Video 3. "Temptation" 15:00 and 7:16 for demo 1 and 2, resp. Demo 1 shows more brilliance on the voice, with more sibilance on her HF consonants, more nuance in the midrange of her voice. I understand how some people would say that demo 2 is more natural, due to the XLF's hot tweeter which exaggerates the sibilants in this recording. The opening percussion has more snap on demo 1, and even the lower freq upright string bass shows a bit more snap on the plucking of the strings, although this is harder to hear. As usual, I can distinguish items better if I concentrate on upper midrange/HF.
Despite the fact that this recording on the XLF is hyped up in HF which is revealed more by demo 1, I vote for demo 1. Here is an example where I admit that HF emphasis sometimes creates unnatural effects, but I accept it for the overall aliveness of demo 1 vs demo 2. |
chazzzy,
I agree, and do listen to what you listen for, but believe that soundstage is a secondary criterion. The thing that gives away whether something is live or not is the sudden perception of "aliveness" or snap. I don't care WHERE the sound is coming from, as long as I am excited by that snap. Have you ever been scared by the sudden crack of thunder/lightning, or hearing a gunshot during a theater performance? Who cares WHERE it comes from? In fact, for maximum clarity, my speakers are extremely close together, so instead of a 60 degree equilateral triangle, they are about 15 degrees. I can still tell approximately where the instruments are coming from, but the increased clarity with narrow separation outweighs the sacrifice of R/L separation. I have found that more R/L separation bloats image size, interfering with focus and clarity. The immersion that some people like with more R/L separation is not for me.
Also, clarity encompasses and enables perception of speed, lifelike tonal nuances, resolution of decays, spatial cues. My only sacrifice is R/L width. |
Kren,
Listen for yourself--what do you hear? The Temptation song, particularly with demo 1 makes the sibilants stand out. The XLF tweeter is actually of similar "hotness" to the GTA and my own speakers. But on more natural, well balanced recordings with different mikes located further away, I judge the XLF tweeter to be natural, revealing and excellent, as with GTA and my speakers.
Jay probably has played this song on other speakers. My guess is that he found the Magico M6 to have less sibilance on this recording. Too bad Agon doesn't have a good search function for posts where the M6 may have played this recording. In fact, if Jay had done this shootout with the M6, I believe that more people would have voted for demo 1. As it is, I think the XLF has done an excellent job of revealing the differences, and I am glad Jay did it with the XLF. |
Kren,
Regardless of the tweeter material, Wilson designed the XLF to have HF emphasis. The tweeter is used down to 1000 Hz, much lower than the usual 2-3 kHz crossover. A second tweeter is rear and top firing. There are probably other trade secrets in the crossover or custom-modified tweeter, we don't know. But the HF brilliance of the XLF is due to the overall design, which is what Jay is implying. |
Kren,
Video 3 will be easier if you listen to Temptation at the beginning for about 1 min. My timings are from the END of the video. The Sara K "All my love" recording is not as brilliant as Temptation. You might like demo 2 for Temptation, and maybe demo 1 for Sara K, or possibly hate demo 1 for Temptation and mildly dislike demo 1 for Sara K. |
Jay,
Interesting about silver vs gold tuning bullets in the SR Galileo cables, but the big picture is the much greater HF content from the XLF compared to the other speakers you have presented in videos. Although I would prefer the sound with the silver bullets, I think your idea of using the gold bullets would let others tolerate the XLF better. As a result, the proportion of votes for dac 1 would probably increase, although the election would probably still be won by dac 2. If you tried a tube amp, then maybe the election upset would be for dac 1. |
chazzzy,
Thanks for your clarification, as I had thought. Dac 1--leaner, more delicate. Dac 2--tonally richer. I agree. |
chazzzy,
Although we agree on most aspects of this shootout and prefer demo 1, I am somewhat confused by your assessment that demo 2 is more forward than demo 1. Perhaps when you say, more forward, you are referring to bass instruments. Indeed, I have found that moving closer to the performers DOES give them more body, particularly in bass. The contrabassoon (a large wind instrument) player in the Washington National Symphony, Lewis Lipnick, in TAS many years ago described this phenomenon, and I realized he was correct. Moving closer increases the perceived SPL at all frequencies. HF are more markedly absorbed by distance than lower freq, so I find that closer distances reveal much more HF. So when I describe sound as more forward, I am referring to HF content, but I surmise that you are referring to bass content. Most people seem to agree that demo 2 has more body in midrange/bass. I think we agree, along with most people that demo 1 has more HF. |
