>>Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts in terms of Druid V vs Def 2 speakers?<<
It's the same set of trade-offs as with Def3, minus the extra resolution of the Def3 Nano drivers. And by the way, the same decision dilemma applies further down the Zu price range between Superfly and Omen Def. Druid V can't match the soundstage scale of the Definition 2-FRD architecture, so if you're totally hooked on that then the greater focus of a Druid won't persuade you to switch. Druid is going to peter out on the low end around 35Hz, maybe a little lower if you bias the floor-plinth gap toward extension rather than bass definition.
However, Gopher, you've volunteered some revealing observations that complicate your decision. I think it is unusual to prefer the older Zu FRD (conical phase plug) over the newer Nano FRD, but not inexplicable. This kind of preference for an arrested state of a component's evolution has been going on forever. Back when the earth was still cooling, there were people who stayed loyal to the AR 3, insisting that the AR 3a was a step too far. Today, there are owners of Sonus Faber Cremona who have no interest in the Cremona M. I still suspect you have to be quite patient with further break-in of the Nano FRD since you are limited to how hard you can drive them, but it is true that the older FRD does give Definition 2 what you describe as a "warmer, fuller presentation" without the greater speed, burstiness and dynamics of the same cabinet running Nano FRDs. And by the way, if that truly reflects your preferences, then the right FRD to settle on may be the 2010 High Output driver from Zu. Only the last few pair of Def2s were shipped with the HO driver, but its sound in the Def2 cabinet slots neatly between the older, warmer cone-phase-plug FRD and the current, exciting Nano.
Where Def3 further improves over Def2 the focus and warmth of the Definition form factor with Nano drivers is in the Speakon connector integrated in the Def4 sub-bass amplification module, for full B3 cable geometry. You don't get this on Def2. Still, if you use Zu speaker cables, if you want warmth rather than transparency, use Zu Mission instead of Event.
>>Does the cabinet, cabling and full Griewe implementation of the Druid V lend any additional warmth to the presentation while retaining those other virtues.<<
Druid in version V is finally not an obviously "warm" speaker, instead having most of Def4's linearity. But it still has a touch of greater warmth than the more coldly-objective Definition, and of course the Radian supertweeter allows the top end to be very much smoother, more refined and beautiful on the top end than older Defintions. The new Druid cabinet is very quiet, and of course unlike Definition it isn't a sealed box so it is less energized by the drivers anyway. The Def4-like aluminum plinth mechanically grounds Druid more firmly than prior Druids, even my original ones that had the aluminum slab plinth (before Zu shifted to MDF there). So, overall, yes Druid V will project a little more intrinsic tonal warmth than Definitions with Nano drivers, further reinforced by the Griewe acoustic impedance governed bass, which is not present in Def2. The Druid V bass is far better than prior Druids, with plenty of texture and character -- very natural within its lower limit.
>>5. Slight warmth, texture, emotion, microdynamics, impact, stage size.<<
Druid V vs. Def2 forces real choices. A preference for slight warmth, texture and emotion argues for Druid V. Placing value on microdynamics, impact and stage size argues for Definitions. So does doing double duty in HT2.0 as well as 2ch music. If I recall correctly, your room proportions are relatively oblong with your speakers placed on the narrow wall. That suggests you can sacrifice some image scale, especially width if you want to shift toward more focus and sheer tone. One thing to keep in mind is that the Druid is a 16 ohms speaker. I don't recall whether your AN211 has 16 ohm taps. It's not a serious mismatch to run a 16 ohms speaker on 8 ohms taps but the power output will be somewhat reduced, which may not matter in your case.
>>My system sounds good right now, but I can't help shake the suspicion that I had a greater emotional connection to my Superflys...<<
On some music, Druid V leaves you believing it's the greatest speaker ever made. Definition is the higher resolution, more dynamic speaker but Druid's focus and tonal intimacy has the ability to mesmerize a listener with music that capitalizes on Druid V's strengths. The singular case where I've found a speaker with ganged drivers to fully equal the intimacy and emotional engagement of same-line speaker with one driver of the same composition, is in the case of Zu Dominance. Dominance fully resolves the dichotomy of Definition resolution & scale, with Druid/Superfly focus & engagement. You get both in one much larger, heavier, more expensive speaker. Short of Dominance, this choice between focus and scale forced by similarly-priced Zu single-FRD and double-FRD speakers will continue.
>>4. With the Defs a foot away from the wall I get about 10 feet distance between me and the speakers, presumably the Druids would need to be moved forward of the wall<<
Druid V will likely sound fine in the same locations as your Def2s are currently. Toe-in may be different.
Without actually hearing your system in your room and watching how you react to a variety of music, I can't give you a more definitive answer for whether you will be happier with Def2 or Druid V. If you are up for the experiment, you might consider having Sean ship you a set of 2010 HO drivers *if he still has any*, to try. And install a Clarity cap on your Def2 supertweeter network. Then settle on the FRD that best floats you. Then if you're still missing Superfly, get Druid V. The whole question really rests on how much you truly value Definition's spatial and dynamic scale, once you don't have those attributes. Most people who have been to my house to listen to both Druids and Definitions -- any version of each -- are intrigued by Druids but decide on whatever level of Definition they can afford, from used Def2s to new Def4s. It's always the scale that grabs them. Just two chose Soul Superfly and Druid V over some form of Def, and for the right reasons for them. You have to be quite self-aware to make a lasting choice.
Phil |
Warren,
You ordered Def4. It's the one. For anyone who can afford Def4, there's no debate, especially if you've already lived with Definitions for years. If you ever build a second system, you can build it around Druid V. But at your price, performance level, music habits and the room you have, Def4 is the ticket. Stop, cease, terminate any second-guessing. You're going to be ecstatic.
Phil |
>>Srajan Ebaen reviewed the Druid V and felt it wakes up with 50-100 watt amps.<<
Sometimes Srajan gets it radically wrong. I do agree that Zu speakers in general are not best served by flea power SET. At least 15w seems generally right. I use 24w SET, 845 on my Def4s and 24w 300B PSET on my Druid Vs. The problem with 50 - 100w amps is that you are mostly forced into either solid state, or push-pull KT88 or KT120 tube amps. No thanks. On the other hand, one of the ironies of amplification of Zu speakers is that the McIntosh MC1.2kw or older MC1201 1200w monoblocks sound beautiful on them -- much better than the lower power, cheaper Mac quad-diff amps. And much better than almost any 50w - 100w amp, SS or push-pull tube. Of course, that's $20K worth of amplifiers. A PSET 845 of, say, 50 - 70w could be awesome, however. I'll agree with the 50-100w recommendation *if*, say, the sound of my 24w monoblocks can be scaled up without compromise. So far, it doesn't work that way.
>>He says they sound better with transistor rather than SET tubes.<<
Srajan is ten years older than when I first started reading him. Maybe that's the reason he thinks this. That's a joke. Sort of. Let's just say, I don't agree. I'll go further: Balderdash!
>>Did you find the Druid (specifically) better with the S.I.T. amp as he does?<<
Nope. Nor Def4. SIT-2 is inoffensive but really not interesting nor engaging. SIT-1 monoblocks, with the bias run a little on the hot side, deliver the best music sound I've ever heard from transistors, but even if someone *gave* me a pair gratis, my Audion SET amps would stay. More to the point, until Nelson gives us parallel-single-ended SIT monoblocks for more power from that device, the dynamic ceiling of SITs at 10w is just too low. It's irreconcilable to at once contend that Druid V needs 50 - 100 watts to "wake up," while also advocating the 10w SIT amp for them. Which is it?
>>Different listening priorities result in variety of conclusions, valid due to the nature of subjectivity.<<
This is a pretty standard dismissal of strong opinions in audiophilia. It allows for preference, but it is a sentiment that also excuses a lot of wrongs in music reproduction. Except for the SIT-1's exemplary deep bass character (plus it is a quiet amp), I can't think of *any*thing it does as well as fast, transparent implementation of SET on Zu. And I know of no 50-100w amp that equals or betters the right few 15 - 30w amps on Zu. But then, I say this as someone who also advises that in any given category there are only a small handful of product offerings worth buying.
Phil |
>>I'm sorry but that color commentary isn't ideal to promote a particular sound one fancies while, by direct implication, calling anyone who disagrees deaf, moronic, misguided etc. That's the real balderdash -:)<<
Don't read too much into it, Srajan. I wasn't "promoting" a sound, I was describing it. I'll add something I wrote in a private exchange with someone else earlier today: While no Magico (or Wilson, Focal, Vandersteen or whatever mainstream high-end, crossover-intensive speaker you want to name) can match Druid V's unity of behaviors, *whether any particular listener thinks that makes it a better speaker is another matter entirely.* A Magico anything cannot, does not, will not deliver the Zu FRD's coherence. That's true. But whether someone else hears that, or values that highly if they do, I can't predict. I didn't say nor imply that someone who likes Magico speakers is "deaf, moronic, misquided." I instead described a quality that Druid has which they don't, and which I obviously both by direct statement and implication assign priority to. I certainly understand why someone might like a Magico speaker. After all, as crossover-intensive, multi-drivers speakers go, it's (especially Q models) competent. I'm just not going to be one to recommend them.
>>A 50wpc transistor amp will deliver 25 watts or less into the 16-ohm Druid V. That's far from irrational. And I didn't claim that's what it took to 'wake them up'. What I did say is that particularly the low end gets wirier. Someone listening to a lot of power Rock for example might really enjoy what the added power does if no subwoofer is run.<<
No argument there. I was answering another poster's question about whether I agree Druid V needs a 50-100w amp. If he misstated your sentiment, thanks for correcting that.
>>A 300B or 845 amp for my tastes would be a bit too dark and chewy in that critical presence region.<<
True for many but you just have to choose the right 300B or 845 amp, and then choose the right tubes, to avoid that "chewiness." I agree with you on the 45/50 DHT amps. Illuminating but too weak.
>>Because the Druid V's presence region is darker and less lucid than say a 4.5" Fostex widebander run as a dedicated midrange (with a Raal ribbon brought in around 2kHz)<<
You lose me when you would rather have a bit more lucidity even though a crossover point of 2K is along for the ride, handing off to a ribbon driver no less. But maybe it works for you.
>>But all this is simply a function of personal tastes. What I think becomes a bit counterproductive is making judgmental narrow-minded statement that border on gonzo jingoism.<<
Gonzo, maybe. Jingoistic, no. Categoric, sure. I think the entire crossover-intensive, multi-drivers speaker world is off track and it happens that Zu has done the best job of making it possible to leave that behind. There are others who offer good alternatives, often with either usability restrictions Zu solved, or demanding greater domestic intrusion and accommodation, which Zu has largely avoided. This is a forum, not a journalistic vehicle. This is also a Zu thread, so while some people might be on the outside looking in, most participants are looking for clear answers when they ask questions of one another. I try not to disappoint! Most of what is claimed to be "high-end" gear in audio disappoints me and I do consider the vast majority of product designers misguided, before any consumer wears that label. I've plainly written here for years that I will only ever recommend a very short list of gear, for anyone who asks me, because over the 43 years I've been spending my own money in this market, it has proven ever true that only a few bits of gear in combination produce an exceptional semblance of musical realism. As an observer, I am however interested in and fascinated by the huge variety of approaches and innovations people try to attain the same end, and am equally fascinated by the many rationalizations for where they end up. I'm also impressed by the build quality of some musically questionable gear as well as the disregard for build quality in some gear that sounds quite good. But when it comes to actually helping someone understand what's truly worthwhile musically, I make my judgments and say what I think. From there, what others do is up to them. It's not personal. But you know as well as me, by the way you choose to write in 6Moons: It's better to be vivid and leave people knowing, than to be bland and leave people wondering.
