ron17,
I forgot the name of the poster who hates ports, but it was a few days and a few pages ago.
|
I look forward to seeing WC's baby pictures of his past equipment.
Speedbump6, the DCS Vivaldi is a clear, detailed component, so keep the whipped cream away. But pecan adds more authentic flavor which is like getting more details of that flavor. Pecan is pure, brownies are pure, but whipped cream by its nature, dilutes and softens all the pecan and brownie flavor. The tea connoisseur takes it pure, without whipped cream or sugar. |
Justmetoo,
Vinyl is often soft sounding, especially with many cartridges like Koetsu and soft sounding phono stages like Pass, examples of which I have owned. If it is already soft, then bypassing the line stage will bring out more clarity. Digital is often hard and harsh by comparison, so I understand why many people who listen to those harsh processed recordings do prefer softer preamps like Lux, Pass, etc. With my digital classical recordings which may be slightly harsh at times, I want all the clarity I can get, so I don't use a line stage preamp.
|
dracule1,
Good food for thought. Of course, I haven't heard the Alsyvox ribbons, but I have heard a few models of the Wisdom Audio ribbons, which are the best ribbons I have heard. They still didn't approach the articulation of my unusual Audiostatic 240's. I agree that it is all about the implementation. You can review my posts to see why I believe the curved panels of Martin Logan and Soundlab are an inferior implementation compared to my flat panels, and also inferior to the original KingSound King electrostatic which uses separate flat lower midrange/bass and narrow tall tweeter panels. The King in concept is similar to the ML CLX, but using all flat panels. Compared to the King, the CLX and all the other ML models have rolled off HF. HF are reduced from the curvature-induced off axis radiation pattern, just as with cardioid condenser microphones, which you can see from the plots of mic frequency response versus degrees off axis. Also, microphones are like speakers, and it is well recognized that ribbon mics are not as resolved as condenser mics. Technically, the electrostatic field has tighter control of the diaphragm than a magnet controlling the somewhat loose ribbon. However, today's curved electrostatic speakers use inferior implementation of that technology, so it is possible that a properly implemented ribbon design would be fully competitive with those stat designs, maybe better. I hope you can hear the middle models of the Wisdom Audio, which are still tall, but priced much lower than Alsyvox. Even the GTA ribbons are better than Maggies which have inferior panel technology. Maggie resolution is inferior, which is why Maggie users want to push the volume with powerful amps since resolution at low levels is relatively mediocre.
|
Speedbump6,
I have a better analogy. Pecans may enhance the brownie because pecans are like another musician added to the group. More, varied information. But whipped cream softens and dilutes the taste of both pecans and brownies, even though whipped cream adds another flavor.
|
WC,
Biamping the Neo could be an opportunity or a risk. As bigddesign3 says, you must be able to adjust the relative gains from each amp, or else the tonal balance could be way off. The Momentum integrated allows you to adjust the gain, so the other amp doesn't need a volume control. But it is safe to assume that ML designed the Neo to have proper balance of the woofer and panel sections. One high quality amp is enough, and the Momentum probably delivers 800 watts into 1 ohm and 1600 watts or so into 0.5 ohm, PLENTY OF POWER for sane listening. Pure sound at the natural volume level is the highest fidelity and lifelike, but cranking the volume to unnaturally loud levels is NOT high fidelity and is just plain wrong if you enjoy intelligent listening. Excessive loudness also causes bloated, fuzzy images. The Neo imaging is already large, so you don't want an elephant with a big beard that needs a shave. I also discourage the use of mellow tube amps for this accurate speaker. The Neo is not cold so you have to take shelter in a mellow amp. Also, tubes do not like very low impedances. That's where SS amps shine, particularly the Dag. From your descriptions and reviews, Dag beats tubes in every way, unless you want rolled off excessively sweetened sound.
|
grey9hound, we addressed this subject before. I explained my perspective of close up listening. You may never have had this experience, or you just happen to prefer laid back sound, like some people who like pasta soggy rather than al dente. All different tastes, which is OK, but realize you are missing much true HF info which is NOT piercing if volumes are at sensible levels. I know that for your music, you like to play it loud which you can't tolerate from amps that deliver full HF detail and extension. But that is not about true high fidelity, which means low distortion at natural volume levels, not cranked. |
dracule1,
OK, I respect your observations of the Wisdom Audio Adrenaline. I don't know that model, but a few years ago I heard the Sage series. However, my impressions of all Apogee ribbon models I heard is that they were excessively smooth, kind of like old school tube amps, and markedly rolled off in HF. Yes, lacking in RESOLUTION, not hyper-resolution. (There is no such thing as hyper-resolution in an accurate speaker without quirky frequency anomalies.) The reason is the LARGE ribbons. A large panel of any driver, whether electrostatic, ribbon, planar magnetic will create off axis HF rolloff from the edges to your ears. This is why the Stax F83 was rolled off compared to the F81--the tall F83 created large off axis HF rolloff from the high vertical parts. But a NARROW quarter inch ribbon won't create any horizontal HF rolloff, because that ribbon has full HF delivery way off axis. But there is still the problem of the large vertical height. Line source promotional material still ignores the HF loss from higher vertical "segments". Even though at ear level you are getting everything, and you can stand and still get everything if there are vertical segments at ear level, if you do some integral calculus you see that the taller the driver, the more off axis segments there are, creating more HF rolloff. Also, sitting too close to a tall line source magnifies the angle of off axis, creating more HF rolloff and a tonal balance shifted to the bass. The remarkable thing about the ML CLX is that it has the highest resolution of any commercial speaker available, except for the flat panel KingSound King. The fact that the CLX can attain this excellent resolution DESPITE one curved panel, leads me to speculate about how great the CLX would be if they just straightened the curve out. That would be a testament to ML's superior membrane/stator technology, if only they straightened it. The disadvantage of the very tall and wide King is the off-axis vertical dispersion I just spoke about. The CLX is a reasonable height and width, to get a focused, non bloated image. My ideal speaker would be a near point source quarter inch square electrostatic to yield no off-axis rolloff, and I would be the size of an insect to hear the delicate tiny volume sound. But the size of the CLX is a reasonable compromise to get enough volume with minimized rolloff.