kren0006,
Let's be objective and honest. Yes, my views on audio are fringe and freakishly outside the norm. But they are not worthless to some people who realize that I know what I am talking about. I am glad chazzzy came around to value my insights. Electrostatic speakers are enjoyed by only a few, certainly not mainstream a-philes. There are some people like me who value clarity above all else, and are willing to compromise bass power and extension. You are right that most people on this thread have your preferences rather than mine. That doesn't make my views WORTHLESS. That word is still another of your many words with a negative connotation that show that you either do not recognize nor care about your own hostility and negativity towards me. You don't admit to the truth of anything I said in my last long post, whereas I can agree with you to a certain degree on what you just said in your last post. Also, since you said, "I know that offends you" this tells me that you will say whatever you want and don't care if it offends me. I am an honest straight shooter like you, but I have made progress in stating my views without offending people. Ron17, pokey77, and even rbach have made valid points about this and have helped me. However, your continued antagonistic words to me don't help my communications to you and do put me on the defense with you. That is one of my weak points, true, but I have a higher opinion of those people than you on this subject.
You are entitled to think, "I’m not going to lie and pretend differently about how I view your audio assessments or the audio notions you promote." The best thing to do is to keep these thoughts in your head, off this thread, and be respectful of me publicly here. But your next statement is good--"And I am not claiming to be any sort of expert and it’s only one person’s opinion." Just don't be the unelected censor of what you think Jay or anyone else wants to hear and avoid. Moderators do that, and they are mainly on the lookout for offensive remarks.
As for the audio fringe, most any of the a-philes here would be judged by the mainstream mid-fi and low-fi community to be on the fringe. That's axiomatic, a statement of fact by the number of highenders vs lowenders. No a-phile here is ashamed of being in the fringe of the mainstream world, and they rightly embrace it. But the defining characteristic of audiophiles is not how much money they spend, but their care and attention to subtleties and SOTA innovation. It just so happens that innovators in any field have been on the fringe. They do things that the mainstream thought were nuts, in part because the mainstream wanted to protect their status quo and was envious that the innovator got there first. There is some old wisdom about new things--first they are denied, then ridiculed, then grudgingly accepted as possibly true, then embraced as everyone wants to cash in or benefit from what's new and better. Actually, I was like that with early digital. My analog setup was better and digital was lousy. Almost 40 years later, I now embrace digital sound for its precision, even if sometimes there are unnatural digital artifacts. Things are getting better and better.
I hope you get better and better. |
kren0006,
Some of your replies to me, particularly the last, have a hostile tone. You are eager to rebuke me and loudly call me wrong and that I don't know what I am talking about.
First, you have some nerve disrespecting my musical background and competence as both a musician and audio listener. What are your musical background and objective qualifications to make your statements against me? I give credit to other people's opinions, such as showing how I agree with them on objective qualities of sound even if we have different preferences.
On to the subject of the HF emphasis of the XLF. If you read carefully, I said that this could be due to the tweeter itself, or the overall design factors like crossover network or other proprietary info. Jay agreed with me on this, but it seems your reading comprehension is off because of your vendetta against me. You will probably now spend time selectively choosing certain statements I made, quote them out of context, all to serve your agenda against me.
The most important thing you should learn from Jay is his cool-headed diplomacy allied to honesty. |
kren,
It is OK to say, "I differ, hear things differently, I prefer different things, here's why I believe you are incorrect," etc.
