My Long List of Amplifiers and My Personal Review of Each!
what i was told by transparent cables is that they match the impedance of the components and some other parameters. That said, i can definitely tell you that they sound better with the components they are calibrated for. I tried different amps/preamps with these speaker cables and at times i picked up brightness that is absent with the components that the cable is calibrated for. |
First official review of the alexx v https://www.hifi-advice.com/blog/specials/reference-sounds-wilson-alexx-v/ |
The Alexx V seems intriguing. Like the XLF, the tweeter covers much of the upper midrange. The bass drivers are not as large as in the XLF. The reviewer implies that the bass is tight but not very deep. My guess is that the Alexx V is more coherent and tight than the XLF. So what did you dislike about the Alexx V when you heard it locally 2 summers ago? Time alignment is most important for clarity and focused imaging. Wilson is the master, and I wouldn't consider any dynamic speaker company that ignores time alignment. The Magico M9 can produce lots of bass, but the reviewer implies the overall effect is a big sound which is unfocused. |
grey9hound, Who knows how Transparent "calibrates" the cables. That's why the simplest, universalist approach is to use a 30 band EQ like my Rane ME 60. You do your own "calibration" by ear to either a subtle or larger degree. The cable deniers claim that the differences in sound of cables is largely due to EQ. They are largely correct. Transparent is laughing all the way to the bank with their $5000 "re-certification" BS. |
I did see the lack of deep bass comment from the reviewer. This is exactly what I also felt about my Alexx. I couldn’t get it to do OOMPH. however, I felt that the Alexia had monstrous bass in my room. I think it’s rear port being higher off the ground on the Alexia than on the Alexx. The XLF has more presence in the bass region and a bigger presentation but i have just discovered this past weekend that i prefer the port towards the rear than the front. It seems to have a bigger soundstage and more nuance even though if i do the front port i get more bass in my room. I never understood so clearly as i do now how much collateral damage takes place when your bass is just a tad overpowering. The clarity of the vocals and the high frequency extension get buried by the bass. If you see the XLf in person you expect club level bass because of its sheer size but then you hear it and you realize it doesn't do that. It plays very uniform without overemphasizing any particular frequency. |
Thanks Maxwave, here’s my two cents I have had the Classe Delta Pre and Delta Stereo pieces in my system for a little over three weeks and I’m very impressed. The Pre offers the features I’ve been waiting a long time for. It’s super easy to set up and quickly make changes. I’m using Magnepan 3.7i speakers with two Rythmik 15” sealed subs, so a crossover is mandatory. You can EASILY set crossover frequency, slope, high pass, and stereo or mono subs. The sound quality is very detailed with impressive imaging. A very smooth sound which is perfect with these speakers. I have three presets so I can choose Magnepans and subs crossed over, Magnepans full range and subs added, or just Magnepans full range with no subs. In order to achieve this before, I was using a Dirac unit and two DACs to get the mains and subs crossed over. Before that, I was using a Parasound JC2 running into the subs and then out to the amp because the subs have high pass 80hz crossovers built in. With the Classe I was not missing room correction, it just sounds perfect. The built in DAC is very comparable to my Denafrips Venus II, detailed and amazing sound stage. At first I was running the Delta Pre with my Parasound JC5 because I didn’t believe it would sound any better and it was just too big and heavy to fit in my rack. The JC5 has always been my perfect amp in my system. My friend suggested I just put it on the floor between the speakers, so I did. I let the amp play for three hours before I sat down and listened. Boy, what a sound. There is just an incredible sense of detail and smoothness to that amp. There was more space surrounding the instruments and performers. The speakers disappeared more into the music. So, I’m very impressed with the combination. Someone was asking yesterday how much difference the amp makes, and this was a perfect example. I am a dealer for both Parasound and Classe, and I’m proud to be involved with audio. It’s something I do with my family every single day. It’s been an awesome journey. |