By the way, someone recently had a valid point that the larger electrostatic membrane enables less excursion than a smaller membrane for the same volume level. Less excursion would create even more linearity and less distortion. However, I believe that the disadvantage of the HF rolloff effect of the larger membrane outweighs the benefit of less excursion in the large membrane.
|
WC,
For your priorities of dynamics plus good purity, I think the Neo is the best speaker for you. As a hybrid, it gives you everything you want. For those who want the ultimate in clarity and are willing to sacrifice some bass and overall dynamics, the CLX is better. Do you remember the mid/HF characteristics of the CLX to compare it with the Neo? I believe that you liked the CLX even when they were closer to the back wall than your Neo is now. Just imagine the clarity, fresh air and space you would have if you listened to the CLX at the 5 foot distance. I also am guessing that you thought the bass on the CLX was adequate because they were a lot closer to the wall and got bass reinforcement from that closeness. At 5 feet, you would probably find the CLX to have inadequate bass. Then the ultimate system would be the CLX positioned at 5 feet, plus REL woofer, although the Neo would probably still have more dynamics throughout the entire frequency range because of the larger woofers and panels. |
grey9hound,
You still don't know what you are missing, due to lack of close listening experience. A child with better hearing than me is entitled to say that my perceptions are flawed, and would be correct to say that I am wrong because I don't know what I am missing. I would not say to the child that he is wrong, because I THINK that I hear it all, when the reality is that compared to the child, I don't. The next reality is that HF's evaporate with distance, and it is an objective fact that there are marked HF loses at greater distances, objectively measured by microphones as well as heard by educated listeners.
|
cleeds,
Of course, you are technically correct that all freq diminish with distance, and my choice of word, "evaporate" is mistaken. However, HF have shorter wavelengths, so air absorption of HF is more pronounced than at other freq. because more wavelengths occur with the same distance. You can hear the different tonal balance of an instrument from different distances, with the sound being duller further away. I commented on my experience in the concert hall at the 5th, 12th and 25th row. Another effect is the reverberation from all freq bouncing around many times, but the shorter the wavelength, the effect is accentuated. In addition, you can listen at the door outside the apartment where someone is playing music. Then open the door and stand at the same distance--the sound will be much more brilliant in the HF. The reason is that HF are absorbed more than lower freq by any material such as air, door, etc. If you want to play some music loud in your apartment, you will not bother neighbors as much if the music has more HF than lower freq. because the HF don't make it thru the walls. What bothers them most is low freq boom and shaking of the walls. In summary, all freq diminish with distance, but HF diminish more than lower freq.
|
dracule1 and dasign,
I never owned any Apogee speaker, but heard them enough at dealers to reject them without further consideration because of their dull sound. The major factor in any panel dipole speaker is sufficient distance to the front wall. The Apogees I heard had plenty of distance in back of them, although I don't remember them being toed in. Toe-in is most important, and in those days I didn't realize how critical toe-in is. I don't like to disturb anyone's setup out of respect, but I am simply able to get a good idea of the effect of toe-in just by moving in front of the speaker as I listen to the tonal balance in mono. Apogees just didn't have good implementation of ribbons. I will keep an open mind about the Alsyvox implementation of planar magnetic technology. It is a pity that Apogee went under. Many wealthy audiophiles think that something isn't any good unless it is expensive, so Alsyvox may be capitalizing on that attitude by pricing their products very high. Good ribbon or electrostatic technology is not expensive, and doesn't require R&D as much as dedicated dynamic drivers with low distortion such as Magico is doing.
I heard the original ML CLS. It was vastly inferior to the CLX in the HF. The CLS was an example of the inferior design I have referred to--large curved panels. The CLX uses a narrow curved panel for the mids/HF and a larger but still modestly sized flat panel for the lower range. The narrow curved CLX panel has less time smearing than the faulty geometry of the large curved CLS panel was. WC is realizing that the larger Neo panel has rolled off HF compared to the CLX. The Neo has a more bassy type of tonal balance.
