My Long List of Amplifiers and My Personal Review of Each!
Jay, The only preamp on your list to challenge the 725 would be Boulder 2110. The Pandora ranks moderately high--it will be interesting to hear it vs 725. The Merrill Christine is a special case of great clarity for the money. I remember that for detail, the Christine was very close to dac direct in your video. I recall you thought the Christine was a best buy. The main reservation you had about it was the cheap remote. The others on your list are euphonic. Kren, Jay found the ref 10 was euphonic compared to the ref 6SE, as I remember. |
For the first time today, I have been listening to the new preamp today but with the Gryphon Essence and boy oh boy...we got a dog fight in our hands boys!!! The new linestage has awesome resolution, musical and low floor noise but it presents things WAAAAAY different than the Soulution. Both preamps are just amazing and as of today, i honestly could not part ways with either one. One does things the other doesn't and vice versa. It's so tough! |
The burning question for me is what are the benefits of battery power vs the intrinsic benefit of the electronics outside of the power supply. For example, the 725 probably has the most transparent electronics, but the new battery preamp has the advantage of power purity. What could the 725 do if it were designed with battery power? How about if it were used with the PS Audio Power Plant AC regenerator? BTW, what sonic effects did you find with the PS Audio? Now is the appropriate time to do a shootout between the 725 and the battery preamp, or when you feel that both have broken in. |
https://youtu.be/6vZd8LtDoGI During this video i speak between songs. Watch it in its entirety if possible. |
It's all about preferences. Solution is king when it comes to resolution but there are some who don't like it which is fine. I am personally quite impressed by it. It feels as if someone "cleaned the windows" and you can now see clearly. The other linestage will be introduced in about a week or so. One last thing, please remember this video is raw and i took it without measuring DBs. I turned on the camera and pushed play. That said, the mic might have not liked it so don't forget that this is all a factor. |
viber6, " What are the first two commenters on YT talking about when they say there is something wrong, sound not good at all? Huh?" Maybe they’re listening through a different media than you, may have different preferences than you, either way they are no more wrong than you are right. There are no absolutes in Audio, only preferences. Everyone hears different things and should be able to voice their opinions. Personally I won’t comment on the sound, because I’m not in the room. |
I think the amount of clarity we want to hear is definitely a preference for each person. For example, if someone plays a guitar 20 feet from me, and then they play again 10 feet from me, I will hear more. If I put my ear within 6 inches of the guitar, I will definitely hear more than I did before. For some folks, that extra clarity will be amazing. If getting within 2 inches, it might be even more amazing for them. For myself though, there's a balance between what "I" perceive as music and what is a whole lot of clarity. Some would prefer that 20 foot distance and the overall sound from there, and some would die for that 2 inch distance and the overall sound from there. I am between the two - probably 10 feet or even 6 feet. I think I would get tired of hearing all that goes on from the 2 inch distance - that's just me :-) Dave |
I think the conversations are now more directed towards preferences rather than something sounding bad or good. I’m pretty confident that over 90% of you all could easily grab one of the 4 linestages and 4 amps i have here and connect them to the xlf and find the sound you like best. Ultimately isn’t that what a stereo system is all about? What sounds good to the listener/owner. I could give less than two hoots about your opinion if what I am hearing tickles my fancy. Perceptions/preferences |
kren, I have astigmatism and can only correct to 20/30 vision with glasses. That's good enough for most of my purposes, and I would never do an invasive, potentially harmful procedure like LASIK. I envy the person with 20/20 normal vision. But I have met some people with even better vision--20/10. I bet some people with normal 20/20 envy the ones with 20/10. The same for bodybuilding. I admire Jay's accomplishments in this area, and do the best I can with whatever time and energy I have to work out. If I try to do more, I get wiped out, so I have to settle. Audio is much the same. Nobody has an unlimited budget for this. The key is to recognize what is most important to you, and spend money prudently. I believe that prioritizing clarity is the most important attribute that improves most other things like focus, separation, precise soundstage, coherent tonality. |