However, you have used inflammatory language like "you should be rebuked, corrected, you don't know what you're talking about." That is hostility.
Please post your musical qualifications to show that you have valid background to claim that I don't know what I am talking about. People like ron17 and chazzzy have musical training to stand on an equal footing with me. If I disagree with their preferences, I don't accuse them of not knowing what they are talking about, because I know they do know their stuff.
I have studied with world renowned musicians who were qualified to tell me I don't know what I am talking about. In one case, a famous violinist didn't like what I was doing, and I could see his disapproval of me. But rather than saying I don't know what I am doing, he just demonstrated his better way. He preserved my dignity, and I thanked him for his ideas.
Kren, you have good listening experiences that I can learn from. I asked you how the Bartok sounds, for example. Please keep these discussions objective and dignified, and then we can all learn a lot from each others' experience. |
kren,
Don't you agree on anything ? I agree with you on a few things. This shootout has enabled me to discover my agreement with most people on objective qualities of sound, even if we have different preferences. All this is good, which fosters openness. Can you relent and open up a little? That would be nice. |
Jay,
Your XLF is the first speaker you've owned that I think is so much better than everything else you've owned that I consider it money well spent. OK, Alexx much cheaper, and second choice. But ricevs' most recent video a few days ago of a cheap system I thought sounded excellent. We would all learn a lot if you can record the same music on your XLF, to see if the recording is so good, or the cheap speaker is so good, or both.
I regretfully admit that for business reasons, you are right that you get more out of YT videos where you speak. But as much as you are respected, talk is still not as informative as your great shootouts, such as this latest greatest dac 1 and 2. I did notice that getting up to 5K subscribers was slow as you got close, but after the shootout videos, the numbers increased much more rapidly. Another benefit is how much we learned from each other, which you were happy about, such as how chazzzy and I unexpectedly connected much better than before the shootout.
Keep the shootouts going as far as your time permits. Thank you. |
Kren,
You are correct about a few things but NOT for your criticism of the truth about my assertions. I DID say that--
"1) lamp cord beats any other speaker cable
2) your "little Bryston" beats almost any amp WC has had in his room
3) Rane equalizer is better than almost all preamps WC has had
4) dac-direct is almost always superior to any preamp"
Can you guess WHY I say you are incorrect? Answer--you have never listened to lamp cord, my Bryston 2.5B SST2, Rane EQ. If you have listened to lamp cord, and you didn't like it, that's fine and fair. But an objective ear can judge that typical speaker cable fattens bass and rolls off HF by comparison. I simplified somewhat, as zip cord seems to be more open and less veiled. You are entitled to not like the sound of lamp cord, but Steve of GTA confirmed my findings. He heard it, and maybe you didn't.
I am almost certain that you never heard my Bryston or Rane, so you have no basis for your criticism. Again, Steve heard both pieces, and confirmed my findings compared to his Pass amp and preamp. He still prefers his Pass, which is fine for him.
Jay agrees with me that for detail and clarity, dac-direct is superior than adding a preamp, although he prefers a preamp for other reasons, which I also agree with and understand.
On this interesting shootout, I had very similar objective observations as most of the listeners, even if more favor dac 2 and I favor dac 1. All of this shows that my listening skills are just fine. YOU NEED TO COME CLEAN AND RETRACT YOUR FALSE AND DEMEANING ACCUSATION THAT MY LISTENING SKILLS ARE POOR. If you have any decency, an optional apology is in order. For all the insights I contribute here founded on a lifetime of educated training and listening, I don't need your disrespect. Again, what are your musical qualifications to continue your criticism of me? You won't answer. I suspect you have limited musical training. But if I am wrong on that, you can correct me and I will retract that false statement. You can correct me if I am wrong, but nobody including you is entitled to REBUKE me, which is a moral offense.