Yesterday I played violin in a church orchestra, the Princeton Society of Musical Amateurs devoted to performing large choral works. We did Carl Orff's Carmina Burana, a big piece with lots of percussion, plus baritone, tenor, soprano solo singers. I sat about 30 feet from the percussion section on the other side of the stage. The startling clarity of the metallic instruments like cymbal, triangle, chimes and even the tightness of the mid bass from the tympani drum which had the impact of a metal hammer banging an anvil, was in stark contrast to the woolly DULL veiled sounds from most audio systems. At my distance, most of the percussion sound was no higher than 85 dB, although there were probably instantaneous peaks of 100 dB which were rare. The extreme clarity was not because the HF were any more brilliant than I am used to, but because the rest of the freq range was equally fast and coherent with the HF. The whole thing was crisp, fresh air. This can only be revealed by an electrostatic speaker of the highest quality implementation which conforms to the principles I have spoken about. I have an open mind to see what implementations may come from ribbon or planar magnetic designers, but forget about dynamic drivers. Dynamic tweeters can be SOTA, but more massive dynamic midrange and LF drivers are hopelessly inadequate to keep up with the speed and low distortion of tweeters. And forget about large powerful amps which have more devices than low powered amps and tend to have higher distortion as the price to be paid for more power. The objective is quality, not quantity. Anyone who says otherwise should just do the listening and participation that I do, instead of hanging out with audio salesmen who have interests in selling high priced gear and may have little musical training and experience.
If anyone wants to meet me at the next concert 4 PM Dec 16, we are doing the Handel Messiah at the Princeton, NJ Universalist Church at 50 Cherry Hill Rd off Rt 206. I sit at the 2nd stand in the 1st violin section. I always welcome people to sit with me in the orchestra to experience what I am talking about, although the place may be packed for this wonderful great event.
|
WC,
I heard more of everything including HF from the AQ Niagara vs Shunyata Denali. Are you now saying (pointer 2) that the Niagara reduces HF compared to not using it?
|
tjassoc,
I am looking forward to meeting you. Get there earlier, a little after 3 when we set up. You can sit with me in the violin section for at least a little while, but the orchestra may be squeezed tight so it may not be possible to seat you there through the performance. But meanwhile, we can have some fun as I play solo for you in the lobby, the men's room (although the tiles in the BR make it too reverberant, but at close range it is fun and exciting). I like the sound in the small church. Filled with the chorus of people and musicians, the reverberance is toned down, but the sound is still fresh and exciting. Regards, Russell.
|
tjassoc,
Also, the singers rehearse with piano early at just after 3. This is an opportunity to hear them at close range. I am amazed at their power as well as musicality. Trained classical singers don't need microphones. The audience sits way in the back, behind the chorus who are projecting their sound away from the audience, so you will get 10X more impact during the early rehearsal.
|
RIAA and tjassoc,
I just joined the orchestra, so I have to be on my best behavior. A season pass is $40 for single, $65 for a couple, for participating chorus members. For the listeners, it is free, but contributions are welcome. For the singers and musicians, it is really a sight reading exercise due to budget limitations which go for the rental of the church, music, and goodies to eat at intermission. Even with just sight reading, the performances go pretty well. The impressive percussion section is at the left as you walk in, so if you crave excitement, sit near them. Listen to the solo singers rehearsing at the piano in the right front. Looking forward to meeting you too, RIAA. Regards, Russell.
|
mrdecibel,
No inappropriate behavior intended in the BR. I like practicing in the BR because of the mirror and natural enhancement of the sound. The reverb doesn’t kill the sound because my ear is close to the violin. Untrained singers like to sing in the shower because the volume is increased in the small space. Send me pictures of your EQ, russlaud (at) gmail.
WC, take note of what mrdecibel just said about the inability of the CLS to provide sufficient dynamics with any amp. He may not have tried super high power/high current amps you are trying, but his overall point is valid. In like manner, the woofers of the Neo may not keep up with the faster sound of the panel. The CLS was a full range stat whose panel had a large horizontal width and was taller than the panel of the Neo. Therefore it had a larger total area than the Neo panel. Of course, the dynamics of the Neo are mainly in the bass and lower midrange, but the dynamics of the panel are decent but not comparable to that of a full dynamic speaker. The Neo is for people who want dynamics as a higher priority than the electrostatic purity, which is best found in other designs such as the CLX. If you read my post about the live music in the church last week, the true characteristic of live music is purity across the entire freq range. For over 95% of music, volumes are not high, but clarity is paramount in importance.
|
WC,
Many good points in favor of the Neo compared to Wilson and Magico. The fact that vocals and instruments linger longer with the Neo means that low level sounds are better revealed with the Neo as the sound decays from higher volume to silence. This is electrostatic accuracy which is superior to that of dynamic speakers. But appreciation of any type of music is not about putting up a fight like between a croc and hippo. I don't try to play as loudly as a trumpet player can, because the violin is not designed to do that. A great stat like the CLX will produce the most lifelike sound at a fairly realistic SPL, but with better accuracy than almost anything else, for nearly all music. I wish you could come up from Florida on Dec 16 to meet me, tjassoc and your buddy RIAA, to see what I mean.
|
WC,
It is natural for you to seek to get all you can from the Neo because of the huge investment. I try to do the same in my medical practice to help wherever I can, against many handicaps. Just realize some basic laws of physics that should give you a realistic perspective. You have seen dynamic woofers with excursions of many inches, and even the visual blur from significant excursions of midrange drivers. These huge excursions enable tremendous dynamic range. But electrostatic membranes are tightly sandwiched between the stators, with allowable excursions of fractions of millimeters. This tight control prevents huge dynamics, but does enable accuracy with resolution. Horn drivers are a superior form of dynamic driver, because the smaller excursions than regular dynamic drivers are naturally amplified by the horn. This enables more accuracy at a given volume level, plus more dynamics with an equivalent excursion compared to a conventional dynamic driver. Even though ML claims you may drive the Neo with 1000 watts, you still will not get the dynamics that mrdecibel has with his Klipsch La Scala's 104 dB efficiency using a mere 10-50 watts or so. This is the laws of physics talking. Just accept the Neo for the reasonable excellent compromise design that it is.