Correct. That said, if we are being honest here, most of us do care or are influenced one way or the other or else why would we be participating on forums so much? If we are NOT GIVING A DAMN about anyone’s opinion and are closed off to trying different things then we wouldn’t be on here. We would be home listening to music and not reading forums or magazines or anything because we are "supposed" to be happy and convinced that what we have is the best there is to OUR EARS. Is that really how we feel though? That's open to debate I'm sure. |
thezaks, Dave, you have valid points about your preference to hear the guitar at 6-10 feet. That's related to the ideal distance you want to sit away from your speakers. Whatever distance that is, don't you better enjoy a recording that is clearer? How about a player who has more facile, accurate technique? Of course, we like different interpretations of the same music, but the player with clearer technique can communicate his moods better. The question of preferences is nebulous and not the whole story. As children, we liked different sounds and wanted to study different instruments and types of music. Those were our preferences. Still, every musician wants to improve his technical skill and range of expression. He employs the ideal of clarity as a standard to better achieve any goal he wants. |
The vision correction analog is instructive, and it highlights why blanket proclamations about a component’s sonic clarity are of limited value to others potentially, because just because a component may sound clearer to you, that may be because of a “corrective” tipping up of the treble (or other sonic adjustment) that the component makes, analogous to eyeglasses correcting for vision deficiencies, which may correct for hearing deficiencies of one with such ailments, but that to one with better hearing distorts the sound in an unpleasant and unnatural way, in a way similar to how someone with 20/20 vision would experience awful vision if wearing your eyeglasses. And that just accounts for hearing deficiencies, to say nothing of sonic preferences….. |
I listened to the whole video. The 3rd song is obviously highly processed and canned, which the 725 reveals. Yes, I understand the criticism from the few who say the sound is too dry and bright. That's the fault of the recordings, esp the 3rd. The engineers are catering to the young kids with rolled off HF in their speakers, who boost HF AND bass in order to impress. Too bad Jay isn't familiar with naturally recorded classical music, which some commenter requested. Still, the nice recordings we already know will be interesting to hear. And the 725 may change with break in. |
725 is broken in. It also was dead cold when i shot the video. It needs a solid 2 days of being plugged into the wall at the very least. Don’t worry; we will have plenty of more videos with the 725. It is crazy how much imaging this thing has. It is astonishing actually and the midbass is UN-FREAKING-REAL. |
kren, It is a good question to raise about whether a component is emphasizing one area of the freq spectrum and shortchanging the other end of the spectrum. Certainly a mini monitor speaker may emphasize the HF and reduce the bass. Then it is difficult to conclude that the speaker is showing better overall clarity. Evaluating electronics is easier, for a given speaker. One might say that the 725 emphasizes the HF and reduces bass, as Jay found with the Gryphon amps. But I have found that an accurate piece like the 725 will reduce QUANTITY of bass, but make it tighter. The higher freq overtones of the bass fundamental will be more accurately revealed, AND bass information will be more revealed even if it is reduced in quantity. Gradually the listener gets used to this, and realizes that the accurate electronics reveals all frequencies better, benefitting all instruments. I agree with the factual observations of most of the commenters, although I disagree with the interpretations of the few who say the 725 is bad. Time will tell as the 725 breaks in and we hear more songs we know. A/B'ing the 725 with the latest preamp on the same amp, whether Constellation or the new monos will be instructive. |
@viber6 "The question of preferences is nebulous and not the whole story. As children, we liked different sounds and wanted to study different instruments and types of music." Your preferences are your "whole story", so why can't they be ours? I didn't build my system for you, I built it for me. And to say that preferences are childish is inane. There is no one correct reference sound, it is only our preferences. |
Your system with the Soulution 725 and the Constellation sounds superb Jay. Very musical, with good depth front to back. The woman's vocals on song 2 are very rich without being overly warm. I also really liked song 1. Overall very Nicely balanced! Bravo! All your different components sound amazing and their best in different ways through these XLF's. 👍👍👍 Thanks for taking the time to put these videos together for us. Have a great weekend Jay! 🍻🍻🍻 |