It happens that I agree with most of your assessments of hifi gear, and still find your descriptions useful when I don't. You also recognize the value of what Zu brings to our market so we're more aligned than apart.
Phil |
>>Curious, (not a factor anymore)but can a layman install the Caps (Def4) we're talking about?<<
Yes, but it's a PITA. You have to lay the speakers down; drivers have to be removed; you have some three-hands maneuvering. Better to just order the upgrade with the build and be done with it. I believe Clarity is the new stock cap as of last month, so your speakers are going to be fine. If you want to pop for Duelund, amend your order now.
Phil |
Charles1dad,
Re: Srajan and the speakers divide -- exactly. It's not perjorative to point out what the crossover-intensive/multi-drivers speakers cannot do that Druid V does, but it is a clear choice and the migration path tends to be from the mainstream to the alternative, rather than the reverse.
Phil |
Keithr's A23 speaker cables sound very fine. Great balance of smooth, toneful & resolution. If you're not for some reason going to use Zu speaker cable, A23 is a great alternative which also in today's non-rational cable market is affordable. It's old school copper & natural dielectrics, which greatly contribute to their natural sound, and freedom from lengthy break-in.
But Zu cable is more revealing still, and that's especially true if you have a speaker with the Speakon connector and use it to connect amp to drivers with full Zu B3 geometry continuously intact. The B3 cable geometry improves tone, event separation, resolution of complex music and the presentation of space. It's worth using.
Ibis was a ruthlessly revealing cable with which commensurate sources and mid-path electronics were needed. It's been superseded by Event, which has the same wideband voice but with the most x-rayish traits of Ibis dialed back a bit. It also has a nicer "hand" than the older Ibis.
For people whose budget, preferences or associated gear calls for a resolving, revealing, toneful but more forgiving cable, Zu Mission is just right, and more like Keith's A23.
In IC's, Varial corresponds to Ibis speaker cable traits, so Event and Mission ICs can be chosen accordingly for updates -- or you can stick with Ibis/Varial and knowing that if you've been happy so far, you'll continue to be so. I am still using Varial + Ibis, with Mission in a few places in my phono chain, and Event digital for SPDIF to my DACs.
Phil |
>>...is Phil saying that any Cap is great?<<
The Radian 850 puts every cap in its best light. The former stock cap, Mundorf Silver-in-Oil sounds fine in isolation and that's the bottom rung insofar as Druids and Defs in 2012 mostly had that cap. Clarity is smoother, with more finesse in harmonics and details. V-Cap CuTF or TFTF are smoother than Mundorf, but deliver a little more snap. V-Caps do, however, take months to break in. Clarity go through their unsettled weeks but stabilize sooner. Sean also likes Audyn True Copper, and their price, so that's worth talking to him about. I haven't heard them but the distinction from Clarity is said by him to be relatively minor. A tweak at best. They are both "in the realm."
The question constantly raised here is Duelund and whether they are worth their cost, especially the CAST cap. I have no advice on this for Druid V or Def4 until I hear them in the speakers. Duelund adherents here endorse their use in Zu unconditionally, within anyone's financial constraints, and the folks who like them have very fine associated gear and tastes. If you are getting Clarity, that's an excellent default that won't disappoint you.
Zu, btw, detests solder....
Phil |
>> there is growing discussion on improving support to the Def4s and DruidVs by replacing the stock spikes.<<
Coupling/decoupling, mechanical grounding or isolation are highly situationally dependent. Nearly every hifi component's sound is affected by how it is supported and what material(s) if rests on. Speakers are no different. I've taken time for extensive experiments in component support, using both coupling and decoupling techniques, and product combinations I think of as "grounded decoupling." So far, only an Aurilic DAC, which has materials and construction engineering in the case design to control resonance, has been virtually unaffected by the variables. Which is a clue that this is an area receiving too little attention from designers.
With speakers, my first consideration is in slashing mechanical energy put into the floor, transmitted through it and into the rack or floor-mounted gear, affecting adjacent component performance. You might think, for example, that changing out the stock Zu spikes cleaned up your bass, when the actual change was reduction or change in vibrational energy piped into your electronics, especially your amplification. Like a lot of audio matters, it depends.
But speaker support itself has consequences to the speaker. Depending on your floor type and material, the Symposium sandwich platform can be excellent for what I call grounded decoupling, slashing floor-borne vibration emanating from the speaker while allowing Zu's mechanical draining cabinet architecture to work as intended. I think bearings under speakers is less certain to help. Bearings do a great job of converting micro-vibrations to heat while still giving a firm vertical ground. You don't want your speaker rocking, but you don't really want it moving in the plane parallel to the floor either. I'll say that bearings will certainly make your speakers sound somewhat different, and whether that's an improvement or detriment will be situationally dependent and perhaps influenced by your biases.
The Sistrum platform approach fixes floor contact at three points but it may reduce the grounding efficiency of the Zu Def4 aluminum plinth. I have to investigate that possibility. I don't believe the Sistrum platform under speakers is the only way to achieve its benefits, and other approaches may do a better job maintaining physical stability. But I don't doubt people hear clear benefits in their specific installations. While it's true that three points determine a plane, it doesn't always follow that three points under what is normally a four point load is as stable against toppling forces. I live in quake-prone California. I won't be placing my Def4s on a three-point platform under the aluminum plinth. But if I lived in, say, Pennsylvania where I grew up, I might be more inclined.
However, Starsound Audiopoints are excellent replacements for stock Zu spikes on Definitions. So far I haven't bothered, instead using Zu's more recent hardened steel spike on my Def4s, into Herbie's decoupling sliders with the titanium spike receptor embedded, instead of brass or stainless steel. That made a bigger difference than any spike replacement alone that I experimented with, on my composite-over-concrete floor.
On Druid V, most of these options are moot because the floor gap is critical. However placing Druids on a platform and then placing the platform on bearings or spikes or Sistrum platforms or whatnot can be tried, and there will be sonic differences. I look for simpler solutions that don't have me building a totem pole, however. But that's me.
Brass cones on bearing solutions under two of my three turntables, and bearings under my DACS, however, brought dramatic benefits far in excess of grounding variables under my speakers.
Phil |
>>Have either of you heard the Melody SET-PSET 845 amps<<
I have heard the Black series Melody 845 amps, but not on Zu. I heard them on speakers I had some familiarity with and they are consistent with the Melody traits I hear in my Pure Black 101 preamp. They are quiet, have their dynamic strength in the form of tidal surge rather than explosiveness, are loaded with tonal beauty and resolving finesse. And they can be improved by upgrading the stock tubes. I have not seen a Melody item that doesn't show good design. Execution is generally excellent with first class inventory of parts inside. The house sound is somewhat "darker" than the wide open, fast and immediate Audion sound, but Melody brings similar tone density and finesse, with strong energy reserve, in all of its amps. I have no reason to doubt good synergy with Zu.
Phil |
>>Could I request you to comment on the Zu Libtec speaker cable versus the Zu Event (if you have personal experience)?<<
Libtec is more like Mission in the current line. It is to Ibis what Mission is to Event, and Event is a bit more fogiving than Ibis. If you're concerned about accommodating mediocre recordings, using the HO driver in Superfly, Libtec will be a good match. A friend of mine has exactly that combination.
Phil |
>>...speakers are well away from the rest of our gear (mine, some 22'), that aftermarket footers will be of no advantage over the stock feet?<<
When speakers are well away from any proximity to the sound sources and amplification, whether a change in spikes or footing will be of any advantage is highly situational. Differences are likely to be smaller. Also keep in mind that if you're running vinyl, your stylus on a record is the front end of both a microphone and a seismograph. And many DACs or optical disc players are highly sensitive to vibration (internal and external) affecting sound quality. You can be surprised how much mechanical energy is transmitted over distances through a floor.
>>I have carpeting over wood framed sub floor. Or is there more to isolating the mechanical energy from the speaker than just transmitting it to the rest of the gear? <<
Yes there is more to managing mechanical energy than attenuating transmission to the rest of your gear. Considering the speakers alone, the objective is to provide a path for structure resonance to be channeled out of the speaker components and cabinet. You also want the speaker to be firmly placed so it doesn't rock, even infinitesimally, wasting the energy of the pistoning cone. Carpet makes both of these objectives difficult unless your spikes are fully penetrating through the carpet and underlay to firmly contact the floor.
Here, the slender Zu spikes may be an advantage, as it is easier to pierce and penetrate the carpet layer with a sharp, thin spike than a thick one or a cone. You'll know if your spikes aren't on the underlying wood floor -- your speakers will rock with lateral fingertip pressure.
On carpet, many people choose instead to place slabs of a hard material, whether maple, granite, marble, or some composite, so the speaker is firmly grounded on the slab which is in turn floated on the carpet. This is beneficial acoustically for Druid speakers because of the critical floor-to-plinth gap, but it isn't ideal for mechanically grounding a speaker, though it is usually better than having spikes not reach the underlying floor. Also slab materials sound different from one another.
On hard floors, Audiopoints may prove to provide somewhat better grounding because they are bigger, more massive, and brass. Titanium may be better still. They may not make a discernible difference in your situation but they almost certainly can't hurt. And, well, they look spiffy, if you don't mind mixing brass color with the aluminum plinths of Druid V and Def4.
More than the spike itself, I am interested in what is the receptor on the floor side. When piercing carpet you're planting the spike point into the non-cosmetic underlying floor, likely crushing plywood fibers. But on bare floors you need a receptor. Keep in mind that the spike or cone-point interface to what it rests in can be both a transmission and reflection point, depending on materials and vibrational frequency. You want it to be the drain for energy, not reflecting vibration back up into the cabinet. It may be moot if your gear is far away from your speakers, but generally I find it helpful to have receptors that are firm yet dissipating and attenuating of vibration. For that reason, in most places I have spikes or cones, they rest in one of Herbie's Audio Lab's several cone/spike decoupling gliders. His material compound and combinations are 15 - 20db attenuating of vibration and yet are not spongy -- they don't compress. Speakers and turntables, especially, sound grounded and all manner of details clean up. Definition and dynamics improve and overall grunge, blur and hash are wrung out of your system.