@viber6 Time alignment is most important for clarity and focused imaging. Wilson is the master, and I wouldn’t consider any dynamic speaker company that ignores time alignment. Wilson is neither time aligned nor phase coherence, its marketing BS. The Magico M9 can produce lots of bass, but the reviewer implies the overall effect is a big sound which is unfocused. Yeah sure, more fiction. Please share the review with the rest of us... |
@viber6 Still waiting for you to reveal what review you read where the reviewer stated: " The Magico M9 can produce lots of bass, but the reviewer implies the overall effect is a big sound which is unfocused." I Googled Magico M9 review and came up with two reviews, both were extremely positive. Here are a few quotes from Jeff Fritz (Soundstage) July 21,2021 review. "I heard the vastest sense of space I’ve ever heard when listening to reproduced music—the “sound” of the listening room morphed into a performance space. The experience was almost like that of a good planetarium—the soundstage didn’t exist as an entity in front of me; it was a continuous space, unbroken by boundaries that would define depth or width or height. This was beyond simply room-filling. It was space-defining." "There was no compression in the highs. I thought to myself, After this, hearing any other high-frequency reproduction will seem stilted by comparison. I could not believe my ears—it was simply the finest high-frequency sound I’ve ever heard." " I wasn’t just hearing vocal inflections and microdynamic shifts within those vocals; I was gaining a microscopic view into the performance that I’m not sure even the artist could have known was there. I marveled at how closely I could “watch” the singer, how awesomely transparent the midrange was. I can’t even conceive of how any distortion—certainly not of the audible variety—could have crept into the reproduction of this tune. It was the best I’ve heard it by far." "The bass and piano were kept separate in space, almost as if they were being reproduced by separate speakers—I can’t imagine this speaker ever being congested. The scale and sense of power that the system produced with this track were beyond anything I’ve ever heard" "The bass power was, again, essentially limitless. The entire room flexed with the energy that the M9s were projecting. I walked up and placed my hand on the woofer cabinet as the bass was rattling my brain and felt . . . nothing. The cabinet was completely at rest, even as the entirety of the room was struggling to contain the bass power. This was the deepest, most intense bass I’ve ever heard. Sense a trend here? Is it? The best, that is. Yes, it’s the best sound I’ve ever heard. What’s really crazy about my experience is that I don’t feel I tested the limits of what a pair of M9s can truly do." And from Wayne Garcia (The Absolute Sound) April 19,2021 "I can’t recall any other speaker in my experience so lacking its own signature, one so breathtakingly pure and uncolored, so free of smear, hangover, driver and cabinet noise and coloration, one so stunningly coherent across such a complete frequency range—this, mind you, while sporting pairs of 15″ woofers." "What’s more, as you might easily guess, the M9 can effortlessly play at concert hall levels and convincingly recreate the size of concert venues; yet, it can also whisper, ever so softly, while sounding surprisingly delicate and scaled-down when the music calls for it. And though its extraordinary resolution clearly vaults the M9 to a special plane, the speaker doesn’t come across as sounding like impressive hi-fi; instead, it just disappears. After the first few tracks my shoulders simply relaxed, my mental checklist turned off, and I was fully immersed in the M9’s musical magic." |
https://www.ebay.com/itm/255185398981 Been watching and reading these posts and you guys are sure over my humble Triad HT system that's for sure. I was wondering if anyone ever came accross these and ever heard them go. I read about them and looked into them and of course there is always gonna be rave reviews but was wondering if they are all they say they are. Dam things weigh over a 1000lb ea. I almost pulled the trigger on the amps to try them they look interesting atleast in all the wite-ups but a 220v outlet would have to be installed and that changed my mind. I cant imagin resale would be easy either. |