pokey, I didn't say that preferences are childish. In fact, we both believe that it is proper to have preferences. The issue is what criteria or standards one uses to form the preferences. You and ricred1 say that there are no absolutes in audio, only preferences. Let me illustrate with a hypothetical story why I think that carried to the extreme, this is not really correct, or at least is partially but not completely correct. At an audio club, you meet a friendly guy who likes the same song as you. You are curious about how the song sounds on his system. He plays this song on an old fashioned FM tuner whose station he knew would program this song at the time you meet. He tunes the radio between the station and the adjoining one to create huge amounts of static. He says, "man, I love the static which makes the music sound good to me." You say, "but the static completely obscures the words, so the system at this moment is completely unmusical and distorted." He says, "there are no absolutes, only preferences. You want to hear the words, but I want to hear the static. Both preferences are equally valid--there are no absolutes." He has good hearing, which you can briefly objectively test, but he still maintains that anything goes, as long as one prefers it that way. OK, this is an extreme situation, but lesser degrees of bad sound are common. He could play the song on his CD player which has no static. But he is using an old tube amp whose tubes have drifted way off spec, and the words are still muddy compared to what you are used to on your more accurate/revealing system. The same conversation unfolds--he says, "I like NOT being able to hear half the raunchy words in that song, but you say, "I want to hear as much as possible of what the singer intended, good or bad." Who is right, you or he? Do you still say that he is right, since there are no absolute standards and anything goes? I maintain that in order to have your preferences, you have your own standards. Are these standards totally subjective without any objectivity? Some people like systems with more deep bass, because they believe that for some music with deep bass content, reproducing deep bass is essential. That is objectively true which is an example of some absolute truth. More generally, everyone has had great moments of discovery and exclaimed, "boy, that sounds REAL." That means REAL, not merely good or great, which is a subjective preference. Now, you will counter and say, "real to THEM," as if to imply that it is totally subjective without any absolute basis in reality. NO, there IS a basis in reality, as the quick recognition of something truthful appears. If you hear some music in the street with your eyes closed, you can usually tell whether it is unamplified live, or an audio system. How and why? Because your ear makes fairly quick judgments, based on reality. The confusion lies in the fact that no system is perfect. It is natural that there are different opinions about what aspect of it comes closest to the reality. I like to hear the transients of an instrument, others like to hear the body of that instrument. Actually, we all like both the transients and the body, but we differ in our preferences of each attribute. Those of us who seek high fidelity as the standard will disagree about which system best conveys it, but at least there is agreement that there IS an ABSOLUTE SOUND, an expression capitalized on by Harry Pearson. But those who say that system building is only about preferences without absolutes are saying that anything goes without any reference to reality. One day, speakers will get much better and sound very close to reality with more careful ancillary component matching. Then there will be more agreement as to which systems are much closer to reality than others. At present, with so many mediocre systems, reality is a pipe dream, so many people naturally don't even try to obtain high fidelity and are content with merely getting sounds that please them. |
Your analogy is fine so long as you admit that a large majority of audiophiles view your fringe sonic preferences - almost no bass required and tipped up treble to point of not able to play loudly - as so sonically undesirable and outside of the mainstream that you are, indeed, the static-loving bloke in your analogy |
I'm doing a quick peek today of the new linestage playing with the Gryphon Essence. A few reminders: -Preamp has about one week of total play time. - Stock powercords - i won't keep volume levels at 82db - this is a spur of the moment video. No editing or anything like that. -Songs are randomly selected -Dont try to compare to previous videos. Take the video at face value and focus on it. First appearance EVER on my channel. Never owned it before. |
Very different presentation. I might say that this one could have more musicality than the previous video. It's still clear but it's not as projected. I can blow my ear drums with it and it's not because of brightness. There is ZERO, NADA, not a hint of brightness. If you hear brightness, it's coming from your set up. |