For any Zu speaker other than Dominance, Herbie's Cone/Spike Decoupling Glider is sufficient for their weight. For more serious vibrational problems where you need or want more attenuation, supporting higher weights, or on carpet, the Giant Cone/Spike Decoupler is the ticket. The spike receptor insert can be brass, stainless steel or titanium. I also use these under my equipment tables. Herbie's has a variety of other useful resonance control schemes in their products. Everything is quite affordable, effective, and he grants 90 days return privileges.
Example: My Druid V system is in a near-field listening space. The speakers and gear are adjacent. The main gear table is solid maple, on cones resting in Herbie's gliders, and the Luxman PD444 turntable and mhdt Havana Balanced DAC are on Aurios Media Bearings. This table sits between the Druids. The tabletop is laminated maple boards 4" thick. proximity to the Druid Vs presents no problems that aren't addressed by the measures taken. The 300B PSET monoblock amps are on the floor adjacent to each Druid V, resting on Herbie's Medicine Balls. Since Druids depend on a precise floor-to-plinth gap for the Griewe acoustic impedance model to work, placing thick spike receptors under them isn't an option. I have to accept energy being dissipated into the floor and attenuate it before it gets to the nearby gear. The main gear table arrangements take care of this.
However, my Garrard 401 turntable is on a smaller solid maple table that sits four feet from the right channel Druid V. Even though the wood composite floor is laid over a foot of concrete poured into the earth (it's not a suspended floor), the Druid transmits enough bass energy through the floor boards, up the table and into the Garrard to form a feedback loop when playing an LP. Aurios Media Bearings did not break it because they don't dissipate vertical energy. Magnetic repulsion feet under the turntable solved the problem but left the turntable less stable and they lightened dynamics, transient event impacts and compromised bass definition -- literally sounding "ungrounded." Herbie's decoupling gliders under the table's cones, and also under the Garrard's plinth solved the problem completely, restoring bandwidth, definition and clarity while allowing me to play LPs on that turntable at that system's maximum clean SPL levels. Decoupled yet grounded.
>>...do you think there will be any advantages? (to AudioPoints)<<
Maybe. But I've heard more significant advantages to using Herbie's decoupling gliders under stock spikes than from changing to any other spike I've tried, alone. As I said, Audiopoiints can't hurt and they may, as Warren found, help. Audiopoints resting into Herbie's Cone/Spike Decoupling Gliders should be a clear win.
Phil |
>>I reccently replaced Herbie`s Tenderfoot(very good) with Star Sound Audio points(1.5 inch) under my components and heard an improvement.<<
This isn't surprising. I've written about how I use Herbie's decoupling gliders in specific applications, to good advantage with speakers, turntables and racks, but these are areas where the mechanical resonance challenges are fairly straightforward, and Herbie's dBNeutralizer and Grungebuster materials allow the "grounded decoupling" I referred to.
But Herbie's has a lot of different products and Tenderfeet aren't the same kind of solution as the gliders. Since the supply of Aurios Media Bearings seems to have been interrupted, I wrote Steve to ask him what among his products would work well under a DAC that had responded well to bearings. Now keep in mind Herbie's has products that allow a customer to assemble a simple bearing solution. But Steve's answer was simple and clear: Tenderfeet.
I bought a set and they promptly failed to do any more than incrementally improve some glare in the DAC's sound. I found a set of Aurios here on Audiogon and all is right with the world. Tenderfeet are somewhat compressible and compliant. I did not find them effective under my digital nor analog active electronics, compared to other solutions -- including from Herbie's -- already in place. But before I put them aside I did find one support application for which Tenderfeet yielded a clear improvement -- under my S&B TVC. No active electronics; just a pair of transformers in a steel chassis with some jacks, wiring and switches attached. Nevertheless, passive magnetics are also sonically sensitive to vibration and in this case, Tenderfeet brought improvement where nothing else I tried has.
I don't blame Steve. The point is that when you are considering coupling/decoupling for sources and low-signal electronics, the variables are wide-ranging and both situationally and gear dependent. Steve has his views on which of his products are best bets for a given situation, but even he follows that with, "....of course you might also get good results from...."
Another example of the variables: his Isocup + ball combination are right for my 845 SET amps, yet his Medicine Balls are better for the same-chassis 300B PSET amps. You may find Audiopoints or cones to be better under source and signal components, but I suspect there are more significant differences in what the spike of cone rests in, if you haven't explored that. Speakers and racks are straightforward by comparison, in my experience with coupling/decoupling choices. Optimizing resonance control for electronics can be like search engine optimization: once you start you're never done. You just have to tell yourself you are when you've had enough.
Phil |
>>This apparently got under Srajan`s skin.<<
Inconsequential. And regardless, I don't try to anticipate who and how many will agree or disagree before I write. Nor does Srajan as indicated by 6moons. It's not a popularity contest.
>>I don't see why Sean would shake his head...<<
Sean's cool with it. No worries. He's busy selling speakers & cables to people all over the planet, who read what's posted here and in other forums.
Phil |
I am scheduled to get some time with the Melody 845 and the P2688 preamp in my own systems in about 10 days.
As for the 300B Melody, I can say at the moment that their sound, like many 300B SET amps, is heavily influenced by what 300B tube is used. I don't doubt that stock they are darker than an Atmasphere OTL. I also did not hear sludge-like voicing in the 845, though it wasn't on Zu speakers. We'll see.
Phil |
Steve,
Unless you are setting up a compact listening area within your 30x30 space, for relatively near-field listening, I think you will prefer Message for its Definition-like ability to spatially and dynamically scale, and to be more energetic with most amplifiers -- assuming the price difference isn't a barrier. Since you plan to delegate the deep bass duties to one or two Undertone sub(s), for that size space, if you want the most general sonic satisfaction for that room, Message's Definition-configuration scale will likely satisfy you more than Druid V. For anyone here who doesn't know what Message will be, it's Def4 sans powered sub, Griewe-loaded instead. Or put another way, it will be Omen Def built to Def4 levels of execution. Message was briefly outlined on Zu's web site and is referenced in some of the background in the 6moons Druid V review.
You certainly *can* use less than the available space to set up a near-field listening area to enjoy Druid V's advantaage in focus, but then you wouldn't be concerned about acoustically loading the whole space.
Think of tone, as I write about it, as sufficiently conveying the complete texture, distinctive harmonics and the fundamental character of people and instruments to be convinced of their presence naturally. The more you have those distracted moments when your attention shifts because a saxophone, singer or guitar, for example, sounded absolutely real and present, the more you are noticing tone. It's also the way electric guitar players think of tone -- the whole note is there; the character of the whole sound chain, from fingers, pick (or not) and style; neck wood, frets, nut and bridge materials; body, pickups, cable; the full voice of the amp along with the cone type of the driver and its motor; whether the baffle is ply or mdf, etc. The whole note is there; note just the suggestion of the note. Tone is comparative, since nothing gets all the way to absolutely real. To most, what I describe as a tone advantage in Druid V over Def4 is an esoteric difference that a lot of people aren't even sensitive to until they abandon crossover-based speakers. Message and Druid V are both going to give you essential Zu tone. But if you are biased to nth degree of tone over scale, then you'll appreciate Druid over Message. Most people are more variably excited by scale at small sacrifice of some nth degree of tone. Either way you're getting the essential Zu advantage in convincing tonal fidelity and dynamic life, and that's a big advantage over the vast majority of what you can buy at any price, in that particular respect.
Phil |
>>What do you think about Omen Defs (with stereo subs) vs Def 4s? Suppose the Omen Defs had radian tweeters?<<
Def4s will sound more authentic and refined, capable of far more nuance and finesse. The cabinet of Def4 is a huge upgrade over Omen Def, all by itself. It ought to be. Add the Radian 850 in Def4 and it's no contest. Even if the Radian were available in Omen Def, the comparative cabinet talk in that speaker remains an issue, not to mention the greater challenge of attaining equal sub integration.
If however, your priority for similar money is bone-shaking house party sound not serving a listening position, Omen Def + stereo Submissions will get that job done impressively.
Phil |
Dale,
I'm happy to help. Let me add one thing: Everything I write here is stream-of-consciousness -- one pass and I submit. I squeeze these posts in between obligations elsewhere in a professional life completely removed from audio. I don't have the time to edit to the polish of a publication, online or print. So my posts are what a publication would consider a rough draft, and unfortunately some typos don't get taken out before I post.
I use my time here to try to be as direct as possible with answers that I hope become actionable, in the absence of the robust dealer network that existed when I started out in hifi, and you could just go hear what you were interested in, in just about any city. We're a long way from those days of hifi being mainstream.
Phil |
>>so what be the 70mm fresh print version via Zu Audio?<<
I knew as soon as I wrote that 35mm film reference, someone would raise the 70mm question. And I also knew I wouldn't be surprised if it was you to do it, Warren.
The 70mm fresh print is Zu Druid V driven by Audion Golden Dream 300B PSET silver-coil-content monoblock amps running KR Audio 300B globe style tubes, just like in my Druids system!
Phil |
Warren- just ask him for Speakon>wire-ends adaptors.
Phil |
Dale,
I'm happy to help. Let me add one thing: Everything I write here is stream-of-consciousness -- one pass and I submit. I squeeze these posts in between obligations elsewhere in a professional life completely removed from audio. I don't have the time to edit to the polish of a publication, online or print. So my posts are what a publication would consider a rough draft, and unfortunately some typos don't get taken out before I post.
I use my time here to try to be as direct as possible with answers that I hope become actionable, in the absence of the robust dealer network that existed when I started out in hifi, and you could just go hear what you were interested in, in just about any city. We're a long way from those days of hifi being mainstream.
Phil |
My error; Elrog, not Elrod. And it is cylinder glass but a flat/nipple top.
Phil |
>>Are you aware of any premium quality 845s from that country (Germany)?<<
Yes; Elrod. Scarce, hard to buy, always back-ordered. Cylinder bottle with a flat top. Kind of its own thing; reputed to be outstanding. Something like $1800/pr. Most of the photos of Absolare 845 amps show the Psvane 845 in use, which was disappointing to me for $52,000 amps. Elrod should be commensurate with the amp.
Phil |
I've heard the Frankensteins and the Sophia 845 mono amps on my systems. I cannot reconcile Germanboxer's assessment that Sophia 845 dynamics were inferior to the Frank's, 26w v 8w, with my own experience. I can agree that the Franks yield better "bass weight, bass texture" than the Sophia because, well, the Frankenstein 300B amps are simply higher resolution that the Sophia. There is a key point in my earlier post: equal clarity in a higher power amp yields different impressions than higher power of inferior clarity. The Franks clip gracefully and deliver more information than the Sophia 845. Trying to get the same clarity from the 845 by playing it louder won't do anything other than magnify its deficiencies. But I'll also say that it was easy for me to hear the Franks run out of headroom in an unbounded 2240 cu ft space that feeds into a similar virtual volume as GB. In fact, aside from the Frank having good design and execution, good ratio of power supply to power output, there is nothing else exceptional about it physically. it sounds great, but it doesn't sound any more powerful than a pair of Audion 8w 300B SETamps with physically smaller power supply, I heard at the same time.