I have been to live concerts of big pieces with such power and spatial breadth that not even a horn system can match for either dynamics or accuracy. That's what live concerts are for, so don't try to make your home system do everything, because it can't. Just enjoy it for the nuanced and peaceful enjoyment it can offer. I learned this a long time ago. That is my heartfelt advice.
|
FLASH ALERT.
Search Merrill Element in the forum, click on the 1st entry, Merrill Audio on tour 8/20/18. On 8/24/18 there is a post by Merrill himself, announcing that the Element 114 will be released about the end of the year. It will be a stereo amp, priced $9-12K. It will be of lower power--I am guessing 200 watts into 8 ohms. Since the more expensive 118 and 116 each double the power as the impedance is halved, it is possible that the 114 will be 400 into 4, 800 into 2. Even if not quite true, this is plenty of power for a sane person who wants musical enjoyment instead of blasting. He says that the 114 speed, detail, transparency are in a class of the 118 and 116, but you have to listen hard to realize that the 118 and 116 have a little more space. Yes, monos are better than stereos, but at what price? The 118 is $36K, and 116 is $22K for monos. MAYBE you can justify stretching it for the 116 rather than 114, but since this is a new technology ripe for new competition, I can’t see spending the additional $10K for the 116 or the additional $22K for the 118. It will take hard listening and financial soul searching to justify the additional big expense.
At this point, nobody should be spending serious money until these Merrill’s are available and broken in. Even the $22K 116 is extraordinary value if the sound lives up to the technical talk. I am sitting pretty with my superb $2K Mytek Brooklyn while I wait. Work with a dealer who has done thorough listening to all the models, and then visit and listen yourself, with a reasonable home trial. At retail, they are cheap enough for the sound value if confirmed. I will be reporting in due time on these potential giant killers. Call off the wedding of the big name amps with their dinosaur lipstick horse and shiny buggy creaky wheels.
|
WC,
I wish the best of care for you. Do you really want the most powerful amp if another reasonably powerful amp has more clarity or even the tonal flavor you want? Your advisors are steering you into false arbitrary directions based on the profits they will make from you. These advisors are not qualified to shine my shoes musically. Same goes for ML staff and most high end companies that go to shows and exhibit with other manufacturers not for valid technical reasons but for practical co-promotional business reasons. I am suspicious and contemptuous of most of them, who are out to deceive and steal money in the process. If you want power with control of the Neo woofers and panels, almost nothing will beat the Dag M400. Pure class A is for sweetness and linearity, not dynamics. Tubes will not control the woofer like the Dag. In addition, the relative mellowness of tubes (although ARC has less of the typical tubey sound) is inappropriate for the Neo panel, which is more rolled off than that of the CLX. It certainly is more rolled off compared to the Magico S5, according to your descriptions. No, I haven't heard the Neo, but every large curved panel I have heard was rolled off compared to the smaller version, corroborated by the laws of physics. When you realize that I am correct after spending over $100K more, I won't gloat and say I told you so, I will just feel sad. But I am glad you listened to me and moved the Neo 5 feet from the wall. Otherwise, you would have been lost and regretted your purchase. Keep them on wheels so you can do more adjusting as you live with them. Forget the comparatively minor effects of spikes, etc. The Neos are too unwieldy to bother with them for now.
|
WC,
Very true, all of it. Talent is great, but skill and hard work yield the ultimate payoff. Forgive me if I have sounded critical, but you know that I really want to help you fulfill your dreams. Yes, the Neos will benefit from the "best" amp you can get. Just go for quality and purity of sound so the Neo can be best revealed. Monster amps are no good if they don't have the clarity and tonal balance you want. If the monster amp has all these great qualities, wonderful. But it is unlikely. Everything in audio is a compromise. I have played 13 Stradivari violins varying in price from $1 million to $10 million. My favorite was a famous expensive one on the cover of a 1987 recording to commemorate the 250th anniversary of Strad's death. Many of the others were relatively mediocre sounding compared to other makers' much cheaper violins. But tastes are subjective, and many top international performers change their instruments for personal reasons, so there are no absolutes. Every instrument has good and bad points with compromises all the way.
|
lhasaguy,
It appears that WC goes for attractive opportunities at attractive prices as they come up. Since he loves flagship products, I'm sure he considers the 30.7. He looks for higher Wilson models, but the Alexia 2 is what he found at the moment.
