't mean you thought any less of the Lux as your favorite amp.
|
techno_dude,
Thanks for your passion. As Abe Lincoln said, "with malice toward none," I like RIAA's passion, but he simply needs to have more respect for others. No need for calling attention to typo and grammar errors or correct English usage. We all make these mistakes. Then his knowledge and experience can be enjoyed more. Dignified discussions about contrary opinions are always fruitful. Guidocorona is really good at that.
|
mrdecibel,
OK, I am interested in your Rane. Send me closeup pictures, etc.
|
WC,
Yes, Dag has good sound and great appearance. However, my guess is that you want the best possible sound for the money, which is usually seen with modest looking black box types. All this SOTA stuff tends to be very expensive, and it pays to prioritize sound vs looks. You got a previous model of the BAT for a bargain, and I look forward to hearing whether you think the Dag gives you more sound to justify the huge amount of money. And the BAT still looks good, just not the Hope Diamond of Dag, HA HA. And I'm sure even the Dag doesn't compare to your wife in looks. Buy her a few thousands worth of fine outfits, and you will admit that beauty is more appreciated on her than on the floor stuff.
|
techno_dude,
I love my Shunyata Venom HC power cords. I prefer them to the Sigma HC which had a more laid back sound. The new NR series is intriguing. Have you compared the $300 Venom HC to any of the NR series? I still encourage you to try the Denali, which I think makes MUCH more difference than any power cord. Right now, I am in the doghouse at Music Direct because of more returns than completed purchases, even though my sales were substantial and they probably sold a lot of my returns as demos. They want to impose a 20% restocking fee on future purchases if returned. Then I might as well look on the used market. WC's business model makes sense, although he is a high roller.
|
WC, I got confused because you said recently that your new speakers have efficiency of 86-87 dB, but the Neo is 91 dB or so. Doesn't matter. The sound is what counts.
|
techno_dude,
Thanks for your Shunyata NR feedback. The Denali really is unique--it is NOT a conventional filter with inductors, caps. Just proprietary materials that somehow absorb noise without affecting the audio range. The resulting sound is sharper, clearer, more focused. Like the Venom HC magnified many times. By the way, my 40 year experience has shown that more focused, accurate sound is associated with smaller, narrowed images. Many people enjoy fatter imaging, but this is not accurate. My first experience of this was when I switched from a Van Alstine modified Dyna Stereo 70 tube amp to an excellent SS JVC 7050 Super A amp. The Dyna had fatter sound that I misinterpreted as more dynamic and lifelike, but the JVC was clearly more revealing. The fatter sound is like chicken fat surrounding the meat. The chicken fat represents distortion around the pure meat. The Denali's focused sound actually narrows the image. But the effect is balanced over all the frequencies, so it doesn't create a spitty, wiry sound. It is just more accurate and natural, period. I really think you will enjoy it.
|
mrdecibel, I am glad you are enjoying the Rane in another system. Your gain, my loss. I love my Rane, but I just wanted to hear what you have done to it to improve it. We agree that merely as a line stage, the Rane is excellent. Take the opportunity to experiment with it using the EQ to tailor the 2nd system to anything musically enjoyable. You will agree that the line stage is great, second only to your Luminous and perhaps some very pricey active line stages, but using the EQ intelligently is a game changer, with only a little bit of effort. The music is worth it. That's why we musicians train for years to polish our craft.
|
WC,
Welcome to the electrostatic lovers community. But don't engage in comparisons based on money. For purity/clarity in mids/HF, the Neo will be superior to ANY dynamic/horn design at ANY price. So will even the cheapest hybrid stat of the ML line at a few thousand bucks. Most stat owners here will agree with me that dynamic drivers are hopelessly colored by comparison. I have heard enough Wilsons and other dynamics over the years to know this. Stat technology is old and cheap, and even expensive dynamic driver/box designs can't compete, simply because the dominant factor of nearly massless stat drivers outclasses more massive dynamic drivers. The best dynamic technology, horns, still won't compete with the purity of stat drivers. It is good that the Neos are so massive that they will be a pain to sell unless you absolutely hate them, which is doubtful. Don't even consider dynamic speakers at this point. So let me help you get the most out of the Neo, which is here to stay for a long time, a good thing.