But this really isn't about Sophia vs Coincident. You don't have to be listening at levels of aural violence to hear the dynamic limits of an amp on anyone's 101db/w/m speaker. Yes, you can get quite a lot of sound out of 6 watts from a single PX25 tube driving a 101db/w/m speaker but that's in terms of SPL, not the same as achieving dynamic clarity and shove.
There are many things that affect this. One is perceived speed, transparency and the burstiness of one amp vs another on the same speaker -- the apparent instantaneousness that a sound emerges from blackness or silence. Another is how precise or sloppy is this event? Is it slow to start; is the initial defining impulse dulled; does the aftermath linger beyond natural expectations?
Yesterday I listened to a pair of Melody M845 monoblocks and to my Audion Black Shadow 845 amps on Def4s at some length, again. The Melody amps cost less than half the price of the Audions, so there is no criticism in what I am about to say. There is a rated diffence of 2-3w between the two amps, with the Melody having the slightly lower measure of output. In all ways the Melody M845 is remarkable and energetic, and a few good tube upgrades put it in another sonic league from stock. It would be easy for a listener to claim more bass weight from the Melody, but the Audions sound more powerful because they are more resolving and maintain their resolution to higher SPLs. The Audions are "faster." Sounds burst from the Audions with more finesse and projections. Morgan heard this as well, a week ago. But then I put a WWII production 6sn7 input tube Melody and the Shuguang 845C. The 845C is a metal plate variant of the 845 and Shuguang's example has lower plate dissipation, so you give up about 20% of a normal 845's power in a given circuit. That took the M845 down to about 16-17w. However, with the better input tube and the metal plate 845s, the M845 got a lot closer to Audion resolution, blackness and clarity and it wasn't surprising to me that one result was the amp sounds more powerful than it does with the higher output potential of the 845A, though it in fact has less in 845C configuration.
The Sophia 845 monoblocks are built around a more complex circuit than Audion's and somewhat more than Melody's. In my view the new ones carry this too far and I recommend them much less. The older Sophia however is highly sensitive to tube choices and can sound anywhere from just fine to excellent, for their prevailing price on the used market. But it doesn't have the resolution of the very competent Frankenstein.
I don't have to listen at high SPLs to sense an amp's dynamic restrictions. And it's not "strain" we're sensing and what Morgan was referring to. It's the clarity of unbridled transients and the overall sense of ease. In digital filtering there is the phenomenon of pre-ringing, wherein the evidence of a distortion is apparent before the cause. It's like hearing the resonance of a bell before it's struck. It's not really happening that way, but we experience the distortion as though it is. Not directly, but by analogy the dynamic ease of an amp/speaker/room combination is a way of sensing an amp's available headroom before the music exceeds it. The same is true of playing an acoustic guitar. You can play softly and pretty well anticipate how that guitar is going to respond to a massive input. I don't have to thrash an acoustic guitar to reliably know how compressed it will become on hard pick attacks. I can feel and hear its limits before I test them.
The PX25 is also sonically the leanest of modest power triodes. It's very clear but shove isn't among it's assets. Morgan gets 101db from the1st watt. He gets 104db from the 2nd. He gets 107db from the 4th. And then on the way to 110db he instead hears clipping. Now he's not sitting 1m from his speakers and he has a room to load with all kinds of soft and hard stuff in it to swallow acoustic energy. So is it so hard see how he would experience one amp that clips around 109db differently from one that clips around 115db? And even then, the drive and shove of my 845 amps exceeds the "experiential power" of my *same-rated* PSET 300B monoblocks.
I don't listen to "Highway 61" any louder with Zu speakers at 101db/w/m efficiency today than I did with Large Advents in 1974, but I do it with 1/6th the power and more clarity. When I started with Zu on 8w of 300B power I could achieve the same SPL on "Desolation Row" but not the same dynamic ease. Once you hear it, there's no mistaking a dynamically inadequate amp for a sufficient one. There are beautiful sounding 2w 45 amps that produce lovely sound through Zu Definitions. And if that floats you, fine. The common knock on big glass triodes by the SET aficionados is that they lack the finesse of the flea bottles. Well, to a point. But it's a lot less true today than when clumsy big bottle SET amps returned to the market in the 90s. And more to the point, the admirable finesse of flea glass triodes has its own lack: shove and ease. Things start to change when you get into 106db, 114db horns but then you have to deal with their anomalies. 101db/w/m is great in the context of more than two generations of 82db speakers but Zu gave us 101db speakers along with the resolution, speed and clarity to show you why dynamic ease is just as valuable as tone, resolution and finesse.
Phil |
Melody P2688 preamp costs $6999. I'll write about it soon.
Phil |
Atmasphere M60s are, let's face it, 60w push-pull, OTL monoblocks. Sophia 845s push out about 25w SET. the Frankenstein, 8w SET. All three being mono amps give you a dedicated and robust power supply for each channel. The OTLs are clean, assertive amps delivering more than twice the power of the Sophia, which in turn delivers about 3X the power of the Frank. So if Germanboxer's dynamic reference for evaluating dynamic traits in amps is his Atmasphere M60 pair, the issue comes down to which SET more closely approaches them for dynamic traits that are credible for music purposes.
I can imagine the information resolution of the Frank and its low frequency reach being preferable to the Sophia at a given SPL. It's not a preference I would attribute to the smaller amp somehow having "bigger watts" but certainly accept it can make a bigger impression. If a listener's perception of power is disproportionately influenced by perception of bass weight, however, I'd also have to point out that if in the Sophia the stock 845A tube was replaced by the 845B, that alone might completely change the perception because the B tube substantially alters that amp's apparent bass traits, favorably for someone predisposed to valuing bass weight.
The comparative judgment is complicated by having judged (and remembered) the 845 amp's dynamic traits against the larger OTL on Def 1.9 and then more recently rubbing the 300B against the OTL on Def4. While the rated efficiency of Def 4 and Def 1.X are the same (101db/w/m), the power transfer traits are somewhat different with advantage decidedly going to the Def4. Sean Casey has said that Def4 has power transfer characteristics of a 104db speaker. Plus the nano FRD has a lighter, stiffer, quicker cone shoved around by a much beefier motor. Def4 sounds more efficient and certainly sounds more dynamic and burstier on a given input signal than earlier Defs. The Franks through Def4s today will sound about 2-3db more powerful than they would have on Def1.9s.
Further complicating this comparison is that both the whizzer and the Radian 850 supertweeter are cleaner, clearer, smoother on the top end. With the same push, Def4 holds things together better and is absent the fatigue factors that lingered in the then-relatively-fatigue-free Def 1 & 2. Plus the more perfect cabinet of Def4 eliminates the "talk" of Def1's encased-mdf cab as well as the damped compression of Def2's dreadnought ply box. If the little amp wasn't evaluated on both, I posit that junior is now getting a lot of help from the Def4 itself!
On GB's last point, reduction of the apparent scale of sound staging is a non-tonal cue that you are overdriving (or nearly so) an amp in stereo pairs. In guitar amps where way-beyond-hifi-clipping is routinely and intentionally employed, this happens in the extreme where you can hear the mono speaker literally begin to sound smaller as distortion runs amok. A Marshall stack compensates for this, though:).
I don't have any argument with Germanboxer's preference for Coincident and Atmasphere. He has been listening to *three* amps that the majority of audio buyers would envy if they heard them. If 8w Frankensteins deployed as a stereo pair meet or exceed his expectations for convincing musicality, which includes dynamic credibility, then that's all that matters because those are sonically excellent amplifiers for Defs. If however he ever has a chance to hear a big-glass amp that delivers similar resolution with more shove, my guess is the point will be made. It costs much more, however, to get Frank-level resolution from an 845 circuit and that's the downside.
Phil |
I have heard the Sophia 845 amps multiple times over the last decade of their development. The first-gen chassis version was available in two configurations: the less expensive one using a 6sn7 as the driver tube, and the premium version using the 205D and later 206 power triode in the same role. The new version is built in a much larger, more robust all-aluminum chassis using the 206 driver.
The 6sn7 driver Sophia 845 was neither impressive nor seriously deficient. The list price was $6,000/pr. They were pleasant enough but the 6sn7 is barely up to the task that was assigned to it. The amps had triode glow and beauty, but lacked all the dynamic shove an 845 is known for. At the time, with far fewer 845 amps choices on the market, at their price they were fine for people who liked them.
The then-$10,000/pair 206-driver version of the Sophia 845 was much better; a truly convincing amplifier musically. I said for several years that if you wanted an 845 amp and couldn't afford the Audion Black Shadow, a used pair of Sophia 206-driver 845s were the next best thing. Once the new chassis amps were introduced, trade-ins of earlier Sophias made them regularly available for $3500 - $4500/pr. Those amps are highly responsive to tube upgrades, and are energetic and musical. They don't have all the finesse, expansive spatial dimensioning and the same agility as the more expensive Audions but they strike you as a very nicely balanced design. They are not more dynamic than they are articulate. They don't have stronger bass than they do top end. They are not more resolving than they are dynamic. Midrange is unmistakably by way of SET. These amps can sound dull or bright or correct, depending on the tubes mix. They do a good job on Definitions; they do a great job on leveraging the burstiness of Soul Superfly while leavening some of that speakers aggression.
The new generation Sophia 845, now $20,000/pair, disappoints me. The designer favors a needlessly complex circuit. To his credit, he has given the new amp a large power supply. But the amp sounds like a promising design pushed a few steps too far. It's essentially a scale-up of the older 206-driver version and the fine balance of factors present in the older amp has been lost, in my view.
I heard these amps twice, both in another person's room on Zu and in my own home. The new amp is a high resolution 845 but it is relentlessly aggressive. It's tonally and dynamically forward to a fault. There is more aggression than finesse, which causes the amp's very fine ability to present nuance to be masked by its steroid overkill. I imagine that some of Sophia's customers who listen through less efficient, crossover-intensive speakers may like this. The aggression of the new Sophia 845 punches through the fog of passive crossovers and multiple drivers' disunity behaviors. But what it punches through with is musclebound & overstated. Through wideband, crossoverless and ultra-responsive Zu, the new Sophia enlarges (and enrages) every note it hurls. Even chamber music played quietly comes to sound a little angry. Through the new Sophia, every musician is in a bad mood. OK, authentic for Glenn Gould even if overdone here, but the Sophia makes even Arthur Rubinstein sound snarly! The amp's emotional tilt is dark. The tonal tilt is bright and in your face. Bass is very strong -- more impact & slam than from the Audion Black Shadow.
In the same period that Sophia's 206 driver 845 amp has increased from $10,000/pr to $20,000/pr, the Audion Black Shadow has increased from $11,000/pr to $13,500/pr. The Audion has only gotten better in all the ways it was already good, preserving its balance along the way. It's a simpler circuit and it has proven anvil reliable. It outclasses the new Sophia in every manner except for sheer bass slam where the Audion is not slouching. So whereas the Sophia 845 was once the more plentiful (in the US) and affordable alternative, it is now more disturbing to hear, less nuanced and less balanced for more money. Some people will like the Sophia's aggression but it has lost its place on my recommended list. The Melody M845, *retubed from the stock glass,* is now the next best 845 to Audion, in current production at a lower price.
