j_stereo, Nice assessment of an odd analogy. Charles |
What is the rationale for advocating ultra long break-in time for audio components? What part(s) require 1000 hours before they’re able to sound their best? I do accept the idea that some new w components/parts need some degree of burn-in and use, say 50 to 200 hours . I’m genuinely curious as to the necessity of uber level (>500) of hours for materials, capacitors, resistors, transformers, signal wire etc. Honestly, 1000 hours for "sufficient" burn-in ? I’d love a clear explanation. Charles |
Hi Guidocorona, I certainly appreciate your direct observations in your own audio system. You can only report what you’ve experienced with careful listening. No doubt that the required burn-in process varies from one component (and probably brand) to another.
In my own experience I’ve found that by 150 to 200 hours ( sometimes less) that the audio components have settled in and have noticed minimal or no further changes after this point. We own very different types of audio components and that could very possibly be a significant factor resulting in different observed burn-in duration. Thanks for sharing your impressions. Charles |
Regarding the idea of audio equipment burn-in I do believe that here’s an adjustment/accommodation aspect involved as well as a genuine electronic parts burn-in process occurring To what degree each contributes I don’t know. Charles |
David, I agree with you in that listening memory isn't as brief or fleeting as some make it out to be. I can recall the overall sound quality and sonic characteristics of audio products I've beard pretty well over time. Charles |
Whitecamaross, In my opinion you’ve described the sonic signature of Boulder pretty accurately and as guidocorona concurred with. On the several occasions I’ve heard them they struck me as dry, cold and sterile and lacking any sense of emotionally/musically involving.
A solid state amplifier that occupies the other end of the solid state genre spectrum are the Japanese Concert Fidelity ZL 120 and ZL 200. They were "very" musically engaging with a natural tactile and alive presentation. They allow an emotional connection with the music. Another exceptionally good solid state amplifier that’s very musical and involving was the Technical Brain also Japanese. Really good sounding but uber expensive. I’m a SET tube kind of guy but these two SS amplifiers made music 😊. Charles |
Chazzy007, I agree with your assessment, too many variables simultaneously at play here. 1 Boxed up components inactive for awhile 2 New products being used that aren’t broken in. 3 Changing cables at a very early stage in the evaluation process. 4 Patience and time is needed to get this right. 5 Idealy one variable introduced at a time. Otherwise things can become confusing and misleading. Nonetheless an interesting thread to read. I can appreciate the effort in this type of endeavor. Charles |
Minori, I don't doubt the apparently excellent synergy of the ARC REF 250 amp and REF 10 however it seems that the OP is decidedly a SS amplifier devotee based on the content of this thread. Charles |
I had an opportunity a few years ago to hear the Pass Labs XS 300/XS preamplifier driving the Marten Coltrane Supreme speakers. Impressive in an audiophile Hifi sort of way. I'm familiar with the Rowland "house sound". If the 925 is the ultimate example of this sound I'd personally choose the Luxman/Rowland combination.
Obviously we all appreciate it's a matter of individual taste between two highly regarded choices. In my opinion I believe that the Luxman/Rowland will be more natural sounding and emotionally/musically involving (higher capacity to keep one deeply and fully engaged in the in the music). Whitecamaross it will be interesting to read your listening impressions and which component combination you prefer. Charles |
The OP uses Wilson speakers (happily) so OTL amplifiers wouldn’t be an ideal pairing. I don’t find speaker sensitivity the limiting factor but rather speaker load impedance characteristics in regard to OTL compatibility. Charles |
Atmasphere, I don’t doubt the example that you cite above, there can be successful exceptions (To the rule) presented to make a point. My comment was a general observation of what amplification would be more suitable for the demands of this particular speaker. 4 ohm nominal load 2 ohm dip at 90 Hz Very high phase angles in the upper/mid bass region. This type of load challenge is usually going to require a very capable high current amplifier to meet and handle these demands.
My point is that OTL use with this speaker is probably avoided by the vast majority of Wilson owners for the stated concerns. Too be consistent I am a proponent of actually listening to judge. However measurements/specifications can guide one’s selection process and narrow down the chance of an incompatible amp/speaker match.
In this case a 2 ohm speaker load in the lower frequencies suggest an OTL amplifier wouldn’t be the first choice. Charles |
Actually those measurements are from J.A. Following the Stereophile review of the Alexia 2. But again if your amplifier has proven that it can successfully drive this speaker or similar speakers then more power to them.. I know that these are fine sounding amplifiers, I do not dispute that.