Most important, they need about 6 feet in front of your front wall. With only 1-2 feet, they will sound OK, but much more congested and less spacious and revealing. Next, toe-in is critical for getting the absolute most info in HF. Much experimentation will be necessary. Put them on a few dollies with casters, or a lazy Susan type of platform. My friend with his huge SoundLab A1's and then U1's had a string on each R/L corner of each speaker so he could easily rotate the toe-in from his listening chair. Say you place the centers of each panel 7 feet apart. Start with a toe-in of 15 degrees so you sit 14 feet away to get the midpoint of the panel facing your head. Since your room is 24 feet long, there will be 4 feet behind you to the back wall. You might like this large 14 foot listening distance which could give the best integration of all frequencies and focus so that you don't get the feeling you are up too close kissing the elephant. The other extreme, with toe-in of 30 degrees for each speaker, creating an equilateral triangle of 60 degrees, you would be sitting 7 feet away, with 11 feet behind you. This might be too close, and yielding a more bass dominant tonal balance. Perhaps your chosen distance of 8.5 feet might be your best preference. Some days and for some music, you might prefer different distances with toe-ins.
If you are not yet ready to become an electrostatic purist with the CLX which uses the stat panel down to 56 Hz, the Neo gives you the stat purity from above 1000 Hz (the dynamic woofers will contribute some response up to that), plus the dynamics you like which will be more than the CLX. And the revealing Momentum Integrated gives you 200 watts into 8 ohms, 400 into 4, 800 into 2, probably 1600 into 1, maybe 3200 into 0.5. Fabulous power potential with pure sound. You could be in heaven for many years with just what you have.
I still caution you to not fall for the "more money makes better" idea. This may generally be correct, but the gambling table becomes a crime scene when too much money is involved. Merrill is doing more advanced technology than the common big names, so the $36K Element 118 might kill any Dag. I will probably try the $22K Element 116, which is still very powerful and may have 95% of the purity of the 118. I am still awaiting the 114 mono, which will probably be in the teens. This still might be a giant killer. Even for common technology, I favor Krell sound over the Pass that I have heard. From your description and published reviews of Dag, I think Dag offers better value than Pass. Dag is really trying to produce the best clarity and power, whereas Pass admits that his priority is to give the typical audiophile the euphonic sound he wants. It is NOT about who spends the most money.
I want to hear how your BAT+ Ref 10 compares to the Momentum. |
WC,
When you are set up with your Neo, I'd like to hear more about the tonal character of the Momentum. You have praised its tubey/smooth sound, but usually this means rolled off HF and sweet, euphonic mids. But both you and your wife noted more extended HF than the Gryphon. Your wife described the Dag as brighter, which is probably true and consistent with more extended HF, which is not what is usually meant by "tubey." ARC generally has more HF/neutral sound than other tube equipment. You also noted than the Lux 900u had very extended HF, great detail with tubelike midrange. There are some contradictions in these statements, so I wonder where the Momentum fits in. It would be nice to hear the Rowland 925 with the Neo. The problem is that you last heard the Rowland, Lux and Bel Canto Black with other speakers, so I don't see how you can compare the Dag with these other amps from your memory of them with other speakers. |
jimmy3993,
I haven't heard any Momentum, but the most general advice I could give is that you would do well to look for any power amp you want. It is nice to be able to eliminate a piece of electronics in the chain, as mrdecibel has described in his enthusiastic tale of his Luminous passive preamp. But you don't even need that, and can save your money for the power amp and other things. |
RIAA,