I happen to believe that the ML 13A is one of the very top performers in the ML line because of its medium size design, as well as being top value.
|
WC,
skootb makes an important suggestion that the lower power Pass XA200.8 may be more suitable than the higher power X1000.5. It is a more advanced design, and still has good power. The quality of the 200 combined with decent power makes it a better choice for music appreciation than the 1000, of course pending a listening test. This is not a croc/hippo contest. At this level, it would be better to follow classy tennis matches between great artists, rather than contests between 2 brutes. You can get much cheaper pro audio YUGE monster amps with poor audio quality. I don't think you want that. I don't exaggerate too much. Remember that stats are about natural refinement first and foremost.
|
WC,
The Dag amps are one of the few that keep increasing their power capabilities into very low impedances. For example, the Bryston 7B is 600 into 8 ohms, but only 900 into 4, and probably much less into 1, whereas your Dag integrated will probably put out 1600 or so into 1. The trouble is that most amp manufacturers don't test output into 2 ohms or less, probably because there are relatively few electrostatic owners compared to the number of dynamic speaker owners. I have spoken to the companies and the techs can only give estimates. I agree with 4425 that if your Dag doesn't sufficiently please you, the problem is the Neo. Even at moderate volumes, the reason that the HF of the Neo are less than the Magico is that the large curved panel will roll off the highs compared to the smaller panels of the CLX or the SOTA dynamic tweeter of the Magico. For the tap of a triangle which requires 1 watt or less, any amp will demonstrate the lesser HF of the Neo compared to other designs. Actually the real issue is that you are trying to convert the refined Neo into a gang-busting dynamic speaker. The Neo has a lot of everything to offer, but if dynamic sound is your top priority, go for horns, etc. No powerhouse amp will make the Neo panel compete dynamically with a horn or even a conventional dynamic speaker, because of the physics of electrostatic membranes compared to dynamic midrange/HF drivers. Please accept physics before financially getting too deep into amps for the Neo.
|
WC,
Since I am in medicine, I have seen many ignorant doctors such as you describe. You're right about that. But even the best doctors don't understand much of what is going on in the brain and body. Our understanding of biology is at a much more primitive level than that of a college physics major in that field. I am certainly not a physicist, but the physics of electrostatic membranes versus dynamic drivers is elementary, so it is obvious that for dynamics on the loud end of the scale, electrostatics don't compete at all with dynamic speakers. The lesser understood fact is that large curved panels have inferior HF response at the best listening chair compared to things like the smaller CLX or the Magico at any volume level, soft or loud. You can improve things with tweaking speaker positions, but the differences remain essentially the same. Just accept the Neo for what it is, as well as other speakers for what they are, all with advantages and disadvantages. Amps make a difference, but don't change the relative advantages/disadvantages of the speaker itself or the complete system.
|
WC,
Your early impressions of the Neo are correct. You have accurately described the character of the Neo in comparison to the Magico. All the Wilsons I have heard over many years have been mediocre at best. Don’t waste your money on them. Just go to a dealer and listen for 5 min to satisfy your curiosity. At least I liked the one Magico I heard, and respect their R&D. I heard a medium sized YG and can say it kills any Wilson for purity. Mrdecibel is correct in saying that you stlll don’t know what you really value. He confirms my statement that stats are far inferior for large dynamics. He and I are very sincere in our desires to help you find your way. You could settle with the Neo and have a good amount of everything. Or you could decide your first priority is dynamics and go with the best horns with the least coloration, like Avantgarde. Or you could be like me and decide that purity and information retrieval is all important and settle for the CLX plus REL. Amps or tweaks like cables won’t change your mind about which camp you fall in. The amp you prefer will make all these types of speakers sound better. But if you go for horns, a really pure 10 watt amp will beat the powerhouse for purity, and will give you better dynamics than beating the heck out of the Neo with the monster amp. Remember mrdecibel said his Klipsch La Scala will fill an auditorium.
|
WC,
Congrats to you for discovering the absolute necessity of tone controls. Any reservations you had about the Neo are now a thing of the past. RIGHT ON!!!!!!! A fully flexible strategy is to expand on this by getting the Rane ME60 equalizer. I see them available for $200 used, and I am awaiting mrdecibel's offer to sell his. Sorry, bigddesign3, ordinary tone controls are a good step, but won't achieve the flexibility of a good EQ like the Rane. The deprecating attitude of the sanctimonious audiophile towards EQ is unfortunate. This viewpoint is fallacious because every component, from speakers to any amp at any price has colorations and tonal balance aberrations, because of the designer's different tastes. They attempt to produce flat measurements, but there are still colorations as we all know. So you have to use EQ to account for variabilities in the room, recordings, and ultimately your taste preference. In order of importance, first is the speaker, then the recording and the means to play it like the turntable/arm/cartridge, etc. Next is the EQ. Far beneath is the preamp, amp. On the bottom, the least important are the tweeks like cables, although we all get excited about even that. Recently I was trying to decide whether to keep the Mytek Brooklyn Amp. The highs weren't as extended as my Bryston 2.5B SST2, but the other aspects were better. But a tweek of my EQ let me get the great highs of the Bryston while preserving the Mytek's other great qualities. So I am very happy now with the Mytek, rescued by the EQ. I can sit patiently while awaiting the availability of the Merrill Elements.
For the real purist audiophile who believes that any electronics in the chain creates veiling and other distortions, this is an opportunity to eliminate the preamp by using the Rane instead. As mrdecibel notes, as a line stage with the EQ set to flat, it beats most preamps. Then use the EQ for an unbeatable result (although he likes his Luminous passive preamp best and doesn't need his EQ). His horns are so efficient that he doesn't need the gain of a preamp. At the opposite end of the efficiency spectrum, with my 75 dB stats, I can still get enough gain from my DAC so I don't need any more from a preamp, which will only introduce veiling. I am now just using my CD with the DAC and don't worry about pulling cables if I want to use another source.