I am just saying that this wouldn't generally be the expected outcome of an OTl driving a low impedance difficult speaker load. Ultimately the proof is in the actual listening which in your example you have confirmed. Charles |
Pokey77, Thank you for your kind comments. I enjoy reading this thread because it is purely about listening which as you note is the most important aspect in evaluating audio (by far) .
The OP places a component into his home system and simply listens and reports what he hears, I like this. Subjectivity is the rule when it comes to listening to music and evaluating audio equipment.
The OP is finding the Rowland 925 is producing sublime sound quality,yet according to guidocorona he hasn’t even scratch the surface of these amplifiers yet. Charles |
The potential issue with these cable changes at this juncture is that as guidocorona has pointed out is the Rowand is continuing burning-in and changing its sonic character. Sorting this factor from what the cables are contributing sonically can be confusing and imprecise. I believe that is a valid concern. It isn’t a concern if you don’t accept the "many" hours (800 To 1000) for burn-in concept. So obviously a matter of perspective. Not everyone believes in the ultra long hours of burn-in idea. Charles |
Agree that high impedance speakers are beneficial for "all" types of amplifiers but the plethora of 4 ohm speakers in the marketplace suggest many don't believe or this accept this viewpoint. . Charles |
In my opinion I believe some of these comparisons are too hastily done. Patience is required to achieve meaningful impressions with these high caliber components. Charles |
Your friend makes a very valid argument. I have to think the REF 10 and Rowland 925 pairing could be extraordinarily. Surely demands a listening evaluation. I believe that the gap between the two DACs might be evident but subtle (relative to the preamplifier comparison).. Charles |
Hi whitecamaross, You point regarding brief listening sessions and subsequent impressions is true. This is why I mentioned the need for patience. In your situation you have the ability to exercise this option. I do certainly appreciate initial and progressive listening impressions. You have two excellent preamplifiers paired with an excellent power amplifier.
There’s no doubt that each of the preamplifiers have distinctive strengths and sonic characteristics and that if and when possible should have adequate time to be thoroughly sorted out. You are in the ideal situation to carry this out. A cold REF 10 (sitting idle for 2 weeks) versus a fully swarmed up Luxman isn’t equal footing if a true direct comparison is the objective.
This is my only point. As I’ve written before, I appreciate your efforts and commitment in providing this thread. I believe that there are many who read and enjoy your commentary. With preamplifiers of this very high caliber the choice will depend on the particular audio system in use and of course the taste/preferences of the specific listener. Charles |
The Gryphon should be a formidable and interesting comparison with the Rowland 925 mono blocks. Charles |
I’m very partial to tube components but tube power amplifier is a considerably different circumstance from tube preamplifiers. So much depends on amplifier and speaker load interaction. With the Wilson speakers I can understand the desire to stick with solid state amplifiers when all factors are considered. There are tube power amplifiers the would be suitable but there are fewer options overall going this route. Simpler to remain with transistors in my opinion. Charles |
Chazzzy007, I use a tube power amplifier ( SET mono blocks) and a tube preamplifier and without any question it’s the best sound quality I have ever had in my home. However virtually everything is situational when it comes to High End audio and constructing a home system. Your idea of tube preamp and solid-state amplifier is a recipe for success that has worked for many audiofiles.
Yet for whitecamaross an all solid-state signal chain (Luxman and Jeff Rowland) is giving him the best sound he has had thus far in his home. Once again an example that there is no one or single best way to put together a system. It just depends on many variables and the particular circumstance. It will be interesting and informative to read how the Gryphon performs in his system. Many roads do lead to Rome. Charles |
Hi Chazzzy07, The Rowland 925 has set a very high reference point. I'm assuming the Gryphon will be mono blocks (Which model?) so my curiosity is high to read what sonic differences are discovered between the two esteemed power amplifiers. It could be a matter of which amplifier is more synergistic with the Luxman preamplifier and current cables. I don't see a "loser" in this scenario but rather an issue of taste and system compatibility. We shall see. Charles |
I think the vast majority of readers of this thread understand your decision regarding the preamplifiers. Preference will vary depending on the particular audio system make up.REF 10 better here and the Luxman better there. We get it. There's art to putting a system together and most experienced audiophiles/music lovers acknowledge that. Charles |
"Is this where I am headed?" Possibly, however the yet to be heard Gryphon could potentially alter that direction. You don’t know at this juncture unless you re just assuming the Rowland superior to the Gryphon. Charles |
Hi, No not necessarily but I do recognize their esteemed reputation and think that they may be worthy challengers to your impressive Rowland 925 amplifiers. You have the privilege to conduct a direct comparison and this is why I find this thread interesting. You actually listen, there's no better way to judge audio components. Charles |
Integrated amplifier ( upper tier) versus top level mono blocks yet may still be a very compelling direct comparison. You just never know. Charles |
ricred1, Both of those Integrated amplifiers are held in the highest regard. My suspicion is that you would be nappy with either. Charles |