Your decorum is #1, in poor taste, and #2, detracts from the useful info you have to contribute. As you have said, the most important comments are from people who have personally heard the item in their reference system and describe the comparative characteristics in detail, objectively, and if possible, free of value judgments. If value judgments are made, the poster's perspective should be clear so that the reader can understand why statements are made. The other day, someone said he heard the CH Precision against a Dag and said it had superior sound and was cheaper. Have you heard the CH? If not, then it is of much less interest why some dealer dropped it. If you say that Dag kills Ayre, in what sonic way? If you like tubey sound and I like neutral, clear sound, and Dag sounds more tubey than Ayre, then for me the preference would be the opposite. It doesn't matter how you or I rate them, but if you just factually state the characteristics, that is far more useful for the reader to decide which is right for him. If you want to discuss technical characteristics, that is also useful--just don't come out with meaningless claims that such and such is not in the same universe. But even that is nowhere as bad as disparaging the character of other posters and denigrating the value of what they have to say. |
Techno_dude,
If you like whipped cream blurring of sound, then the Lux preamp is closer to that than the Dag Momentum HD preamp. I had guessed that #1 in the last video was no preamp at all, just the DCS + Gryphon, because of its more transparent and detailed sound. So when WC revealed that #1 was the Dag HD, I was impressed. You have to be familiar with live, unamplified sound to realize that the Dag HD accuracy is closer to the truth of natural, unamplified sound, if you sit close where the microphones are. But if you sit further away, the live sound is rolled off in HF and smoothed over, so the Lux gives you that type of sound. But since most recordings are made with the mikes "hearing" the sound close up, it is not a valid assessment to say that the Lux is the more truthful/natural. Most rock/pop recordings are artificial and harsh when played very loud, so I understand how people who mostly listen to these recordings might prefer the smoothing over that the Lux preamp offers.
The Ayre preamp #2 was an overpriced dog drowning in whipped cream. I even preferred #3 the Lux for its greater clarity than the Ayre. WC said that the Ayre had better bass, but I couldn't evaluate that from playback of the video on my computer, and the music had little bass anyway.
|
WC,
I understand your methodology in comparing amps on different speakers, but speakers are the most variable factor in the chain, so it is difficult to do full assessments unless you do the A/B with the same speaker. I have the feeling that the Rowland 925 has a similar character to your Momentum, probably with subtle differences, so using the same speaker will be a must. Please realize that the Neo as an electrostatic will demolish any dynamic speaker for neutrality/clarity in the mids/HF at least. It is not really about loud power and big images. You can get a horn speaker system like the Avantgarde Trio with their humongous bass horns for that. I also believe that the relatively distorted sound of dynamic speakers leads many people to seek refuge in sweet, tubey (forgive the expression) electronics. I can understand that. But the electrostatic neutrality, naturalness and clarity may let you appreciate more neutral electronics. The Neo needs to be lived with for a long time, and then I think you will appreciate my points, and then you won't want to go back to dynamic speakers.
I am looking forward to seeing your video of their arrival. Include yourself standing tall next to them, and showing your muscles doing the heavy lifting!
|
techno_dude,
Eagerly awaiting your assessment of the Shunyata Alpha NR vs Delta NR. Too bad you exchanged the Delta, because the differences between cables are relatively subtle. Most importantly, it is not about how much money you spend. When I A/B'ed the Sigma HC with the Venom HC, I was TRYING to prefer the Sigma because it has more technology and was 10X the cost. Honestly, the differences were subtle, but in the end I preferred the characteristics of the Venom. My early comparisons yielded the same findings as later after 200 hours of break in.