WC, I am thrilled you are now in heaven.
|
spinaker01,
Does the Roon do EQ in all freq? How do I find out about the Roon? |
WC,
Although playing with spikes, tilt, powercords is useful, the most important thing you have done is tone controls. I can illustrate why use of more flexible EQ either analogue or digital will give you much further enhancements by giving a numerical analogy. 1 is the worst sound such as barely perceptible music from a distant analog radio station with 90% distortion. 100 is perfect live sound from the best seat. Nobody has achieved 100 in their audio system. With the world's best (WB) preamp and power amp without tone controls, you can only get to 40. Call the best DAG preamp and power amp without tone controls 38. Your Momentum integrated without tone controls used is 36. But with the tone controls the way you like it you are now a giant 14 ft basketball player with double the height and double the audio level at 80. In other words, there is no WB amp and preamp without tone controls that can equal what you now have..The tone controls on the Dag are rudimentary but still good enough to show you the absolute necessity of them. The tone control circuit is another circuit, so even though that is a minor disadvantage, the benefits vastly outweigh that factor. With a much more flexible stand-alone EQ there is admittedly another circuit in the chain, just as with the Dag integrated, but the ability to fine tune the tone control is of extradordinary benefit. If you like tweeking now, just wait until you try a dedicated EQ with the WB preamp and amp. Then you will achieve a 90. When you build a larger better room, the EQ settings will change. If you listen to a quieter piece of music where you don't need much of the additional gain of a preamp, you can use the Rane with its 6 dB gain from balanced inputs/outputs with only the WB power amp, and achieve a 95. How about that? Maybe the digital EQ's are better, and then you can get more. Exciting!! |
grey9hound,
I totally agree. Speaking of cost, although you are pleased with your sophistcated room correction system, you can achieve much more in the entire frequency range with the cheap Rane ME 60 EQ at $200 used. Maybe its analog circuits are technically cruder than digital, but it is so infinitely flexible that using only your ears as a tool, you can achieve wonderful results. Even though I have promoted objectivity in certain areas, ultimately we are out to please ourselves, not write a PhD thesis or file for a patent, etc. |
dguitarnut,
Please open your mind to the fact that more expensive often doesn’t buy better sound. Yes, more expensive buys better parts, etc. But if the designer doesn’t listen or has questionable musical background/experience, a more musically perceptive designer can come up with better results using cheaper parts than an inferior designer with expensive parts.. For dynamic speakers, I happen to like the concept of the Tekton DI speaker where lots of tweeters can cover the lower part of the midrange. Small tweeters have more accuracy than larger drivers. Of course, the output from a small tweeter is limited, so the design of the Tekton enables satisfactory dynamics with more accuracy than the conventional dynamic speaker design. Good thinking doesn’t cost more than bad thinking. I would challenge anybody to beat my $2000 Mytek Brooklyn amp in a blind A/B of their super duper expensive amp. I will win in most but not all cases. My Rane (new $600) without EQ engaged will beat most far more expensive line stages, as noted by me and mrdecibel. Open your mind. Then add the EQ, or even use a more rudimentary tone control as WC is doing with the Neo, and you have a situation where the Neo without EQ is vastly inferior to the Neo when used with the EQ. You could get the world’s best million buck amp and preamp without EQ, and the Neo still won’t sound as good as with my Rane and the Mytek amp for small change. LEARN.
|
brhatten,
You raise interesting points about bass from larger versus smaller drivers. Of course, larger woofers are capable of more output and deeper response, but it is difficult to get speed and accuracy from large more massive woofers. You might be in the sweet spot with fairly large 10" and 12" woofers, executed optimally. Big enough to get decent output and extension, and still get good speed. If you desire dynamics and accuracy of bass, there is nothing like a bass horn.
|
dguitarnut,
Yes, I know how difficult it is to break long held beliefs, but the listening is everything. Listen for yourself. Yes, my cheap Mytek with a cheap stock power cord will beat most expensive amps with any expensive power cord, within its power range of about 300 watts. Not all, which is why I eagerly await the Merrill Element amps. It's all about new technologies. The Mytek does a heck of a job with class D Pascal modified modules. The Merrills promises to be ground breaking in their use of custom designed modules using Ghz bandwidth GaN transistors. And the stereo 114 may be 99% as good as the 118 monos except for less power, at one third the price. I don't criticize anyone to whom $36K is small change. Good for them. But I think most posters here wouldn't consider spending $36K, but they would be very interested in considering a close to SOTA amp for $9-12K. But listening is everything, and I reserve judgment on whether even the relatively cheap 114 is worth the money, until I get a chance to listen to a broken in unit. |
lhasaguy, If your tastes in sound are like mine, with brilliance, clarity and tightness throughout the entire range paramount, there is probably no better performance plus value than the Rega RP10 with its arm, Apheta 2 cartridge as a specially priced package at about $6700. My next move is to get the Apheta 2 cartridge for my Goldmund Studio TT with Alphason arm. If you like lush, romantic rolled off sound, there are plenty of systems at many multiples of the price, as if the designers are laughing all the way to the bank, catering to the typical audiophile with money who likes to be seen in the 20th row of the concert hall where that type of sound is heard.