Lastly, I have an open mind to the fact that Jay may in the future or have already found speaker cables that I would prefer to lamp cord. The expensive Boulder, Pandora and Christine preamps may have greater clarity than my Rane used just as a line stage, but I suspect that many preamps in your budget would not be superior to the Rane. You can remain close minded and believe what you want to believe, but it is sad that you don't show signs of opening your mind and discovering something excellent and really cheap which would allow you to budget more money for top Wilson speakers or whatever.
BTW, ron17 is mostly correct in what he says about me, but doesn't come on offensively the way you do. Learn from him.
|
chazzzy, kren,
You (chazzzy) are a great person, not just in audio. I learned much from you. You have the nobility to apologize for any past negativity you had towards me, although I didn't get too worked up over that, because you were not over-the-top disrespectful like kren. What really makes you noble is your willingness to change your mind when new evidence is presented to you. You have an open mind, unlike kren. You listened carefully and repeatedly and changed your preferences according to the evidence of your ears, without bias or preconceived notions. In fairness, Kren did the same, which is good. But the evidence that you saw that I listen carefully and competently led you to develop a newfound respect for me and my views. Kren has yet to admit that his choice of words WAS hostile ("you don't know what you're talking about" etc, etc) and continues to be demeaning towards me, even indirectly when he just said, "If someone has a lifetime of musical training yet their audio assessments are infantile, then the musical training helps them play their instrument but doesn’t help them assess audio any more than it helps them dunk a basketball. Speaking generally here not about anyone in particular." INFANTILE--is that appropriate? NOT ABOUT ANYONE IN PARTICULAR--what a falsehood--it is clear you mean ME.
Kren, you suggested that we agree to disagree. That is a good idea only if certain conditions are met. The main one is mutual respect, avoidance of negativity towards each other. For example, Dave (thezaks) has completely different preferences than I. But he has been supportive of my right to voice my objective findings here without sneering attitudes from others who disagree with my assertions. In Dave's own head, he disagrees with my preferences, and he would not consider the equipment I like for his own enjoyment. Fine with me. Our relationship is truly a great example of agreeing to disagree while maintaining mutual respect. If I came to his home and listened to his home theater system, I would enjoy his system and the experience of being with him. Well, maybe I wouldn't enjoy his system much in my own mind, but I would be in a great frame of mind because he is a great guy and I would find something to enjoy and would praise him for it.
So in the future, Kren, please, no direct or implied negativity towards me. I never initiated anything against you, but my negativity towards you was only in response to yours. If you object to any advice I may give Jay or anyone else, don't say that nobody wants to hear it and I should get outta here and write my own thread. That would be the scalding and scolding imposition of your own views, a kind of censorship, the very thing that you criticize me for when you claim that I scold people who have other preferences. How do you know that there is nobody interested in what I say? That's for them to decide for themselves. Good people who disagree with me can ignore me, scroll down and not respond, or if they want to say something, they do so respectfully without negativity. Ron17 is a great example of that.
If you agree to these conditions, we can coexist here. But otherwise, a statement that we agree to disagree is merely a license for you to continue to show your negativity towards me. Most international wars are due to this excuse that the countries agree to disagree. So what--they carry on with mutual destruction because they don't respect each other.
Chazzzy, wise statement from you--"Too much hardship in 2020. Too much acrimony on this thread."