Phil |
>>...I explored this option with Richard from Sophia on the phone; his response was to say don't change tubes. This amp is only tuned for the tubes that came with it. This, along with the inability to adjust bias without opening the chassis, ultimately drove me to return them....<<
Richard always says that. It's nonsense. The 845A and 845B have the same bias requirement. In fact, after guiding a local friend into old chassis Sophia 845s we staged a listening comparison between the A, B & C tubes. The B was best and that's what he ran with. Some time later he had a power supply capacitor give up and the amps were taken to Bob Hovland for inspection and repair. I made a point of asking Bob to check the bias and other operating parameters in the amp with the A & B tube and change any that needed to be optimized for the B. Everything was the same for both tubes, and what he found was that the factory bias was not spot on for either A or B. What Richard means when he says the amp is only tuned for the tubes shipped in it is that he *voiced* the amp to his preferences and he wants you to buy any new tubes from him.
Further, most 845 SET amps do not have "fixed bias" (ironically meaning adjustable bias), so that's no reason to turn down an SET 845. They are set up for the RCA spec and will work with any tube that conforms. Otherwise a tech simply has to make a resistor change.
>>If that is a pair of Audion Black Shadows, will the current stock Black Shadows meet this standard or are silver wound secondary's and signal path required? Are there other 845 or 211 amps that deliver resolution, tone and shove?<<
The current production Audion Black Shadows meet the standards of sound I describe. Mine have copper xformers, but all silver signal path wiring. Until recently, that's the only way Black Shadow was made. Now Audion allows you to order it in "Levels" just like the Golden Dream, wherein one of the variables is how much silver do you want to pay for in the xformers -- including power. My Golden Dreams have silver secondary windings and I have no doubt that silver in the xformers of Black Shadows will yield the same advantages. But it's not necessary to have silver there to get an outstanding amp. But if you do, yours will be better than mine, no doubt!
Having just spent a few weeks with the Melody M845, I think they have real potential, particularly if biased for a metal plate 854C or a KR 845 (along with filament feed changes if needed). I also think there is a lot of leverage in that amp in going with a very high quality 2a3 driver tube, like a KR or EML. It has shove, very good tone and while it falls somewhat short of Audion's resolution & speed, it's quite credible, for less cash. The M845 isn't as finely balanced in traits as the Audion, but it's less than half the price. It comes closest to equaling the Audion on shove (owing to its large power supply), is a step behind on tone, a couple steps further back on sheer resolution (but still very good), and falls somewhat further behind on speed and transparency, where I think ultra premium tubes can narrow that gap.
The push-pull 845 Nagra amps have lots of energy and very high resolution, with their depression on the polar curve being in tone. Then there are a proliferating plethora of 845s coming out of China for as little as $1500 up through the Shuguang premium amps and I haven't kept track of all of them.
Phil |
>>...both Sean and Christian of Zu have their Audion Black Shadow SETs for sale via Ebay...<<
I'm only aware of one pair of Audion Black Shadows up at Zu, and just Sean's personal pair for sale on eBay. As noted in the eBay listing, the driver here, first and foremost, is that Sean's attention has been grabbed by the Allnic DHT preamp, which he has to pay for, along with the SIT-1s he needs to use the preamp with. Even at industry accommodation pricing it's expensive. And his enjoyment of that preamp depends upon using it with SIT-1s. As Sean has expressed to me, the Allnic DHT line stage is "just a good preamp, probably no better than Melodys and maybe not as good, with a good tube amp like the Audions..." and that the SIT-1s "...have all the traits and deficiencies described when used with a normal preamp...." but that together each becomes something special. Sean will have SET amps again, but with the Black Shadows the Allnic DHT isn't worth its cost compared to other options that work beautifully with the Audions. The electrical match between the DHT pre and the SIT-1s (which, remember, are also single-ended, just single-ended silicon) renders both pieces able to perform beyond their intrinsic sonics alone.
Now, I haven't heard the combination yet. If not before, I will when Sean comes to LA for the Newport show. Srajan has put himself on record there's exceptional sound from these two items used together. Sean Casey agrees and so does one of his customers. But Sean also concedes that the DHT doesn't lift the dynamic limit I notice in the SIT-1s. And I don't know whether the DHT pre somehow addresses the unnatural note decay in the SIT-1. I don't know how sensitive Sean is to that in his evaluation.
>>What are your thoughts on this...?<<
My thoughts on this are that they're Sean's amps and he can do whatever he wants with them.
Keep in mind: Sean is a speaker and cable designer and manufacturer. This gives him access to hifi gear at prices not attainable by most of us here. He's saying that $10,000/pr SIT-1s are only worth owning if you drive them with a $20,000 DHT preamp. Even if I find I like this combination, I can't buy them new for the prices he can. What if I found that in some ways this $30,000 combination of pre + monoblock amps is better than my then-$11,000 power amps with my $7,000 Melody P2688 preamp? Would it make my Audions and Melody sound any worse? Of course not.
But for me, since a DHT preamp can't address the SIT-1's dynamic constriction and clipping characteristics, I'm not a buyer at any price. And if the Allnic DHT preamp is "just a good preamp" without the SIT-1s, well, then, it too is interesting only as an abstraction for being a quaint circuit revived.
I'll see what I agree with, or not, when I hear them together.
Phil |
Jordan,
The Audion amps use a 6dj8/6922/CCa family tube in the INPUT position. The DRIVER tube is the small-glass, midget-muscle, very robust 5687.
The 6sn7 dual triode makes a great preamp tube and is terrific in an input position on a power amp, as Melody chooses to use it on the M845. It can be used as a driver tube for a big power triode but it is no match for the 206 power tube in that position, and even the 5687 performs the task better in a simple circuit.
Phil |
Spiritofmusic,
I left you a private message via Audiogon regarding a UK Audiogoner seeking a Definition 4 listen. Let me know whether you're open to it.
Phil |
Where anyone ends up with their sub-bass module settings on Def4 is really only relevant to that system in that specific room. I don't know why Zu suggests customers start with a low pass filter point of 60Hz other than to suspect they have learned from experience that many customers overvalue bass in their perception of satisfying sound. I've set up a few pairs of Definitions in widely-varying rooms and imagine very few situations where that much overlap with the natural low end response of the Zu FRD in Def4s would be appropriate for the sub driver.
My settings currently are:
Gain = 8
Low Pass Filter = 32Hz
PEQ Gain db = 3.0 (12 o'clock)
PEQ Frequency = 31Hz
Phase = 0 deg
A few qualifying notes:
1/ Why is my Gain so high at 8? I have an early pair of Def4s. Initially, Sean installed the Hypex module with its normal gain as shipped. I was surprised when I installed the speakers, to need the sub gain that high because my room has a bass hump in its natural response. I then set up Def4s in a bass-hungry room and ran out of gain. Talking to Sean about this, he said he could modify that owner's sub module for more gain, which he did. Hypex refused to ship amp/PEQ modules with more gain than their design spec. It dawned on me that the problem is that Hypex assumes people are using more conventional cross-over-based speakers, probably with less than 90db efficiency. Hence, their stock gain setting is right for that application, in terms of matching to main speakers' output. Zu on the other hand is hitching that Hypex module to 101db/w/m FRDs that have good response down to 38Hz or so. To keep up with that, more gain can be required than Hypex has in their design spec. So now Zu mods the Hypex modules for more intrinsic gain. So my "8" setting is probably more like the "4" setting on current Def4s.
2/ Why is my hinge point for the low pass filter set so low? Because the FRD has very good low-end response, especially since in Def4 some Griewe effects have been built into each FRD's chamber. And the low pass filter is not steep. This point is also below the main energy center of the bass hump in my room. The PEQ gain of just 3db touches up the occasional 32Hz and lower fundamental nicely. There aren't many such instances.
***
Overall, my general experience with hifi listeners is that most feel the need for more bass energy than is natural. But if you're listening to EDM, house or hip-hop, what's natural? It's kind of whatever you want it to be. I'm not listening in those realms very much so my settings seek the perception of natural acoustic bass in balance with other instruments, and getting that right works out fine for orchestra, big rock, etc.
I suggest new Def4 listeners start with:
Gain = 4
Low Pass Filter = 35
PEQ Gain - 2.4
PEQ Frequency = 31
Phase = 0 degs
Listen, note what you like and don't like, and make subtle adjustments from there. Focus on just a few recordings that capture convincing bass as you understand it; get the settings right with them (3 or 4 carefully-selected recordings at most); settle in and cease obsessing. If you obsess, you will come to appreciate the Def2's gain-only knob!
There is no one correct setting. Make changes to one control at a time until you understand its effects well. Gain controls the sub-bass module's total output. Low Pass Filter controls the hinge point below which the sub is fully fed and above which the declining slope is meshing with the natural low end roll-off of the FRDs. PEQ Gain controls the bump in bass energy narrowly focused around the chosen PEQ Frequency. PEQ Gain has a range of 0 - 6db, so you can't dial it into negative territory. There is some argument for starting PEQ Gain at 0 instead of the 2.4 I recommended above, but most rooms don't support very deep bass well. If you have a large room, start with PEQ Gain lower, even 0. Phase allows continual variability of sub-base phase between 0 - 180 degs which can be helpful in overcoming room nodes as well as integration with the main drivers. But in many rooms its effects are quite subtle. You can get into phase futzing where everything sounds not quite right, including 0.
And if you love exaggerated deep bass, knock yourself out. It's your system, not mine. But understand how exaggerated bass compromises perception of the rest of the bandwidth above it, including spatial cues and nuance.
Phil |
Spirit,
Since the Black Hole is a sensing/correcting device it is interactive with the sub module in Defs. I expect it will sharply reduce if not nullify changes to the PEQ settings because it will make both frequency and amplititude corrections to whatever it sees as an anomaly in the bass region. So in your case, I suppose you can use my starting positions and to the extent you can hear changes, tune to preference. But most if not all of your tune-to-preference leverage is likely removed. Perhaps turn off the Black Hole, tune the sub module's settings to your preference, then turn on the Black Hole to hear how far out of the Black Hole's computation for proper bass you were. The phase control is much more subtle in its effects than the other four controls on Def4, and I don't know how or how well the Black Hole handles phase correction to say whether it will nullify control changes.
Phil |
The flea watt triode aficionados gripe about the big glass high power triodes not delivering all the nuance and subtlety of, say, a 45 in SET application. To an extent they are right but when well executed, the big glass 845 and 211 do quite well in this respect while delivering shove, headroom and dynamic slam that the little guys can't hope to muscle out even on highly efficient speakers. So since the 211 has no advantage in nuance and subtlety over the 845, and it delivers only about 60% of the power of the 845, I didn't take the 211 route. However, a good 211 amp can be built to a given tone and resolution standard for less cash than an 845 so it gets someone into the big glass sound at a lower entry price, at least theoretically. I don't dislike 211 amps intrinsically. I just don't have a reason to prefer them over an equally well-executed 845 that is more dynamic still.