|
dpac996, I enjoy the hearing exercise of WC's videos, especially when he tests us to see which unnamed combo we like and why. No bias, just challenging evaluations, and fun. |
speedbump6,
Seriously, none of the 3 preamps sounded unpleasant, so I think whipped cream is more apt than sour cream. Whipped cream smooths everything over, as I like my chocolate brownie pure with more intense flavor rather than with whipped cream. But sour cream may not mix well with certain foods. The problem with added electronic stages or ones that have more flavoring, is that some sour cream may be added. That's why I go for unadulterated purity--often not obtainable, but I strive for it. |
techno_dude,
No, with or without the Denali, the Venom HC was brighter and more upfront and exciting than the Sigma HC. Still, not a big difference and much smaller than the effect of the Denali for focus and excitement. Eventually, the salesman at Music Direct admitted that these were also his observations about the Venom vs Sigma, when he stopped the usual disgusting sales talk that more expensive means better. There is also some inconsistency in your descriptions--when something like the alpha NR has more speed, leaner lower midrange, it is NOT more laid back. More speed implies more HF, the opposite of laid back. Too bad you can't go back and forth to verify this, and the alpha may be breaking in. Keep listening, and pick up a used Venom HC to compare. This is one area where used is better than new--what can go wrong with a used cable?
|
shannere, WC asks what we all hear and prefer. I do exactly that. Maybe you don't care about accuracy, but WC values it to some extent, so I am sure he values my input. But he doesn't not want any negativity, which you are still exhibiting. |
WC, don’t sweat the cables or amps at this time. Let the Neo break in, and try the different positions as I posted recently. Be sure to have 6 feet behind it to the front wall, which will increase the airiness and life. HF will be more extended and the midrange more crisp. The Magico S5 was a smaller presentation, so it could sound tighter and cooler just for that reason. I would definitely sit significantly further away from the Neo than you did for the Magico. Sitting higher is better so you will get more of the mids/HF from the high panel compared to the dominant bass on the floor. PATIENCE.
|
WC,
I just read your post. The 3D effect can be heard at low volume levels where your Momentum has plenty of power. 3D is about resolution, which the Momentum has plenty of, at low and high power. No, the real problem is speaker placement with insufficient distance. Don't listen to advisors with an agenda to sell you even more expensive and powerful amps. I want to save you the heartache of spending all that money on powerhouse amps, only to realize that no amp will really solve the dominant problem of speaker placement you are facing now. With your other speakers, you were extremely pleased with the Momentum's qualities, so there is no reason the Momentum wouldn't make the Neo happy, especially since it gives very high power into very low impedances, something few amps can do.
|
WC,
It's unfortunate that you can't do 6 feet, but do the most you can. 2 feet may be the minimum, but the Neo or any electrostatic will benefit hugely from much more distance in the back of them. Toe-in will increase the distance for some of the panel area. I found that the midrange of my stats was soggy/warmed over/congested with insufficient distance, so I feel that a big reason the Neo is warmer than the Magico is because of insufficient distance. I wish I could tell you to make a dedicated listening room to optimize performance, but you have your family to deal with.
|
techno_dude,
Interesting question about break-in of the panels. Although the low mass membrane has low excursion between the stators, the large surface area still produces high volume levels. High volumes are equivalent to moving lots of air, so perhaps the situation is still equivalent to break-in of dynamic drivers, although your point is valid. If so, then maybe the real break-in process for the panel involves the transformer, which is a piece of electronics. Let’s see what technically informed people like bill_k think.
WC,
So the manual indicates that initially the Neo is bass shy. Since you already have found generous bass, this might mean that after break-in, the bass might be excessive, relative to the stat mid/HF. Since the manual mentions less change in the sound of the stat panels (mid/HF), then the increase in bass after break-in might make the sound even warmer, which means less HF. The most likely reason for your findings is that the Neo is too close to the front wall, as I suspect. I found with my stats that inches matter, and the more space behind the stat, the more HF/life/airiness but somewhat less bass. You might need even more than 6 feet, since the Neo panel and the woofer section are large. Keep experimenting with placement. Amps and cables are less critical than stat panel placement. I did, and fortunately my speakers are very light.
|
mikepaul,
With proper toe-in so that the midpoint of the panel is facing your head, there is the most information revealed--we agree on that. Compared to this, less toe-in results in loss of HF--this is the laws of physics. The reality is that there is never too much info to process. If you look at a musical score (the printed sheet music), there is so much going on that all listeners, me included, are missing many details even with a setup that attempts to reveal the most info. There is music in the grooves that no one has heard yet. If you go to the trouble of getting the most accurate stat speaker and electronics, then try to get the most info out of it all, so you can come as close to the music as possible. More generally, any speaker designer is hoping the listener can hear as much info from his speaker as possible. He wouldn't say to face the speaker into the corner firing away from the listener, obviously. I exaggerate to make this point clear.