I was reading between the lines in the Alexx V review that Jay posted. The speaker is tall, but the time alignment focuses the sound so it is not as big as a large Magico that the reviewer refers to. The reviewer doesn't mention the M9 which is the largest, but he talks about his small Magico S1 which focuses well. That's the advantage of small speakers, and the idea that the large Alexx V gives focus combined with power is very compelling. That's what time alignment does. With small speakers the drivers are close together, so time alignment is inherently easier than for large speakers where the drivers are far apart. For low freq, the wavelengths are large, so time alignment is less critical. That's why large Wilsons have the 2 bass drivers in a standard configuration in the lower cabinet. Genius, Dave Wilson. Henry201, what evidence do you have that the large Wilsons are NOT time aligned nor phase coherent? Dave Wilson sought time alignment, which is thoroughly expressed in the setup procedures. Why would anyone put up with the ugly staggering of the non-bass drivers which is used for time alignment, when they could get a typical neat looking upright coffin of a box with Magico? Magico is not time aligned, which is a big factor in why I found all the Wilson models Jay has owned to be superior in clarity to the Magico M3 and M6 he owned. If Magico took their excellent drivers and time aligned them, their speakers would have more clarity. Jay, one factor in the evenness of the freq response of the XLF is that the brilliant HF balances the very full bass of the largest bass drivers in the line. |
Jay, Nice sound. Someone asked you to consider the large Soundlabs. As much as I like the electrostatic principle, the large convex curved Soundlabs violate the principle of time alignment. I've heard several of them, and their image is bloated, which detracts from the clarity of the electrostatic principle. My electrostatics are much smaller, and I beam the 48" x 5" panel to my ears for maximum clarity. When will you reveal the identity of your mystery preamp + amp? Why wait? A few of us think we know, and I hope you reveal it before getting the next preamp (Classe delta?). |
| Post removed |
rbach, The only thing I was vague about was the statement about the M9, which I have never heard in person or in videos. What I know from Jay's videos is that the M3 and M6 are big, bloated and unfocused compared to all the Wilsons Jay has presented. He reached a turning point especially with the Alexx, and I am on record as saying that the XLF especially has many excellent qualities that I value. I even preferred other speakers he presented, such as Franco Serblin and Fyne, to the Magicos. Magico spends all this money on the M series--drivers, cabinet design, which is great, but they ignore time alignment to their detriment. Many reviewers write flowery prose to please manufacturers who advertise. Many of them have little musical training and experience, and have no reference for what live unamplified music sounds like in various environments at various seats in a hall. |
@viber6 "The only thing I was vague about was the statement about the M9, which I have never heard in person or in videos." Uuh? Your statement was: "The Magico M9 can produce lots of bass, but the reviewer implies the overall effect is a big sound which is unfocused." viber6, you weren't being vague, you were very clear indicating that an unknown reviewer in an unknown review implied the M9's overall effect is a big sound which is unfocused, which was completely false. Any respect you gained on this thread for sending your Rouge amp to Jay has again been lost by your constant twisting of the truth and posting fabricated statements to make you sound knowledgeable and well read. You should be ashamed of yourself....again. I believe you owe this thread an apology. |
Ralph at Atmasphere is shipping his first limited production Gan mono block class D amps (200 watts into 4 ohms). Please see my questions and his answers here: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/a-little-tube-magic#2262938 And a comment from a customer here: http://www.atma-sphere.com/en/feedback-1.html At $5300 a pair they may rock the audio world. If I were Jay I would immediately be ordering a pair. These could give his class A amps a run for the money. |
The Soulution sounds like Viber6's kind of sound......super detailed, dry, and lacking soundstage. Makes sense that the Soulution sounded best with the warm sounding Constellation amps. Dose not sound like anything I would like......me...I want all the details....all the soundstage and no dry analytical sound.......I want to be moved. |
@viber6 Time and phase behavior are easily measured. All Wilson measurements, over the years, and in all publications clearly shows that they are neither Time aligned nor phase coherent. Wilson himself has never shown a measurement that supports his claims. That is probably the biggest lie in the audio industry. Before you bother to reply, please read on the subject a bit. This is not a question of opinion; that’s a simple, measurable fact. |
@thezaks Several posters ask for viber6 to reveal the review he read in which he thought the reviewer implied the overall effect of the Magico M9 is a big sound which is unfocused. He has failed to reveal the review in question. If he can't supply the review so we can read it and try to understand what the reviewer 'implied' then he just made it up. If he just made up reading a review so he could further bash Magico and their design then it was a lie. With all due respect, an apology is in order. |