viber6, If you take the definition of "absolutes" it's pretty obvious that there are no absolutes in Audio. Nothing in audio is universal and no component exists without being dependent another component. e.g Speakers can sound different based on the room and associate components; that's why is called a system. It doesn't make a difference what Harry Pearson says, each individual determines what's bright, dark, detailed, or whatever other adjective you want to assign to a system or component. Harry Person's opinion is no more or less valuable than anyone that's been in this hobby and actually listened to different systems. As a matter of fact, personally I'll believe an individual that isn't tied to the audio industry, before I would believe anything a reviewer says about a particular component. There are no "absolutes" in audio, only preferences. If there were we would all agree on what sounds best. |
ricred1, Harry Pearson defined "the absolute sound" as the reality of what sounds are heard in a concert hall, with characteristics of depth, R/L separation, tonality, etc. I don't restrict myself to the concert hall, but I recognize the sounds of instruments and voices in various rooms and at various distances. My system differs from what HP had over the years, although I was inspired by his writings on Maggies. We had different preferences, but if we had met, we would have agreed that the true reference is the sound of live, unamplified instruments under different conditions. I agree with everyone who says there are preferences, because I have my own. But my point is that to say that there are no "absolutes" in audio is not accurate, although there is a little truth to that statement due to the variations in sound of these real instruments under various conditions. The audiophile can choose whether he wants to achieve some form of high fidelity, which is reference to some type of "absolute sound," OR whether his preferences are totally arbitrary, unrelated to reality but still pleasing. In art, there are old master paintings which tried to convey a photographic reality, and painters were judged on how realistic their art was. The great old masters employed subtle variations which were "artful" distortions of literal photographic images. More modern artists like Picasso deviated more from reality, but still their shapes were reminiscent of reality. More avant garde abstract works have no reference to reality, and are appreciated as pure abstract creations. All forms of art can be appreciated equally for what they are. Although I agree that a good audio system is a skillful combination of components, the audio system is not an intrinsic art form like abstract art where anything goes, unconnected to reality. Those like me who seek high fidelity want to let the music speak for itself, which is best achieved by seeking clarity and transparency. So I say that there ARE various absolutes or principles in audio systems. For the lover of deep bass music, a full range speaker with or without a subwoofer is required in accordance with the reality of the bass instruments. For the lover of brilliant HF percussion, extended HF drivers and appropriate electronics like Soulution are best. You can uphold the concept of the absolute sound, and still have different preferences based on your favorite music, different room sizes, etc. For those who have homes with several audio rooms, a mini monitor would be best in a small room or even a moderate sized room with small scale music. A large room for large orchestral and organ music needs a larger speaker. Basic audio consulting utilizes these approximate "absolute" truths. To be fair minded, these "truths" should be considered as "principles" or "guidelines." I only take issue with your blanket statement that there are NO absolutes. Maybe you agree that there are principles/guidelines, to be somewhat modified by each listener in accordance with his perceptions. But to deny the existence of principles/guidelines invites anyone to create an arbitrary concoction of sounds. Then he wonders why he is unhappy and goes off randomly trying anything that looks enticing, spending money and time endlessly. As a violinist, I have played with other violinists whose tastes in violins are different from mine. For their style of playing, whatever violin that enables them to express themselves best, is fine. Still, for ensemble playing there has to be some consistency of musical concept, or else the musical message falls apart from the friction among players. I make a distinction here between the art of music making, and the superimposed "art" of random colorations of audio systems not based in reality. |
The 3rd song, Freya Ridings, "Lost without you" sounds immediate and clear, largely due to the XLF. I cannot ascribe the great sound to either the new preamp or G Essence, but only remember how veiled it was with your former Wilson speaker, whichever that was. The voice and especially the piano were murky before, now fine. I realize that the 725 and the new preamp are young, so a careful A/B now is not worthwhile. The G Essence might be gone when you are ready for the A/B, so it will be done with either the Constellation or the new mono amps. Since you are tired of the popular songs, "Lost" and the Tracy 2nd song can be used as new A/B material. The opening of Tracy has good HF percussion sounds that are useful for demo. |