WC, we all agree that 3 feet is the bare minimum distance. The more, the better. You will get better sound with a cheap amp and 3 feet distance, than with a million buck amp and 2 feet distance.
|
WC,
Yes, the Momentum has better bass, and also better HF according to you and your wife. (By the way, women have better hearing than men according to biology, and also she has less noise-induced hearing loss than you because she probably doesn't listen loudly as much as you do. You are still young and probably still have excellent hearing, but the damage slowly accumulates.) So the Momentum has plenty of oomph in the entire musical frequency range. Both mrdecibel, techno_dude and bigddesign3 agree with me that room placement is the dominant problem, because there is nothing wrong with the Momentum. While bigddesign3 and others have noted that straight ahead or less toe-in may create more space, the problem in this case is the Neo is already warm in its tonal balance, and less toe-in will roll off the HF and create too much warmth and congestion. To answer the coming howls of grey9hound, I use the word, warmth to mean muddy and congested, rather than the desirable musical sweetness with detail. The optimum placement of the Neo is with the toe-in that I and Martin Logan recommend, plus plenty of distance behind them. Do your best. Maybe your wife will appreciate the sound enough so that you can use the largest room in the house to get the most out of the Neo. Won't cost a penny. You both will be happy about that.
|
techno_dude,
Yes, about dynamic speakers. If the speaker is bass-shy like a mini monitor, you'll get more bass if they are closer to back and lateral walls. Ported designs try to get more bass by having the port blow the air to the back wall for reinforcement, but one poster here says he hates ported designs. But for full range dynamic speakers with plenty of bass, you'll get more life and sparkle the further out into the room they are. The HF are brought out fully by toe-in towards your head. I don't like designs where tweeters are on the side, aimed at the side walls, which creates ambient anomalies with smearing. As a relevant aside, 35 years ago there was a review in the ABSOLUTE SOUND of the world's great concert halls. Number 1 was the Musikverein in Vienna, where Harry Pearson said that ANY seat in that hall was great. WHAT NONSENSE. Shortly after I read that exciting article, I participated in a music program in Vienna. I went to that hall as a listener 3 times, sitting in the 5th row, 12th row and 25th row. The hall is very lively with lots of ambience, but that made for a disaster in the 25th row. By the time the sound got to my ears, it had bounced around so many times that it was grossly muddy with no focus at all. But the 5th row was heaven, because of much less time smear and much more brilliance in HF. Direct live sound. Try to get this in your system, with as much direct sound as possible, by minimizing back and lateral wall reflections, and by full toe-in of all drivers to your head.
|
WC,
Fantastic, with the five foot distance. I knew you would appreciate the drastic improvement. Now you can do the toe-in refinements. 5 feet is far enough out, so that even if you do a full toe-in, the inner part of each speaker may be 4.5 feet from the back wall and the outer part may be 5.5 feet away. These are similar enough so that the tonal balance from the panel will be about the same in all parts of the panel. In general, the tonal balance is more brilliant and brighter (more HF, less bass) the greater the distance. If the speaker were only 2 feet away and toed in, then the inner part would be 1.5 feet away with the outer part at 2.5 feet, a big difference which could create weird patterns of summation of different tonal balances. This could be one reason why minimal toe-in is done if the distance to the back wall is small--less disparity in tonal balance, but then the sound is uniformly dead. What good is that?