Audiophiles sometimes make the mistake of fixating on a particular technical parameter or design technique which is implemented by the manufacturers of such audiophiles’ particular components. I think it is a mistake to adopt dogmatically the view that one particular technical design or practical implementation is superior to all competing designs and implementations. Audiophiles are particularly susceptible to this when they want to believe that they purchased the product with the technically superior design, and, therefore, other products embracing different designs or implementations are necessarily inferior. I believe strongly that implementation trumps theory. If only one form of turntable drive were objectively the "best" we would not have direct-drive turntables and belt-drive turntables and rim-drive turntables and magnetically-coupled turntables all competing for consumers in the marketplace. There are many different loudspeaker topologies with many different kinds of drivers. Some manufacturers focus on time-aligning the drivers, and others do not. The focus on one parameter or design feature does not make the resulting product necessarily superior to other components whose designers do not focus on that particular parameter or design feature. In my view implementation is more important to the resulting sound than is theory. |
| Post removed |
Caught up on the videos. Good summary on the 725. It must have really impressed to take the crown over the Boulder preamp! I need to do my homework to better understand how the capacitance of a preamp could be equally/more/less responsible for bass control versus an amp(s). Ah, looks like my Simaudio 850p uses no capacitors as a 'traditional analog preamp'. Interestingly the 850p was reviewed favorably by Jeff Fritz in conjunction with the Soulution 711 and Magico Q7 mk II. |
henry201, I agree that certain things are not a matter of opinion--measurements are facts and cannot be disputed. I am interested in these facts about how Wilsons are not time aligned, but you haven't provided any links to support your claims. I don't know whether you have the time to do this. As a practicing physician, I don't, and would appreciate any information you have the time to provide. This is not commonly known. Most owners like Jay may not have the technical studies in mind, but either they or a Wilson expert set up the speakers, moving the upper drivers to achieve some sort of time alignment. The results of this setup are audible. It may be tricky to do, so some owners pay or have the dealer/expert do it as part of the retail price, and the results are worth it. I have some further technical insights, but they are only theoretical. What matters is the practical sonic results of doing the time alignment procedure, even if it is flawed. |
ronres, I agree that "implementation trumps theory." For example, I love the low mass electrostatic principle, but I don't like how most electrostatics with large convex curved panels are poor implementations, and they have compromised clarity as a result. Dynamic drivers in boxes have obvious theoretical problems, but the implementation in the Wilson XLF is nearly the best I have seen, and the sonic results speak for themselves. I've had lots of belt drive and direct drive (DD) turntables over the years, and my Goldmund Studio DD has far superior sonics than my original Denon flagship DD. But my Linn Sondek Valhalla belt drive was far better than the Denon, just not as good as the Goldmund. At one point I owned the original belt drive Win Labs, and when I got the Win DD, it was better, using the same arm and cartridge. I cannot generalize and say whether DD is better than belt drive. |
Jay, I enjoyed your analysis of the S 725. This is consistent with your video with Mike B at Suncoast where he thought that the Boulder amps were a little tubelike compared to the Soulution amps. One persistent question--is a top quality preamp better than DAC direct? There is a comment from King Ng near the top of the comments on your YT video. He has the Soulution 760 DAC which uses a top quality analog application stage with the same 500K microfarad capacitance. He implies that the 760 direct into his amp is a tiny bit better than adding the 725. I would think that most Soulution owners are after the highest clarity/transparency, so that makes sense. My confusion is rooted in the following. Assume that DAC direct to amp means that the digital conversion is one stage, followed by the analog amplification stage, then into the amp. When you insert the preamp, are you adding another stage into the preamp, OR are you bypassing the DAC analog stage, and going from the digital conversion to your preamp stage and then into the power amp? If the second applies, then may the purest preamp stage win, and then if the dedicated preamp is purer than the analog stage of the DAC, it is clear that using the dedicated preamp stage is best. But if the first applies, then you are adding an additional stage. Since no electronic component is perfect, not even the 725, this would explain how King Ng found 760 direct into the amp is the best by a hair. Since you like a "little sugar in your coffee"-type sound, that explains why you prefer the added preamp if the first way applies. Then the 725 is like a pinch of sugar, and other preamps are like several spoons, much sweeter and warmer. |