That said, when execution is unequal, in favor of the 211, sure I'll take that. For example, the excellent Melody AN211 is $6299. I definitely prefer it to lower-resolving, less convincingly-executed 845 amps. The same-execution AN845 is $1100 more in the US. If the extra $1100 is immaterial to a purchaser, I'd recommend the 845 version. But if that difference is a valuable and necessary saving, the AN211 will be better than several less convincing 845s for a similar price, coming out of Asia.
Another factor to consider is that while this is changing, there are still more 845 tube options for rolling than 211s.
Phil |
Holley,
I leave my subs powered unless I have an extended absence. Especially with the Hypex amps, the idle current draw is low, and generally on-off cycles are an aging factor to internal Class D electronics at least as influential to MTBF as always-on.
Phil |
Charles,
I missed the 845 part of your question, in my answer about Lamm. I think the Lamm SET amp is more resolving and accurate than the 845 Black Shadow or any 845 SET amp. But the Audions are more emotionally communicative and engaging, with real shove to project dynamics and space. And they don't have the Lamm's bass shortcoming. I have my ultra-resolving Golden Dream PSET amps on my other system when I want Lamm-like resolution with truly holistic tone and full engagement, sacrificing some of the punch of the 845.
Phil |
Charles,
It would be too much to say that I am mystified by the delta between what I hear from LAMM and what reviewers describe, but then it's just more reason to consider most reviewers fiction writers of varying narrative capability rather than journalistic scribes with good normative skills. I don't remotely expect objectivity.
Lamm certainly offers smooth resolution but I'm not a fan of the triple nipple tube, or at least I'll say I've yet to hear an amplifier that sounds natural and engaging that's built around the 6c33c. Everything about the Lamm SET amps should make them stellar: Relatively simple circuit, robust power supply with quintuple choke regulation, careful parts selection. And a designer who clearly has both a point of view and unassailable expertise. My kind of guy.
Robert Harley wrote that Lamm SET is "magical" and among the best amplifiers in the world. He thinks "music comes to life" with Lamm SET. Well, that's him, and it means nothing to me. He's also left enough qualifiers littered about his text to give him an out for any argument that might be waged against his conclusions. And Harley's not alone. You can find plenty of praise for Lamm in the planet's digital repository.
The problem is the Lamm SET amp inadvertently spotlights what it doesn't have. Don't get me wrong -- it's in the white hat realm of amplifiers. But it does have a high bar to clear because it isn't a value buy, and while it wins kudos for resolution that lacks inflammation, particularly in the midrange and within its power limits for the speaker it is driving, it doesn't sound tonally holistic. It consistently sands off both beauty and ugliness in music, just enough to notice that it is imposing an enforced "neutrality" on everything that shaves off distinctive character. It wants to be authentic but it's always editing. Now, I'll say that lesser triple nipple amps do this too, but far worse. That Lamm does it at all, given its reputation and price, isn't acceptable to me. Nor interesting.
Harley reviewed the Lamm as not having the limitations of SET, as though he hadn't listened to a single-ended triode hifi amplifier in the past 40 years. The art, science and execution of SET amp design has come a long way since ham--handed searchers of the 70s through the 90s revived this topology for hifi. Today, the quality (and qualities) of SET amps is as widely disparate as for push-pull bottles or silicon in any configuration.
Lamm SET amps give me a very good photograph of a music performance. More objective than a painting; less involving than HD video or film. Lamm does a nearly perfect job of presenting music as a finely-rendered artifact, but like a photograph only suggests the dimensioned person or object, Lamm fails to envelope me in the emotion driving the music. Nothing washes over me. Maybe it would mean something to say that, to exaggerate a bit and make the point vividly, Lamm makes even Bob Marley sound like Philip Glass, emotionally.
Bottom line: I'd much rather listen to my Audion Golden Dream PSET amps with KR 300B tubes. And if I replace those it will be to go from Level 6 to Level 9 for full silver and the rest of it. I don't know what Harley is talking about. The Absolute Sound indeed....
Phil |
Charles,
The Ypsilon SET-100 uses a single-ended triode input tube followed by 16 parallel-single-ended MOSFETs. And a bunch of transformers are involved.
It is both "single-ended triode" and "singled-ended transistor."
Phil |
Spirit,
The short answer is, Nope.
There's a longer answer, if you're interested:
I haven't heard the Ypsilon SET100s nor the Koda electronics. As for the Ypsilon, massed paralleled single-ended MOSFETs aren't the top item I'm looking for in solving amplification problems, but it's one way to try.
I often enough get a chance to hear alternatives to gear I settled on, including steeply upmarket hardware. I don't burn many mental cycles on envy nor on worry that there's something better if only I spent a *lot* more cash. There are two reasons for this. The first is that audio isn't my only interest in life. I'm never going to spend all my disposable income on hifi. The second is that the majority of hyper-cost gear I have heard (let's define hypercost as anything that's more than 4X the price of what I own) sounds worse than my choices or not better holistically. And the few items that clearly outperform aren't sufficiently numerous to make me intrinsically optimistic about everything expensive I read a rave review about.
Because here's the problem: the industry and most of the buying public has not grasped how much of a breakthrough a Zu speaker is. I read reviews of hypercost amplifiers only to see that the speaker through which it was listened to is a multi-driver, crossover-intensive speaker that obscures amplifier differences, imposes its dynamic choke points and phase non-linearities on said amp and generally offers only a more distant facsimile of human-produced music than a Zu speaker for 1/10th to 1/3 the cost. I read a user commentary on the Ypsilon SET100 wherein Ypsilon electronics replaced Shindo and the rave result was communicated as Ypsilon yielding a much brighter sound, which the writer explained by likening the Shindo to an incandescent bulb and the Ypsilon to white LED. Well, compared to natural light, they are then both wrong. But *if* that's true, which one do you think you could live with for three years on the widest variety of recordings? Sometimes I just wonder if hifi people have any idea what they are talking about outside of impressions formed in the last 20 minutes. OK, that sounds harsh but I think you understand why I say it.
After several years of willfully ignoring the matter, I am in a Spring of phono preamp trials. I was asked by a manufacturer to evaluate a phono preamp with a retail price in five figures. A search of the planet's digital repository disgorges a river of praise for it, but again in most review cases the ancillary gear leads me to usually wonder how they could discern the reviewed preamp's true traits. Suffice for the moment to say that I found the unit disappointing to the degree that despite its many good, even great, qualities, I had a hard time figuring out what I'd want to pay for it at any price, on sound alone, given what else is out there. People who don't have Zu speakers -- or anything close to them as widebanders without crossovers -- have a hard time understanding how much conventional speaker designs homogenize the gear feeding them, relatively.
Most really expensive digital gear sounds little like music, tonally and texturally. Clean and resolved isn't the same thing as getting the sound of instruments and humans right. Most highly engineered crossover-intensive speakers disconnect you from the suggestion of reality but do a good job of selling a "hifi" sound that other people put a lot of effort into convincing you you should like. There are turntables I'd like to buy that I don't own but there are many more that have no existential argument other than the ego of designers. There are tonearms I'd like to buy that I don't own, but why is $10K, $20K, $30K needed when Thomas Schick does it better and simpler in most cases for $1800?
We are in a niche hobby industry where pricing has become divorced from benefit. And the more niche it is, the more we are subjected to the rules of a niche economy: increasingly designers figure it is more efficient and less work for them to make and sell 30 things at $100,000 each than 3000 things at $1,000 each. Look at all that cabinet engineering in a Magico speaker. It's cool, and you can write a nice mechanical engineering story on it, but it still sounds like a crossover-intensive speaker with choke points, false spatial cues and some residual zip. Almost nobody has heard Zu Dominance in a quality setting (i.e. not at the only show they were exhibited at). Only one pair exists and they are well-installed in a discerning customer's house. While the Definition 4 benefitted massively from development of Dominance, the bigger brother quashes any pretense that li'l brother can play in the same league. If you ever hear the $60K/pr. Dominance you can only cheer Zu on to cross the $100K mark. You have to hand it to Sean Casey: it would be a lot less work for him to find 30 customers willing to buy $100K speakers. He could do it. But he doesn't want to. He is on a mission to build a full line of uniquely breakthrough speakers, priced to be accessible to everyone. To do that, he's made really smart choices in his allocations for where to focus engineering intensity.
I've heard so many hypercost amps that are not able to be as musically-convincing as $19,000 Audion Golden Dreams, that the burden of proof is on anyone placing their amps at the six figures threshold. And let's face it -- to real world individuals those Audion amps are nutty expensive already. But understand that if the world had only 86 (even 90) db/w/m speakers choked by crossovers and blurred by the disunities of many drivers, I might not know the real standing of the Audions. I imagine owners of the merely four-figures Coincident Frankenstein amps understand my point as well as anyone.
"So real you can touch it reality" is perpetually out of reach. We get closer only to find that the experience reminds us how far away we actually still are. But I don't have confidence that most of high end audio is keeping its grasp on what's real. They're aiming for something else that enough people find tantalizing or satisfying. Real is something else. If Ypsilon and Koda are getting us closer, I'll be saying so if listening proves it.
Phil |
Other than academically, there's no point in comparing the Zu103 cartridge to the Soundsmith Straingauge system. They are two entirely different instruments that address differently-ordered priorities. Outside of both cartridges serving their owners' hope of the illusion of aural fidelity, the two are radically different.
Throughout the 1970s, I experimented with a wide range of phono cartridge types. I started with the Shure V15-Type II which didn't have the ultimate tracking prowess of the later V15 Type III but had a more convincing organic quality than any moving magnet cartridge after it. Getting a V15 Type III was one of my earliest cues that the industry's single-minded chase for resolution didn't always deliver a holistically improved outcome. The V15-Type IV ended that vector. The last moving magnet cartridge I bought was the excellent Signet TK10, which I still have and use occasionally. Coincidentally, I dove into Denon moving coils early. Denon DL103D and several other 103 versions have been in my systems continuously since 1974. I've been down several Ortofon MC vectors along with early Koetsu and Supex, and the 80s Accuphase and Monster jewel cantilever moving coils. After that I pretty much peeled away from the general trend of making LPs sound more like CDs all through the 90s and the 00s. 35 years ago I also experimented with the immediacy of the Win Strain Gauge, the Stax Electrostatic cartridge and the Micro Acoustics electrets. And I wrangled the Decca London. Over the past 15 years as my systems moved to SET amplification and crossoverless speakers, I revived my interest in my very early exposure to the Ortofon SPU series -- not state of the art trackers but in the right tonearm, profoundly musical and engaging. Going upmarket pricewise in moving coils, from Zu103, meant for me a few different SPUs rather than one or more digital-like Lyras, Shelters, Clearaudios or the more self-consciously-voiced-but-beautiful modern Koetsu.