|
If you can't hear the significant differences between 2 sources with the XP32, it is a big negative because it nullifies the resolution you work so hard to achieve with the M6 and other components. The Pandora enables you to appreciate the subtle changes that cables make. Even the cheaper Merrill Christine did that. |
WC, It seems you prefer bass more in terms of oomph and quantity, instead of tightness, accuracy and quality. Of course, the bigger Neo woofers will outshine the Magicos in oomph, but what about accuracy at sensible 90 dB levels? The 7" woofers in the Magico are probably more accurate and tight at lower volume levels. The most accurate midbass is probably from the pure electrostatic CLX, although of course the quantity is less than the Neo at the same freq range. And techno_dude wondered recently about whether the Neo was any better than the 15A. They are both hybrids. My guess is that at sensible volume levels, the 15A has better quality of the entire freq range, because of the smaller drivers. Of course, the Neo beats the 15A for dynamics, but you have noted the HF of the Neo lacking compared to the Magico and probably the 15A. Remember the physics of larger panels, which have a trade-off of reduced HF compared to smaller panels, verified by my experience. Fortunately, you corrected the relative HF deficiency by using the treble control at +4. You noted that the Magico would work best for you with a -1 setting, and maybe the 15A would be best at flat. Just imagine if you had tried the 15A at the same 5 foot distance. You would marvel at their clarity, which would probably exceed the Neo at moderate volumes. |
techno_dude, I have no recommendation for dynamic speakers at just below $30K, and would defer to grey9hound on that. The Tekton DI at $3K looks super, but I haven't heard it. You know my views of most dynamic speakers, so I wouldn't spend more than that. For less than $5K, you can get the smallest ML hybrid, which still has better clarity than any dynamic speaker, although of course less dynamics. A little better would be the 13A for more of everything. But the 15A for $25K is not a compelling performer compared to the similar priced pure electrostatic CLX, which gives near SOTA midbass to HF. The ultimate system for $30K is the CLX-REL combo, which would give the best of everything at reasonable volumes. Use the tone controls on your preamp to boost the HF from the curved panel of ML. You have the excellent Lux M900u and Shunyata cables, so the weakest link in your system is the dynamic speaker you have. No need to get the Lux preamp to match the power amp. Lots of money for modest benefit. Instead, you could save a lot of money and go for accuracy by getting the $200 Rane ME60 for the needed EQ, going straight into the Lux M900u. Its excellent line stage part would give the Lux preamp a run for its money, and still can provide 6 dB of gain with balanced connections. |
Those of you who say that Wilsons or any other dynamic speakers do not lack resolution, are unfortunately in the dark about what electrostatics and some ribbons can do in the realm of superior resolution. You have made a choice that loud dynamics in music is the all important criterion where dynamic speakers do have the advantage. Actually, electrostatics have excellent dynamic range, but it is at the smaller end of the loudness range. Appreciation of micro-dynamics is allied with superior resolution. The dynamic speaker is at a disadvantage here.
|
RIAA,
Yes, most of the sellers of the Rane on eBay are stoopid. Should I send in the spelling police for you? Number one, they can’t hear the superiority of its audio quality and EQ functions, and have a mental block that even if they hear its superiority, they don’t want to admit it (for reason number two) and are swayed by current fashions in retail which needs to come up with new products, just as stoopid as women’s fashions. Number two, they want to be a member of the pretentious money club that says that nothing cheap can be good. One day in the not too distant future, there will be lots of ARC monos on ebay, and you will note that they are stoopid for getting rid of them in favor of the current fashionable item.
|
RIAA,
I am looking forward to meeting you at the concert Dec 16. Your gift of Alice Cooper's Hey Stoopid is thoughtful and I hope I will be amused. Of course I know you are an excellent speller, so I was just creating fun with stoopid, started by you, and I just went with it. And yes, plucking is the essence of a lot of music. All string instruments are either plucked or bowed. Wind instruments and singers use blowing. Percussion uses banging. So all music can be reduced to plucking, bowing, blowing or banging. |
For the record, WC has the most experience of anyone here lately. He has said that the electrostatics he has owned have the most resolution and natural tonal qualities. But he also loves big dynamics, where dynamic speakers have the advantage. The Neo could very well be the best speaker for his preferences, since they do the combination of resolution and dynamics better than any other speaker. The Magico had the most extended HF but not as natural and detailed midrange as the Neo. So he optimized the HF of the Neo by boosting the treble via the Dag integrated. I hope his wife agrees to keep the cabinets out of the audio space behind the Neos. She has an interest in keeping WC happy.
Happy Thanksgiving to all. |
RIAA,
Although your football is exciting, making music is a similar physical activity, although not as draining. Then again, watch the sweat off a conductor's face. Once I played the very fast opening movement of the Beethoven Kreutzer Sonata during a summer performance. I brought a towel to take care of me after I flew into it like a race car driver. Just search on youtube to see and hear how exciting a piece it is. After a brief meditative intro, it takes off.