1 The 925 mono blocks are class A/B rather than class D. They implement a switching power supply.
2 This is Rowlnd’s top model and is a 4 chassis design. If one were to compare this to Gryphon (in an apples to apples manner) I believe that their mono block offerings would be more appropriate than their integrated amplifier (although excellent in its own right). Charles |
My apology gentlemen. When reading a Stereophile article discussing the Rowland 925 they described it as a class AB circuit/topology with a SMP supply. I certainly may have misread that particular article. Charles |
Richopp's comments are a very good reminder of how we all as individuals just hear things differently. I played trumpet and have a plano in my home. I have heard many non box speakers over the years. They have their various strengths but also possess obvious flaws and weaknesses (as does everything).
It always is a matter of compromise as we recognize no audio product is perfect. At the end of the day it is simply a matter of preference. Richopp's would choose as he described and all things considered I would prefer a high quality box speaker with cones. Each of us accepting the inevitable tradeoffs involved. In my experience high quality box speakers can reproduce the sound of instruments exceptionally well. I haven't heard non box speakers sound superior in this regard, Charles |
Roberjerman, The OP is a complete stranger to me and probably to you as well. I'm the near polar opposite in my habits (same preamplifier, amplifier and speakers for 9 years and very happy). My impression of whitecamaross is that he's having fun and experiencing much enjoyment. I believe that he views this as an adventure and there's always something new to explore and sample. Charles |
|
Perhaps a case of reading interpretation but The Luxman sonic description by WC is the antithesis of so called low fi. My interpretation is that the Luxman 509x is fabulous sounding. If I had to rely "solely" on the written description of WC the Luxman 509x would be my choice. Charles |
The description of the Boulder isn’t " neutral " it has a sonic signature of cold/cool, analytical, sterile/clinical. If you were in a room and someone was singing , playing the piano, guitar, saxophone etc. If this was done without use of electronics or amplification then you have pure natural or neutral sound (nothing but you and performer in the shared space).
The result would anything but cold or sterile (quite the opposite, vibrant, rich and very emotionally engaging interaction with the musicians) as the Boulder is described above by whitecamaross . Nope, the Boulder has a signature and it isn’t "neutral". Charles |
whitecamaross, Your written comments suggest clearly ( to me ) that you find both the Gryphon Diablo and the Luxman 509x excellent sounding with each having its distinctive character. Overall they occupy the same level of performance and will appeal to different types of listeners depending on taste. Charles |
I'm in 100% agreement with bill_K's post. Not right vs wrong but rather which design's strengths/compromise package suits a listener's taste best. Numerous approaches to achieve excellent sound quality. Charles |
Ricred1, Thanks for the clarification. Given your first post I thought you were saying the Magico left you cold emotionally even though in the technical sense they impressed you. Charles |
Hi Roxy54, Interesting observation from you regarding the McInTosh 601. You rank them as mid fi tier even though WC says that they improve the Magico’s performance by an impressive 30%? Do you attribute this improvement solely on the increased power/current capability? Charles |
Roxy54, Thanks for the clarification. It's hard to know (sometimes) when reading text. Some people find McInTosh excellent sounding and others are unimpressed by their performance. Charles |
Hi ricred1, Is the Magico in your opinion truly an accurate speaker or merely one that’s errs toward a thinner and analytical character rather warmth/full body?
I ask for this reason. I recently attended a piano recital that was unamplified in a modest size gallery. I was about 20 feet away from the piano. Talk about full, rich very warm harmonics and vivid sound. Not even a hint of edge, brightness or thinness, zero!
So when speakers are described as"accurate to explain brightness,edginess etc. It seems to suggest coloration going in the other direction. If a speaker is genuinely accurate then it should sound "natural" and organic just as the Steinway grand piano did as described above.