So it shouldn't be surprising that a more perfect strain gauge is intrinsically interesting to me. I've heard the Soundsmith strain gauge system at shows, and because of the associated gear and the show conditions what I heard was neither off-putting in any way nor compelling enough to dump my moving coils and phono preamps in favor of the strain gauge. Tracking and event immediacy are startlingly good. Sonic textures are rendered in very high resolution. I did not hear the world-beating dimensioning described in some reviews, but no surprise given the show conditions. Some of its tonality rang a little false or evaporated. But as Peter plainly says, nothing is perfect, including his strain gauge system. It is for example uncanny in floating a voice out of silence. The lack of noise in the system is a huge advantage over most RIAA phono preamps. But it still lacks some of the resonance of "the whole pipe" of the human body as an element of voice. On the other hand, I have never heard the Soundsmith Strain Gauge system in my systems, nor in any SET amplifier/crossoverless hifi resembling Audion transparency and speed with Zu revelation and shove. That could make all the difference.
I'm not in a hurry; reason being that the strain gauge is a system. It uproots the whole moving coil investment. I'm wired for variety. Not long ago, someone I will charitably refer to as a "hifi enthusiast' posited that if I was really serious about audio I'd sell both my systems and "buy one great one." Sort of reminded me of the person who visited years ago only to tell me that if I was really serious about hifi I wouldn't have a coffee table in my living room where my primary system is located. Morgan got the Pappy's 23 Years; those guys didn't even get the Buffalo Trace leftover from the last Zu party!
All the cash allocated into one pair of speakers, one preamp, one pair of mono power amps, one digital source, one turntable/tonearm/cartridge, one phono preamp, one cable loom, etc. Yup, it would be easy enough to turn both my Luxman PD444s and my Garrard 401, plus six tonearms and 20 cartridges and four phono preamps and four MC transformers into enough cash to buy a Brinkmann Oasis or even AMG V12 + a strain gauge system. Maybe I should. But these things have to be considered purchases. There's a reason Denon moving coils have been in my systems without a break for 39 years an counting. Why an Ortofon SPU sounds even more inspiring today than it did when I first knew I was hearing one in 1967.
I just had a few $5,000 - $15,000 phono preamps through for audition, which was enlightening primarily for reminding me how flawed most gear is. The common error designers seem vulnerable to is using premium economics to create extreme competence in one or two traits, at the expense of balance. And reviewers tend to reward this. The phono preamp on the upper end of that range isn't going to find its way into either of my systems.
This morning I listened to 1970s/early 80s recordings by David Bromberg, Norman Blake, John Fahey, Gene Clark, Ry Cooder, Eric Bibb, the great Doc Watson. Guitar players all; that was just a thread I got on for a few hours. I've had guitars under my fingers for 45 years. I know acutely what acoustic guitars sound like, acoustically. Not quacky piezo-pickup acoustics that people now *think* is the sound of an acoustic guitar, but a real acoustic guitar with bronze strings moving the air between it and your ears. Cartridges were SPU Synergy and DL103D into ZYX Artisan 2 phono preamp, and SPU Meister Silver into Cinemag 1131 Blue xformer, into Audion Premier tube phono preamp. All that into Melody Pure Black 101 line pre driving Audion Golden Dream PSET amps, driving Druid Vs. There wasn't nearly enough wrong to be eager for upheaval, and more than plenty right to eschew it.
Spirit, when you hear the Soundsmith strain gauge in a dealer setting, it's going to be fantastic in specific ways. But it is what it is -- a system. High compliance, so you need a low-to-medium mass tonearm. No mixing/matching cartridge traits to preamps. It will certainly be highly resolving. The audiophile's hungry ear will be fed. Listen for holistic representation and balance, evaluating for a smooth polar graph of qualities in your imagination. And if it compels you, tell us. If you just have to have it and money cascades out of your wallet right on the spot, send us the YouTube link for the video!
Phil |
GB,
You can expect brand new 845B tubes to be improving for the next 150 hours or so. Some congestion in the lower midrange should fade away; deep bass will tighten up some, and the top end will open gradually. They're a little chalky fresh out of the box.
Just as my high silver content 300B PSET amps are more resolving than the silver wired 845s, I expect your Frankensteins to maintain an edge in resolution. That's the nature of 300B vs. 845. How much you value that over the large dynamic advantage of the Black Shadow is up to you.
The B tube lowers the center of gravity for tonality a bit. The stock A tube has annoying glare but if you find you want to shift the tonal center upward in your room, more akin to the Frankensteins, the cheap vehicle is the cryogenically-treated 845A, which shaves off that tube's glare and gooses its jump factor. The more expensive and refined vehicles are the Canada Fuller GX and new Shuguang premium graphite plate tubes. And the one that will give the most 300B-like resolution with seemingly MgHz extension is the KR 845, which Audion's owner says is a drop-in replacement.
The input and driver tubes that Sean shipped are way above stock but those positions also give you "dials" so once you settle on what you're hearing and know what delta you want to close compared to what you want, get in touch and I can give you specific recommendations.
Have fun!!! You have three different aural "flavors" of amplification there to explore, and each is a great representative of its genre: transformerless push-pull, small audio SET, big-glass transmitting tube SET.
Phil |
Warren,
The Koln concert. (I can't recall how to get an umlaut over that "o" on my PC in a web data field.)
The vinyl is great. The CD has some glare but a good DAC can leaven that.
Phil |
>>"Koln Concert", a favorite of mine, the piano was difficult to listen to at normal listening levels.<<
I thought this was interesting, so I got both my original vinyl and later CD copies of Koln Concert to listen to on Black Shadows/Def4s. It's been a years since I listened to this on Black Shadows and never have on Def4s. The reason is that I mostly listen to piano on my Druids system, and that is powered by the Audion 300B PSET amps, which have KR Audio 300B tubes installed.
For anyone who doesn't know, Jarret's "Koln Concert" is a live recording at the opera house in Koln, Germany, in 1975. It was a startlingly clear recording when it was released, having come out smack in the middle of the junk vinyl era after the first Arab oil embargo and the general 70s assault on quality on just about everything. Atypical for the era, the surface is very quiet. Before audiophile LPs went mainstream with Sinatra and classic rock, this was about as good as a common record store disc got. This is an excellent recording and I'm glad Jordan brought it up because more people ought to know it and use it to get familiar with new gear. The piano is quite close-mic'd and the recording gives you some idea of why clean dynamic power helps even a solo piano recording, all other things being reasonably equal. Even then, on the not-as-wide-bandwidth speakers of the mid-70s, the recording sounded assertive and shifted somewhat bright. Not at all ever harsh but it nakedly lays open the tonality, transients and dynamics of an open concert piano.
Koln Concert was one of the first recordings I listened to on Definition 1.5s back in 2005. Played loud, this recording excited enough of that speaker's untamed MDF cabinet talk to limit pleasing SPLs. It was how I first noticed Def1.5's mid-to-treble glare. Of course at the same time, Druid v3.5's darkness over-tamed the recording, rendering it beautiful in an amber way but not quite revealed for what is in the groove. Druid 4-08 handled it quite nicely, for balance and transmitting the smack of the mic'ing arrangement. Def2 gave it a fairly objective reading with some tonal forgiveness thrown in by virtue of its midrange recession.
I listened today on Druids/Audion PSET 300B first, because that's how I've listened to the recording exclusively over the past few years, with Druid V being the voicing speaker since last autumn. I also listen to this now and then on Stax headphones driven by a vintage Stax tube energizer/preamp. That's always a good linear check on whether anything downstream of the source is telling the truth or not. The brightness intrinsic to the clarity and mic placement (and the quality of the mics themselves) is there no matter what I've ever played the recording on, BUT it's not objectionable *to me* because that's how I came to understand the recording to represent the performance from the start. Put another way, if I'd had my ears where the mics were placed in 1975, I feel pretty certain I'd have heard a similar glare where the recording has them too.
So after listening to the vinyl copy, I went to the CD. My CD copy is a Japanese SHM-CD print from maybe 10 years ago or so -- whenever SHM first appeared. It is clearly mastered a little differently than the vinyl LP, sounding somewhat less immediate and focused though quite beautiful for CD. Its perspective is a bit back and away from the soundboard, and the spikey glare of the sharpest piano notes in the first cut aren't as peaky nor is there all the graceful decay of the analog pressing. Stax again to verify, then moved both recordings over to Def4/Black Shadow.
The "phasey" part might be new tubes limbering in. The brightness -- all there and I can imagine new 845Bs aggravating it some. I put a softer-sounding rectifier in my preamp and changed out my Siemens CCa input tubes for the milder and more euphonic RCA 6922s. Hmm...just like dialing back the midrange tone control a skosh on a Marantz 1060 integrated amp. Then I also pulled the muscular NOS Tung-Sol 5687 drivers, subbing in the Buick-ride, whitewall Raytheons. Shaved the remaining glare right off while still keeping the essence of piano chime, making everything more distant.
So to me, the Audion amps and the truth-telling Def4s are playing what's there. But the recording is vivid and not leavened for a distant audience perspective. No doubt, if you'd been in the 5th row of the opera that night in 1975, your experience of the sound projection would have been quite different from someone else in the 25th. This recording forces you near the stage.
I went back to the Druids/300B system. I replaced the x-ray KR 300Bs with the willfully euphonic Sophia mesh plates. More mist and romance but the brightness persists. I changed phono cartridges from the agile Denon 103D to Ortofon SPU Synergy. Whoa, Baby -- did that piano suddenly get Way Huge, Dude! All the SPU glories in heaps but no getting away from the mic'ing. Going back to the CD, I replaced the vivid Bendix 2c51 output tubes in my DAC with the creamy Hytron 5670s. There's that magic Marantz midrange tone control again, dialed back just a bit.
The Black Shadows have all-silver signal paths and those amps had the Nichicon power supply recap. They're not going to be hiding much about the essence of a recording and neither are Def4s. But if you hear a pattern of recording traits that seem worth shaping in your environment, the small glass are the tack hammers; the 845 is the sledge.
Phil |
In HT2.0, Definition 4 excels. Frankly, all Definition versions work beautifully in HT2.0 / 2ch Music applications. The dual FRD array truncates floor and ceiling effects, and induces horizontal spread considerably wider than the single FRD Zu speakers, which do pretty well in HT2.0 since the introduction of the Nano FRD. My primary system does double 2ch Music/HT2.0 duty and I have richly-dimensioned movie sound from any viewing position, even seriously off-axis. Dialog is unerringly anchored to the lips of the actor speaking regardless where the character is moving on screen. The down-firing FRD evenly loads the room with deep, impactful bass, and locational cues are only somewhat less dimensional and directional than 5.1 or 7.1. The only thing you don't get is the helicopter flying in from behind you.
I have zero multi-channel envy with movie sound over Definitions. My room has the speaker centers 9' apart. In the sweet spot, it's 10.5' from each ear to each respective baffle. Toe-in is not severe, placing the imaginary X point ~1-1/2' behind my head. The spread of soundtrack distribution is broad and has 3D sense even from a severely off-axis viewing position. 2ch Music is completely uncompromised by this.
Phil |
>>Def4 users, can you post your setup arrangements?<<
9' and inches apart, each baffle 11.25' to listener's skull centerpoint.