I am telling you, this is going to be HARD to decide... both preamps are completely winning me over. I have been listening to the "secret" preamp today for about 3 hours straight and now the soulution 725 for the last 2 hours. What a hard decision... TO ME, choosing between both preamps is FAAAAAAR harder than choosing between the DCS & MSB. The question that remains is WHERE is the REF6SE in all of this? If i am being sincere, i don’t feel like plugging it in... I really liked how it sounded the few times i used it here, but after hearing both of these preamps i feel like the battle is between both of them and the rest of my preamps are simply on a different tier group. During the first hour or so, i was throwing at them songs from Oasis, Alanis Morrissette, Hootie and the Blowfish, etc which we know are not audiophile songs, but this is allowing me to see HOW each preamp behaves. Then the second hour or so i was selecting songs from Santana, Pink Floyd, Eagles, and the last hour i am doing the typical presentations that you all are accustomed to from my shootouts. One interesting fact here guys is that ever since i brought both of these preamps i find myself not paying attention to the XLF anymore. What do i mean by that? well, i dont find myself thinking "l feel i need a less or more bass here, maybe i should move them closer or father away from the wall or toe them in or out, etc, etc". NONE of that is going through my head AT ALL since i started to play music with these preamps. |
This is the first time you’ve had electronics worthy of the XLF playing with it. That’s why. Before this you were using components that weren’t worthy of the Alexandria xlf. For that matter perhaps same true with the Magico as well. I’ve always thought systems where the gear quality tiers didn’t really match up were maybe interesting but not surprising when they underperform |
Interesting that you say that. You know, there was someone who emailed me and who is active on whatsbestforum who currently owns XLF. He said to me that he's had Mephisto and soon the new Robert Koda k160 monos. He said that the XLF is a speaker that is far ahead of many "electronics" even today let alone back when it was released in 2012. Most amps just make the XLF sound "loud" but very few can make it "sing". Essentially, electronics that are "great" with most speakers are only "good" with the XLF. However, the speaker does not punish you for having "ok" electronics. It just does not fire on all cylinders, but it keeps you happy with eight cylinders instead of the 12 that it is capable of. |
“TO ME, choosing between both preamps is FAAAAAAR harder than choosing between the DCS & MSB.” Wait a minute. But you didn’t choose between dcs and msb on the video - you said you had no preference. On here, despite what you said, I wrote that I thought you preferred dcs but didn’t want to admit it and laid out some me logic to support that prediction. So you gonna tell us which one you liked better? Based on your quote above it seems you like one better |
The comment was meant to show you that i would have a harder time choosing between these preamps than the two DACs. Both dacs are good so it wouldn't break my heart if someone dropped money on the table for the msb and i had to keep the DCs or the other way around. The DCs sounds good and so does the msb. I would select neither DAC as i said on the video because i don't care which one stays. If someone offered me the right money for either one, I'm packing it up and shipping it. |
Another possibility is that the XLF is so good that any top tier electronics sound good with it. Different sounds with each preamp, but both are great. Even ordinary recordings are enjoyable. The defects of the recordings are heard, but you don't care because the music is revealed more. BTW, Freya Ridings (the 3rd song) has so much more pathos and emotion now that the system reveals all of it better. A revealing system is not just for showing off sparkle from hot HF percussion, but it enables better appreciation of emotional nuances from the singer. With the 725, I am surprised how even with the euphonic Constellation, there is excellent clarity. Now that you are getting used to the 725, you might enjoy it with the G Essence more than you did in the beginning. If the 725 is already broken in and just needs a warmup before critical listening, it may turn out that any amp can be used with it, with benefits of clarity and neutrality in any system. It may possibly be added to my list of absolute truths--the 725 has the general quality of bringing out clarity in any system. Same goes for the new preamp, for bringing out its own special assets in any system. |
Part 2 of this video will be about the Gryphon Antileon Evo and the Essence. I will also make a BOLD STATEMENT that might shock some of you. By the way, on this last video, i recorded in 4k, i added an external light as well and you should be able to select the "4k" setting on the video itself on youtube. Let me know if this looks clearer to you all. |