So now you can really enjoy the lifelike sound of the Neo with the best amp (Momentum) you have heard in a long time. I am happy you have benefitted from my persistence in this area of room placement.
|
mikepaul,
Yes, I see your point about the inner third. This is because of the fairly large curvature of the panel. A high 30 degree toe-in combined with the 30 degree panel curvature will create a situation where the extreme inner parts of each speaker are beaming at each other and not toward the listener, which is not good. Do you remember the original Beveridge electrostatics of about 1980 where they recommended the speakers be placed on the right and left walls firing at each other? That was extreme 90 degree toe-in, and utterly crazy. But the flat panel designs of the KingSound and Sanders Sound Systems let you do more toe-in to yield the most information, without the interference patterns if the curved panels are done with the same amount of toe-in. So you and ML are correct about getting optimum performance from ML curved panels.
|
mikepaul,
Yes, the CLX is the way to go. Someone here suggested the REL subwoofers. For a reasonable $30K total at retail, this is a no-brainer. No potholes in the road. Just ride the smooth road to your CLX destination. You are a ML stat man, so you won't get side-tracked with colorations from relatively mediocre overpriced dynamic speakers. Review my posts here about the CLX advantages.
|
mikepaul,
I agree with bigddesign3 just above. I differ slightly only whether you get the REL first for your 15a. The 15a is a hybrid with a woofer than goes down fairly low, but the CLX is a pure electrostatic whose -3dB point is a high 56 Hz, so the CLX is more in need of the added woofer. I forgot the crossover point of the 15a--maybe 300 Hz or so. The woofer in the 15a will contribute sound significantly higher than that. So for the range of 56 to maybe 500 Hz, the CLX gives you much purer electrostatic speed, etc. This is the range of all male and a lot of female voices in their fundamental tones. The voices will be far superior on the CLX. HF will be superior also, because of the narrower focused CLX panel for the mids/HF compared to the 15a. The HF overtones of the voices will be more accurate, so the complete tone of the voices will be more focused and pure. Now suppose you went for the CLX first, without the woofer. Of course, the low bass would be missing, but the mid bass and higher overtones would be much more accurately revealed by the CLX large flat stat panel than the 15a dynamic woofer. The CLX bass panel is still smaller than the Neo panel, and the smaller flat panel is more focused and accurate than the curved panel of the Neo, so the CLX is superior to the Neo except for dynamics. Psychoacoustically, accurate overtones makes you think that you are getting lower bass fundamentals, even though they are missing. My Audiostatics are markedly deficient in bass, but I am satisfied because I have very accurate mid bass. Think of the bite of bass instruments like the tuba and string bass. These instruments are best revealed if the entire frequency range is reproduced by the peerless electrostatic membrane, rather than a hybrid. Kettle drums in the orchestra have fundamentals about 100 Hz, so it is clear that the CLX would be superior for that. The same goes for most of the lower winds in the orchestra, and most saxophones. If money is tight, go for the CLX first, then add the woofer later. From bigddesign3's description, it seems that the accuracy of the REL better suits the CLX than the wall-rattling other woofers. The REL seems to be a good value, also. Maximum quality all the way, rather than quantity. |
I second ron17's request to compare the Nordost Qbase to AQ Niagara. It is certainly prudent to let the Ansuz C2 interconnect break in, and then do a shootout vs Nordost. Ansuz boys broke away from Nordost. I love the Ansuz concepts of the lowest capacitance and inductance, so eagerly await the Ansuz/Nordost battle.
|
mikepaul,
Good for you that you are presently happy with the 15a. It is an excellent full range speaker. It beats any dynamic speaker at any price for accuracy and musically important criteria, except for possibly bass. If your priority is bass, you aren't looking at ML anyway. But for all other criteria, ML is just about the best available. But I think it is interesting that the price of the CLX is the same as the 15a. For the same money, you get significantly superior accuracy above 56 Hz. Just adding the reasonably priced REL would let you have it all, the ultimate accuracy and bass extension and quality. Save for the CLX, maybe get a good trade-in on your 15a. This would be a better investment than getting better amps, cables, etc. No rush, since you are happy. |
WC, what technical problems did you have with the CLX?
|