It won’t equal the natural sound of the live piano(asking too much of any speaker) but should come reasonably close . It certainly shouldn’t add or impose an edge, bright or thin coloration to instruments.it seems that speakers with upper frequency emphasis are mistakenly given credit for hyper detail, transparency and accuracy. Ricred, why could you not live long term with the Magico? Charles |
David, The Magico is the specific variable in question. WC and ricred1 were directly commenting on the performance of this speaker. WC comparing differences heard between it and other speakers in his system. So yes this Magico discussed in isolation as to its contributing sonic attributes. Charles |
Hi David, I don’t believe we disagree as much as you may think. No doubt an audio system is judged as a whole with every component, cable, accessory etc. imparting in various degrees some level of influence. You and I have acknowledged that fact in previous conversations and correspondence.
However in this thread WC has listened to the Magico and then replaced it with the Focal and then commenting on the distinctions heard between them. So he is in fact isolating the individual speakers as variables. Now to your point on the other elements of his system, yes they are certainly impacting what is heard by him.
Swapping of speakers occurred but the room, front end, cables, rack etc. remained unchanged. Under these circumstances one would hear to a fair degree the different sonic signature of the competing speakers. Granted with the contributions of individual system products.
This can’t be avoided. Remove front end and amplifiers and the speakers forever remain silent. David you know that I’m a proponent of the "everything in an audio system matters" philosophy. Change any single part of the system and you change the sound heard, no argument about that. Charles
|
As a former owner of the Symphonic Line (SL) RG 7 amplifier I’d be surprised if the Odyssey is a sonic equal. The RG 7 was a very good sounding solid state amplifiers my system ( prior to my migration to tubes). If the Odyssey is why would anyone buy the considerably more expensive SL amplifiers? |
As an observer following the comments and listening impressions posted it seems that the Focal is a speaker for the long haul and years of happy ownership. Jafox your comments are revealing and the comments from WC’s non audiophile relatives are noteworthy.
Going strictly by comments on this thread it just seems as though the Magico impresses initially but could possibly wear on listeners as time passes onward. Charles |
Whitecamaross, I completely understand your vivid Formula1 car analogy and it's the gist of what I was inferring from yours and other comments on this thread. For certain this type of speaker will suit some listeners ideally. As any experienced listener would conclude it is a matter of chosen tradeoffs.
It has been quite interesting reading your listening impressions of the Magico and Focal speakers as they represent very different flavors of music reproduction. Charles |
Roxy54, I agree that there will always be a staunch and devoted group of electrostatic speaker owners. High End audio bas many niches that withstand the test if time.i do recall a period where I thought electrostatic speakers offered clear and unmatched qualities.
I no longer believe this to be the case currently. In my opinion based on listening experiences high quality dynamic speakers have caught up to electronics in their former areas of strengths. Overall dynamic speakers occupy a higher performance tier. No doubt opinions will differ on this topi given the inherent subjective nature . Charles |
Whitecamaross, I'm not surprised by your listening impressions with direct comparison between the tube versus solid state McInTosh power amplifiers. Midrange, detail, air, larger soundstage, emotional engagement,and increased musicality . These are the areas where good tubes exceed good transistors more often than not.
If the Magico is as accurate as your have described , then it would easily reveal the distinct sonic contrasts between them. They appear to have done so. The BHK amplifier is said to be very good (I've not heard one) I'd give it a listen. Charles |
I don’t doubt that the Pass Labs may outperform the MAC 2301 in certain parameters yet come up short in others. The Pass may not be better in an overall satisfying sense. Thai will be quite an interesting comparison. It sure seems as though the Magico responds very favorably to good quality tube power. It’s behaving as a relatively neutral conduit. That’s a good attribute IMO. WC is getting a hefty dose of musical realism based on his comments regarding the MAC 2301. That's hard to achieve sometimes. Charles |
I will state upfront that on an open forum such as this one there will be many opinions expressed that others can agree or disagree with. I am in agreement with riaa and minorl in this case. I'm familiar with both Ayre and Audio Research audio components. Based on my listening experiences I don't find Ayre superior to Audio Research by any stretch of the imagination, no way, no how. Just my opinion and full acknowledgement of the subjective nature of it all.Riaa has heard both and prefers the Audio Research. Each listener must trust what they hear and the results will surely vary. Charles |
"Neutral like SS" I don’t accept this premise. Which SS amplifier is Neutral? Pass Labs, McInTosh, Krell, Bryston, Solution, Ayre, Gryphon, Constellation? All of these are transistor amplifiers and each has its own sonic signature. So which one is the neutral example?
There is just as much variation amongst transistors as there are within the tube amplifier niche. Both types of output devices have coloration but differ in characteristics of the sonic spectrum. If anything, tubes ’generally’ sound more natural despite their colorations than most transistors with their own colorations. It really depends on which type of sonic coloration you can live with long term and remain content . Charles |