|
Jay,
Yes, thanks for your efforts which have been entertaining throughout these tough times. But most entertainment is just transitory fluff, except for the rare great ones like Seinfeld, Fraser, Jackie Gleason. You have offered shootouts and commentary of GREAT value, which will become classics like those great entertainers. |
jmeyers,
I have a few recordings in LP and CD versions. From 1982 to 2000, my Denon 305 MC cartridge was pristinely clear, and the LP trounced the CD, which was rolled off and veiled by comparison, really bad like blankets over the sound. Even mid-fi turntables used with receivers were clearer than CD. Now my Denon is still playing music, but it has aged, and the CD is clearer. After maybe 5-10,000 hours of play, it is remarkable to still be playing the music. I will modify the dictum in 1981 when CD's came out--"Perfect sound forever" to say "Good sound nearly forever" (until the laser breaks). After 25 years, CD Player is still going strong. Another disadvantage of the cartridge system is that the sound would change markedly from day to day. As a physical device, it was temperamental. I found it much easier to A/B equipment because of the consistency of the CD sound. |
Right on, Jay. A month subscription costs about the same as a new CD. I have enough CD's for the time I have in listening. I have 1000 decent LP's collected over 50 years, some of which I still haven't heard, haha. People use streaming the way I use the free FM radio to relax and find out about new recordings I like. I haven't bought a new CD in a long time, so I can't justify a streamer plus subscription for what you say is inferior sound quality. People with more knowledge than I might say that servers give better sound quality than CD's, and give access to hi res music not available on CD. Is this true? |
pokey77,
I have long moved on from the "my way or the highway" routine. The latest exchange between kren and me began after I said the XLF tweeter was hot. He already didn't like me personally it seemed to me, so he chose this issue as his opportunity to attack me on the subject of the tweeter. Jay and I agreed that HF emphasis of any speaker could be due to many design factors, and clarified that the soft dome tweeter of the XLF may not be the cause of the HF emphasis. This should have been a simple dignified clarification of this issue, and Jay was proper and professional about it, but kren jumped on me and said I was wrong, didn't know what I am talking about, should be REBUKED and corrected, etc. That is plain hostility, particularly inappropriate over a simple question of what causes HF emphasis. There is no audio issue that requires a REBUKE, ever. Outside of political scandals and other criminal activity, I can't think of many private personal issues that merit rebuke. On another occasion, Jay corrected me about the Mephisto Stereo using two power cords when I said one. Factual corrections are always appropriate.
You, ron17, rbach and others may have similar sentiments as kren about me, but you all do it in a non offensive way, unlike kren. If you want, check and compare kren's posts with all of your more respectful statements. Ultimately, you all get the same message across more effectively than kren because of your non insulting manner. If I have come across as insulting to anyone, I had no intention of doing so, and apologize for my mistakes. Let kren henceforth avoid insulting me, even if he claims he never did. Then we can all get along nicely and move on. |
golfnutz,
Many of these pop recordings are drastically boosted in the upper midrange and HF. A big market is the teenage kids with their inferior speakers, who love to crank the HF for pizzazz. The engineers seek to please the teenagers. When heard on the XLF, these recordings have the obvious excessive sibilants. Still, the XLF may have some HF emphasis compared to other Wilson top speakers like the Chronosonic. We compared the same song on the Alexx and found that XLF has more HF. While Jay was waiting to get 5K subscribers before the dac shootout began, I posted a superb video of Peter McGrath presenting the flagship Master Chronosonic on different types of music. The last selection was a classical recording which drew awe and respectful applause from the people who heard it. Classical recordings are usually recorded more naturally, and singers don't have that excessive sibilance on these recordings on great speakers.
That said, we don't know if the new mike has more HF emphasis than the old mike. Jay said the Antileon is darker than the Essence. Dac direct without preamp will have more sibilance than with preamp. Only Jay can do his A/B mike tests and find out whether the new mike is the culprit. Most likely, the XLF is revealing the truth about the recording. Still, mikes are like speakers as transducers, and can drastically affect the recorded sound. |
Jay, you're right. I forgot that the gold bullets in SR tone down the HF compared to silver. But mikes may still be the biggest factor, so you will want to make recordings with each mike to see. Adjust the volumes for each mike, because like speakers, they have different outputs or efficiencies. I don't know whether the mike preamp in the phone compensates for different mike voltage inputs. You have to make recordings and listen, sometimes a tedious process, but fun and worth the effort in my experience. This would make a great A/B for YT, along with your comments later. Nobody here knows the relative characteristics of the mikes, so it would be a completely unbiased exercise, even more unbiased compared to the dac shootout, because many people knew and read about DCS vs MSB. Again, I doubt whether this has ever been done on YT--another attraction for you. |
chazzzy--100 dB funny, kren--82 dB, not bad |
Jay,
Thanks for your analysis. I had many of the same observations as you, although on my iMac, I can't evaluate soundstage and imaging. As far as bang for the buck, Bartok and Chord DAVE would make a good comparison. Someone here (I think 4425 a year or two ago) found the Bartok just about identical in sound to the Rossini. I know you had the DAVE a while ago. How would you compare DAVE to Rossini (I don't know if you had the Bartok) using your criteria?