@viber6Some essential effort on your part should take place. You can start by reading JA article on loudspeaker measurements, he explains, and show what a step response produced by a time-coherent loudspeaker should look like. You can then look at Wilson measurements, and see that none are. It's easy. https://www.stereophile.com/features/100/index.html JA conclude: "Many loudspeakers are claimed by their manufacturers’ marketing departments to be time-coherent. There are also a number of speakers that have sloped front baffles, implying that they are time-coherent. However, its step response immediately gives you an indication of whether or not a loudspeaker is time-coherent. And almost all loudspeakers are not." |
My sense is that the Soulution DAC is not normal....most DACs do not have that level of output stage. This is why the Soulution DAC sounds best straight in....where as the MSB DAC does not have as good of output stage.....so a better line stage improves the sound. Just a guess. Almost all DACs have an analog stage on the output of the DAC system. It is there, you must use it. |
Jay, Ricevs has a good suggestion to look into Ralph Karsten of Atmasphere. His tube amps are unique, and probably offer the highest clarity of any tube amp, while providing the naturalness of vacuum tubes. I've always thought that electrons move better in a vacuum, and I wondered how electrons moving in solid semiconductors could be as natural. Classic tube lovers tolerate the rolled off HF and loose bass in return for the glorious midrange. I've experienced it, but when I caught on to SS's superior HF and bass control, I abandoned tubes. As an experienced designer, Ralph has been studying class D for a long time, and may have come up with something you would like, for a mere $5300. |
Ricevs said it best--"Almost all DACs have an analog stage on the output of the DAC system. It is there, you must use it." Therefore, for clarity/transparency, DAC direct is best. This is true if the output impedance of the DAC unit is comparably low as the output impedance of the added preamp, both going into the power amp. Adding a preamp imposes a layer of filmy fuzz. With the 725, the layer is very thin, like nanometers, so to speak. With most/all other preamps, the layer is thicker, like millimeters. For Jay and many listeners who want that extra "sugar in the coffee with more dynamics" type of sound, they prefer the extra analog preamp stage. |
I have tried to get my hands on the 760 DAC from Soulution but it's stupid hard to get one of those. That said, i am telling you all, i don't know of any DAC that has a huge soundstage such as the sound that comes from the best preamps out there. Alright, the Soulution 725 departs next week and a new preamp will be here the week after. I was told today it is being tested and they are breaking it in now. Im really excited for this preamp. I also just received all my nordost grounding so i plan to insert it in the system as soon as my ears and mind are in the mood to listen to music. Im having days in which i feel as if my system sounds like $h!t but yet it's the same exact system that blew me away over the weekend. It's certainly either me being stressed with work or i might need to step away from it for sometime. This is a thing by the way... Our mood affects how we hear. |
@jays_audio_lab I wanted to revisit your comments and was surprised no one discussed this: " I did see the lack of deep bass comment from the reviewer. This is exactly what I also felt about my Alexx. I couldn’t get it to do OOMPH. however, I felt that the Alexia had monstrous bass in my room. I think it’s rear port being higher off the ground on the Alexia than on the Alexx. The XLF has more presence in the bass region and a bigger presentation but i have just discovered this past weekend that i prefer the port towards the rear than the front. It seems to have a bigger soundstage and more nuance even though if i do the front port i get more bass in my room. I never understood so clearly as i do now how much collateral damage takes place when your bass is just a tad