Oh yeah, I have been going to the Princeton Record Exchange for over 25 years. I live in NYC, but am in the area on the weekend. I would go through the bins on the floor for 3 hours, then go to Thomas Sweet for their SOTA blending machine for ice cream with your chosen additions. My favorite was sweet cream ice cream with malt balls, Reese's pieces. Aren't you surprised to hear I like sweet things, if not sweet electronics?
|
axememan,
Good discovery about the Schiit EQ. Although the Rane ME 60 is a stereo 32 band 1/3 octave unit, the simpler Schiit may work nicely. You can still get enough flexibility to modify tonal balance to your liking. Whether its electronics are as transparent as that of the Rane, that's another matter which you could investigate by getting both at a cheap price. But don't forget the payoff by being able to use either EQ unit as a line stage and eliminate the electronics of your present line stage. Mrdecibel and I have determined that the Rane as a line stage is more transparent than most of them, with the possible exception of super expensive ones. As much as I respect mrdecibel's musical expertise, I find it strange that he doesn't see the need for EQ in his systems. After all, we are always trying to improve on a designer's chosen preferenes, and there is really no product that is perfect according to our individual preferences. EQ is the most impactful and cheap way to do this. If you really want a more powerful amp, the EQ won't give you that, but it goes a long way in other aspects. WC has a very simple EQ in the Dag integrated unit, but it is enough to correct his only reservation about the Neo, the diminished HF compared to Magico. |
duitarnut,
Funny. I can see mrdecibel advising using the Cornish hen on a resonance-free Rane silver platter, on a resonance-free dining table. Make sure the meal is smooth so you don’t have resonances of lingering gastro-esophageal reflux. And yes, let’s be thankful for our freedoms. Make money honestly and try to get value for your money by evaluating what sound you get for your honestly made dollar and hard work. |
wesc,
I am curious about the sound characteristics of your Rega 8/Apheta 2. Probably the apheta cartridge makes the most difference, more than the difference between the RP8 and RP10 tables. What other TT/cartridges did you compare with the Rega? I read that the Rega TT/cartridge combo has brilliant clarity, but I am interested in your opinion. |
WC,
Right now, the 2 most important parts of your system are the Neo and the tone control circuit of the Dag. I hope your Dag has the ability to use the tone control plus preamp section, and then output that into other power amps. If not, then even the world's best preamp/power amp without the tone controls will not be as good as what you presently have. Also, is it possible to use your Dag as a stand alone power amp with use of another input preamp? Again, I don't think that this option will be as good as the complete Dag with its tone controls intact. Thus, the tone controls or another form of EQ is vital. |
speedbump6,
When you get the Tektons, I'll be interested in your observations about them, and how they compare to your Wilson. If you don't feel like proving your claims with videos in the same room, which may be logistically difficult, I'll respect what you say, and take your word for it. You probably have better things to do with your time, like me.
|
WC,
It is interesting that the Lux C900 preamp plus the M900 amp is a directly competitive package to the Dag integrated, although at a much cheaper price. First, the preamp has tone controls, like the Dag. Second, the power of 150 watts into 8 ohms keeps doubling to 1200 into 1, similar to Dag. Both packages would be excellent for the Neos in the HF, although the dynamics of your music tend to be more in the lower freq where you would probably want more power. For now, it would be informative to first get the Lux preamp only, since your finances are tight. I just don't want to have to see you sell the Dag just to be able to afford more trials. The Dag may ultimately be a keeper. So you could use the Lux preamp into the Dag, to see how the tonality and other characteristics compare. First, keep the tone controls flat, to see the inherent characters of each preamp section. Then try the Lux treble at the maximum 5:00 position to compare to the Dag's max treble. The design of the tone controls and the range will probably be the biggest factor in the difference between the Dag and Lux. For example, you might prefer the Lux for its more extended HF at 3:00 compared to the Dag with just a slight +1 or +2. Then you might prefer the Dag at +4 compared to the Lux at 1:00. This will be a real dog fight since both units reportedly have similar tonal character. But the Lux preamp will give you an opportunity to try more powerful amps. Right now, there is no flat (without tone controls) preamp plus power amp that will give the needed HF boost to the Neos. Transparency is not as important as tonal balance, so I feel that some EQ is needed. You have also observed this with the Neo, although every speaker benefits from EQ.
Of course, the total Lux package in a compelling value, but only if the sound is preferable to the Dag. That can only be determined by hearing both excellent packages side by side. This will be a real dog fight. If your finances don't permit this, you will get a good idea of the differences by just getting the Lux preamp. In general, power amps have the same character as preamps from the same designer. I have a hunch that the Dag is more neutral. It would be informative to get RIAA's opinion on Dag versus ARC, so don't get rid of the Dag because it really may the best thing out there for you. Also, I feel there is no absolute requirement to get the preamp and amp from the same company. As long as the input impedance of the power amp is greater than 10X the output impedance of the preamp, you can mix and match for great results. So you may prefer the Lux preamp with the power amp of your choice, and that might be the ultimate way to go. |
mrdecibel,
Sorry if you thought I was criticizing you. Actually the opposite. I appreciate hearing about your Rane and your other valuable observations. I am still interested in purchasing your unit, if you could just send me a picture or 2, and your terms. Most importantly, you have had an open mind about using it in your system, but you prefer not employing it. I respect people with open minds who then decide my ideas are not for them, but people with audiophile religion who refuse to try something because it goes against their beliefs, are missing out.. For WC, both he and I recognize the value of tone controls to boost the HF of his Neo, whether a preamp with tone controls, Rane, or digital EQ. And for his age, he has had remarkable experience. |