Anyone else compared Chord DAVE to Bartok? Thanks to all. |
opm,
Thanks so much for your comparison of Chord and Bartok. I found a review that found the Chord TT2 was more precise than the Bartok. Another review was by a professional violinist who thought the Bartok was more resolved than the Chord DAVE. Perhaps the TT2 has a sharper, faster sound than the DAVE. Just because the more expensive flagship is SUPPOSED to be better, the tonal qualities of the cheaper may appeal to someone better. This is a great lesson in the fact that every product is unique, and careful auditioning is needed by the buyer. An honest dealer is an asset, who has the experience to know the attributes of each product, and is not just a salesman who says the expensive item is better. Sometimes, not always. "Better" means different things to each listener, depending on his preferences. |
kren0006,
You raised good points that I thought of also. Usually Jay and I have similar assessments of the objective qualities of any component, even from my primitive computer audio going against his ultimate in-room listening. I agree with his findings that dac 1 has more HF extension, articulation and spatiality, which are usually indications of greater clarity. So I was puzzled to hear him say that dac 2 has greater clarity. I think nearly everyone agrees that dac 2 has more body and richness of tone. These are characteristics of midrange enhancement. How to resolve this conundrum? I believe that the midrange is more dominant than HF for dac 2, whereas dac 1 gives more HF and less midrange. Since the midrange is the most important core of most music, that could be why Jay felt that dac 2 had the greater clarity. I like great midrange also, and many times I liked dac 2 for that. But chazzzy and I felt that dac 1 had more subtlety and nuance, at the slight sacrifice of tonal richness. Dac 2 definitely has more comfort factor, which is the beauty of its midrange.
My decades of experience with many components is that if something new has more HF than my reference, the midrange may be sacrificed and thinner on the new, so at first the reference is more comfortable and still seems right and better. Then I find that as I get used to the new, I hear more HF of course, but the midrange and bass are both focused better with greater clarity. Then when I go back to the reference, I don't like it as much anymore, as it is veiled by comparison to the new.
Both dac 1 and 2 each have something to offer, and I wrote several times that I had trouble distinguishing them. They are very close in quality, as you say.
Since you preferred dac 2, Rossini, and 4425 said that the Bartok is nearly identically sounding to the Rossini, then the Bartok would be a great purchase for you. As for me, I would go for the Chord TT2 which opm says "The chord sound is very sharp, fast, and for me it has the best soundstage of all the dacs I have heard." But who knows, if you can audition both the Chord TT2 and Bartok together at home, you might like the character of the Chord. It is much cheaper than Bartok. |
kren,
I don't know what speakers you currently have, but if they are on the rich and warm side, and you warm the sound with Pass/Luxman type electronics, you might like the Chord TT2 better than Bartok. With the HF emphasis of the XLF, even with gold bullets in the SR cable, it is clear that the Bartok would be your choice. For the Wilson models in your price range, who knows? Careful matching is key. As Jay says, you can play it safe with Bartok and Wilson. But then the sound might warm up more than you anticipate, and you might want to get less warm amps than Pass/Luxman. I wonder what amps Wilson uses for reference?