The snap point for focus will be room dependent, and there is a dial between scale and pinpoint focus, which is normal. In any case, for the vast majority of recordings, you have no idea what's "right." There's a lot of latitude for preference in this. You don't mention toe-in, which in many installations will have a greater effect on perception of focus/scale, than the width and listening distance proportions.
Phil |
>>Can an amp be more earthy, bass orientated, and still present more treble info?<<
Yes, I have this argument all the time with people I don't think are listening carefully enough. There is a difference between the apparent extension of an amp that has unnatural transient emphasis, especially on the top end, and an amp that is midrange-tone focused with very good bass underpinning while nevertheless not obscuring actual event information. Amps especially are highly varied in their presentation of information, even when they measure pretty much the same.
I've heard some....well....shocking of presentation characteristics in well-regarded amps simply losing (or really, simply obscuring) event information despite the fact that sharp sparkle was present. There are a lot of ostensibly good amps that simply get presentation wrong, so everything sounds more hifi than natural.
Phil |
>>....who loved the system for it's dynamic range, bass impact and transparency, REALLY felt there was a shortfall in vocals solidity and tone. Me? I heard it, but it had to be pointed out to me, and even then didn't jar me in the least, but realised there was scope for improvement - is this a function of possible lack of tonal density or harmonic development in the mids as a product of ss amps thru the 4s?<<
Yes. This is almost always the case, even with an otherwise convincing solid state amp, and not just on Zu. I've heard only two solid state amps that don't tone bleach and at least slightly desiccate vocals and midrange acoustics generally. One is the First Watt SIT-1, which sounds very similar to a very good (but not great) single ended triode tube implementation. Compared to your Radia, you would hear this as a slight thickening of tonal body and density. This the SIT-1 does in a good way. The other transistor amp that doesn't lean out vocals and midrange information changes the presentation in a bad way. The Valvet Class A monoblocks congeal midrange sound like a 1990s Cary 805 SET and blur both event and tone composition information, to the point of seeming to simply miss some event content in the music. This was highly surprising and compromising to an amp that is otherwise smooth, energetic and compact, if harmonically arid on the top end. I expected to find it convincing and instead found it glaringly distracting for what it concealed in recordings I know well.
>>So, my qs are ahead of my two week stint with Audion Black Shadows and NAT SE2 SE SET demos - do I need to adjust my attitude to listening to 'get' the SET sound, or just let things wash over me for that period? Is this apparent wispiness to vocals a function of ss amps, that likely will be corrected by SETs? Is my analysis correct that SETs re-emphasise the bass qualities of the presentation, but this enhances rather than obscures mids and treble, despite not striking me this way to begin with?<<
Unfortunately, nothing in high end is not "voiced" in some way by its designer. Sometimes a little, often quite a lot to the point of the designer bending the sound of music to his presentation biases. But that written, generally for a listener conditioned to push-pull and solid state amplification can find SET as initially disorienting as a listener conditioned to crossover-intensive speakers can find a phase-coherent, crossoverless speaker like Zu.
We live in an era when most recordings take tonal weight and harmonic completeness out of a human voice, and then the transistor amplification that prevails, along with speaker crossovers do the same damage again and again. Find some recordings from the '50s and early '60s, before rampant multi-tracking and when consoles were still mostly tubed and mic techniques were kept simple, so hear authentic voice and instrument recordings.
I think it is fair to say that initial exposure to SET sound will drive a perception that the center of gravity in sound spectrum presentation has shifted lower. But less so with Audion than any other SET implementation and even then, this is highly dependent on tube selection. A Black Shadow will not sound shifted in this way with an 845C or KR tube. It may, to you, with any of the Chinese graphite plate tubes, to varying degrees. Even cryo treatment will alter how you perceive this.
However, play a recording with little or no bass information below 100Hz and, no, the center of gravity shift isn't vivid at all. In some amps the bass focus is because of rising harmonic distortion below 75 or 100HZ and when that's true you're electing to live with an anomaly to gain other advantages elsewhere. In such a case, Def4 has great tenability below 60Hz to settle those effects. In other cases, the better SET amps change your sense of bass presence, particularly with acoustic bass, because you are getting much more tonal character from the instrument (or, for instance with electric bass, from or about the amp's sound and the speaker motor & cone). On many transistor amps, bass sounds tight and strong, but also generic. It's not as easy to hear the differences between Fender Precision into an SWR amp vs. an Alembic. But the fuller character of each, along with the players' techniques, will be better resolved and revealed.
You just have to approach an SET audition expecting to lose a little of a few things to gain a lot of others. With Definitions however, you need any SET main power amps to have exceptional bass. The Def4 sub-bass module takes its input from the output of the main amps. So while its a Class D amp that is moving the 12" sub, it is doing so while carrying the sonic characteristics of the full-frequency amp that is feeding it. A bloaty SET amp that might work ok on Druids or Superfly will be harmfully thick and full on Defs of any vintage.
If SET is a new experience to you, listen and play, and if you plunge in, accept that you're going to be experimenting with some tube combinations. A Black Shadow or Golden Dream measure pretty much the same with different tubes but the actual presentation effects can be widely different as glass is varied.
With the NAT's, I am not surprised you felt the sonic center of gravity descended.
Good luck, have fun, and regardless of the outcome enjoy hearing some of your music in a new way.
Phil |
>>...the Telefunken route for the Hov pre after hearing my desire for speed and transparency rather than a traditional warm, fuzzy tube sound....<<
Telefunken NOS tubes don't yield fuzzy but I wouldn't have sent you on that path for speed and transparency. Generally, would take the Siemens route for that. But the tone density of the TFs should be great in that preamp, and it's a fast circuit anyway.
>>The NATs were very muscular, propulsive, without an inch of fat, but more a really pungent red wine type sound. I get the impression the Audions may be more of a refreshing white, but just as potent.<<
I don't generally try to explain audio in food terms. I think the NAT amps are very strong, though "without an inch of fat" wouldn't be my description. But this is very dependent on the tubes chosen. You should find the Audion Black Shadows more agile and resolving, faster and more nuanced but probably overall less weighted. BTW, I think all voicings are colorations -- just judiciously-chosen ones to improve fidelity in real world listening, with real-world recordings.
>>Do you think the Black Shadows will not draw attention to any aspect of the frequency spectrum, and as a result I'll relax into the sound more readily?<<
You will have to listen for yourself, but yes, that is my expectation. BTW, you will not get the best out of Black Shadows with a TVC in front of it. Use an active preamp. For reasons I haven't figured out yet, the Black Shadow specifically tends to sound a little choked with a TVC feeding it. This is not true for the Golden Dreams.
A note on Keith's comments which will illustrate your challenge. I've heard just about every amp he's tried in his room on Def2s and Def4s. *Easily* the biggest sound stage and greatest tonal fidelity in his room was from Def4s driven by Audion Black Shadows, 845B or 845A tube. If I discount tonal fidelity, his McIntosh 601s had a bigger soundstage. Now he didn't hear it the same way. When he talks about SET being "closed-in" with a smaller sound stage and a "warm" sound, I have no idea what he's talking about because everything he's listened to that he described as more open and larger spatially was decidedly smaller, and brighter-than-real with a glaring top-end emphasis for me. He complains that the 845B tube rolls off the top end yet I hear more extended harmonic information from that tube in Audion or Melody amps, than I hear from his Valvet Class A solid state monoblocks. In fact almost everything he likes in amplification is top-end tilted in presentation relative to the sound of real instruments, to me. On the other hand, we both love Zu Def4s for the same reasons. What to make of it? Point is, Spirit, apart from trying to triangulate to an understanding of how you perceive fidelity by the gear, music and tuning experiences you relate, I really have no idea how you're going to hear the amps you audition. I can be sitting right beside Keith and be unable to connect his amplifier preferences to the sound of actual music as I hear it. But we converge on the same speaker and generally are pretty aligned on preamps. We're not widely apart on sources. So what you are going to think eight time zones away from me is only a guess. What Keith and I do agree on with Audion is that his room eats bass and he's had stronger bass amps than the Black Shadows or other SET. His current Valvet Class A amps have very strong bass, for example. I didn't find the latest generation Sophia 845 SET preferable in any way except I'll say it had more energetic deep bass, owing to it's large power supply. But it is a design taken too far -- hard, hammering and overselling at every turn. It has resolution but lost the design's former balance, agility and nuance.
With tube amps, especially SET, you have to try to hear the essential qualities of the amp circuit and its implementation, through the specific traits imposed by the choice of tubes, regardless of basic spec performance being the same. Every one of these things is tunable, but you can't make an Audion SET amp lazy and slow, for instance, nor an Almarra 318A or a Tri amp energetic and fast.
Phil |
Spirit,
Sounds like the essence of Audion speed, resolution and tone -- especially when hitched to Zu -- are registering with you. Good start.
Phil |
Spirit,
I have listened to Music First copper & silver, S&B-based Django and several DAC-direct examples into Black Shadows and Golden Dreams sans preamp. Into the 300B PSET amps, TVCs were successful -- not better than my preamps but different in interesting ways and essentially silent. On Golden Dream, I can go either way: TVC or a select few active tube preamps. I almost always prefer a preamp over DAC-direct.
On Black Shadow, every TVC I tried was conclusively worse than my Audion, Klimo and Melody active tube preamps. Less shove, less tone density, flat depth dimension, soggier bass, more grain, reduced body & weight. I wasn't hearing the whole note from any instrument. The sound wasn't severely degraded but never equal nor preferable. I can't comment on your dealer preferring TVC with Black Shadow. Moreover, I've had three pair of Black Shadows brought to my systems by other owners to compare against my re-capped amps, and the result was always the same.
Why? I'm not sure, but I haven't really dug into it. I also haven't seen a schematic for these Audion amps. But despite both amps having only 3 tubes, the input and driver stages are different. The Black Shadow uses a 6922-family dual triode at the input position, and a 5687/e182cc dual triode as the driver tube. The Golden Dream has an Audion custom-number CVX100 input and CVX120 driver. Audion makes the claim these are somehow unique. No; they are selected. The input tube is an ec86 single triode and the driver is an e280F pentode. Those are quite different.
The input tubes that the TVC or preamp output sees differ, but both were originally developed for TV use. The 6922 was designed for amplifier duty in VHF/UHF tuners. The ec86, has more gain in a single triode and was intended for high frequency grounded grid amps in television applications. I don't know how Audion has deployed the 6922 dual triode in the Black Shadow. The driver tubes differ in that the 5687 family are dual triode types while the e280f is a pentode. It could be used in pseudo-triode mode. I haven't looked to trace the circuit. In any case, the two input/driver stages may simply present sufficiently different conditions to the source/pre/TVC output to cause what I hear. Audion is incomplete on their specs. The amp input impedances could be different, too.
In any case, I've found TVC superiority over active preamps to be selective and specific to certain amplifiers. For some amps, TVCs are decidedly worse than a very good active preamp, but usually much better than a poor one. For me, TVCs complement the Golden Dream amp yet fail to achieve synergy with the Black Shadow.
Phil |