overpowering. The clarity of the vocals and the high frequency extension get buried by the bass. If you see the XLf in person you expect club level bass because of its sheer size but then you hear it and you realize it doesn't do that. It plays very uniform without overemphasizing any particular frequency." Though never owning the Alexia II or Alexx, I've heard both a lot, especially the Alexx. For me, don't much care for the Alexia II; the Alexx is just so much better. I indeed did notice that the Alexx won't thump. They have good solid bass, but that don't really belt out the bass. The system that I'm familiar with uses DAG Momentum amp/pre and a host of other SOTA components. At some point the Thor's Hammer subs were added and were professionally setup by a Wilson tech. Astonishingly, the system still did not thump, though the bass did seem to have better extension and better bass texture and color. What was really astonishing was that the air and ambience really were fleshed out. Once hearing it, you wouldn't want to go without the Hammers. I would agree with Jay that if the bass were to obscure other parts of the music, I'd rather not have an over abundance of bass. The new Alexx V was also recently mentioned. Though I've only heard them once, in the same room as the Alexx system I mentioned but with different electronics, I didn't really hear a speaker that I thought was substantially better than its predecessor. But I also didn't think the XLF was better than the Alexx (two different systems in different locations) and Jay has got his XLFs to sound much better than the Alexx. So, if I were Jay, I'd be staying with the XLF. I can't imagine what an XLF/Soulution or XLF/Boulder system would sound like, but I'd bet it is just phenomenal. |
@kren006 Wanted to address this post too (been busy with work). Again, weird that no one commented on this. "Unnatural and inauthentic brightness is neither detailed nor high clarity. It is distortion. Contrived, unnatural distortion. Don't be confused. That's it, that's the post." Agreed, it is distortion. Once you've moved from that "high clarity" to something with less distortion, it is quite apparent and also much more enjoyable. |
Jay, Soundstage with inaccurate electronics such as classic tubes or euphonic SS is big and bloated. But with accurate electronics like the S 725 it is smaller, with Individual images being more focused (smaller). Think of this as like a chessboard with 20 pieces clearly positioned and lots of empty spaces. The inaccurate electronics shows a larger, artificially magnified complete chessboard, but you can only find 15 pieces which are all larger and fuzzier, with obliteration of some of the empty spaces. From your descriptions of the 725, its high clarity, detail and transparency matches your observations of its soundstage. No, I never saw or heard the 725, apart from your excellent videos where I picked up immediately on its stellar qualities. I have experience comparing other accurate electronics to euphonic ones, so I make the above statements. I'm sorry you sold it. The 725 is the best teacher you have ever had. |
pokey77, Kren0006's statement has some merit in the context of where the listener is in the concert hall. Even a knowledgeable classical music lover who is accustomed to sitting in the 12th row (one third of the way back in a large hall) would be surprised if he moved up to the 1st row. The 1st row is MUCH brighter than the 12th row. It is louder, but since HF are absorbed more with distance than lower freq, and hall reverberations smear the HF preferentially, the 12th row sounds very rolled off in HF compared to the 1st row. Is the objectively brighter sound in the 1st row unnatural, contrived and distorted? NO. From the perspective of the 12th row enthusiast, it is too bright with too much detail. The 12th row is just his preference. But to the 1st row listener, the 12th row is dark, veiled and mushy with lack of clarity. Who is correct? Both are correct, from their perspectives. If they swapped seats, they would both agree that the 1st row is brighter with more detail, but they differ in their preferences. Suppose the concert is being recorded. They see that the main microphones are near the 1st row, with several spot mikes very close to individual musicians on stage. The engineer tells them he is not using any artificial processing with unnatural reverb flooding the carefully mixed mike feeds. Later, they get the finished recording, go home and listen on their accurate audio systems. They would agree that the 1st row sound was closer to this recording than the 12th row. Still, the 12th row guy might prefer the 12th row sound, but that is merely his preference even if he admits that the 1st row sound is more truthful to the recording which aims to show the 1st row sound. |