The synergy journey is endless, because changing one component alters the synergy, which means you have to redo the whole system. My approach is actually much simpler--I go for detail/clarity in every component on the long march towards the pure transparency of live, unamped music. |
chazzzy,
I hope I make it to 96 3/4 years of age with good enough hearing. My mother past 70 claimed she "hears perfectly" but when I measured her hearing with the Audio CD (fantastic tool, get it) she was good to only 7 kHz. Since the highest note on the piano has a fundamental of 4 kHz, she had useful enough hearing to enjoy music. My dad's left ear at the time was deaf above 2 kHz, and he noted much less musical enjoyment. That was from riding to work with the windows open on the highway, I believe. Be careful with your drums, etc.
Awards to you for being correct about the identities of dac 1 and 2, and all your observations. Your experience with the Bartok was helpful to me, thanks. |
kren,
Yes, this thread is primarily about Jay’s journey, but it was fascinating that the twists and turns of this dac shootout and commentary led to so much help to everyone in search of their own nirvana. For example, although Jay didn’t answer my question about the Chord DAVE, poster opm came out of the blue and was very helpful. Chazzzy also was informative in being the first here to describe the essential tonality of the Bartok, which was confirmed later by opm. So even if Jay is not going to purchase cheaper items to consider for himself, these discussions led to useful input from anyone who seeks lower cost high value items. It is even funny that Jay considers the Rossini as a lower cost high value dac. If 4425 is right, then the Bartok is an even greater outstanding value.
So feel free to indicate the details of your system, so we can help with our advice. Nothing personal--you won't undress in front of us, lol. It is difficult to A/B items at dealers, so home trials are mandatory to really be comfortable about making major purchases. This thread can help with the options. For now, I’ll say that Audio Research (if yours is tubes, and even solid state ARC) is on the warm side, although for tubes it is more neutral than the classic tube sound of Conrad Johnson and others. I was impressed with ARC sound at home years ago as having compelling musical qualities that I like, but then realized that great solid state offered more clarity, now confirmed by Jay. I am not familiar with Spendor speakers, but my guess is that they are warmer than Wilson in general. You might do nicely with the Bartok, but there is a chance that you might prefer Chord if you stick with Spendor and ARC. But if you go Wilson, then Bartok might be better for you. |
Frankly, I am honored to be the subject of so many interesting, insightful and critical responses. I don't try to stir up trouble for the sake of notoriety, but just describe what I hear, putting it into my perspective of long musical and audio system experience. It will be surprising when I now reveal that my approach to live music is somewhat different than for audio systems. This is relevant because Kren's excellent, informative connoisseurship of Spendor speakers reminded me of a few things. I appreciate Kren's taste in the new more detailed Spendor designs, as having the best combination of the sweet classic Spendor sound with the new technology precision. Spendor is a GREAT classic company founded long before Wilson. When I dumped my huge Maggie Tympani 1D, I got the mini monitor Rogers LS 3/5a, and was hooked on it for a few years for its clarity and naturalness. Someone played a Spendor mini monitor for me, and I appreciated its greater beauty even if the Rogers had more snap.
I know that few people here are interested in violins, but Kren's taste is similar to my holy grail quest for my dream violin my whole life. I have played a few thousand old and new violins made from 1500 to the present. The few rare, highly prized violins now command tens of millions of bucks. I was transfixed when I played a few of them. At one auction, in my left hand I held and contemplated a gorgeous Amati, made in the mid 1600's. This beautiful looking, sweet sounding instrument was owned by Mussolini. This tyrant at least had great taste. In my right hand I held a Stradivarius, made in the early 1700's. Amati made feminine looking sweet instruments that weren't as powerful as those of his best student, Strad, whose innovative sound was bolder, more powerful, not as sweet. Strad is more highly valued today, because it offers the best combination of everything--power, HF brilliance, and still excellent sweetness. 600 Strads survive, I played about a dozen, and one which was truly special. I think of Kren who seems to have optimized the combination of sweetness and brilliance in his choice of his present Spendor D model.
So in my music making, I like the combination of sweetness and brilliance. The trouble is that no audio system approaches my musical experiences as both listener and performer. I regard the live experience as the MUSIC, but view an ideal audio system as merely the passive honest messenger who transparently reveals the news (music), without editorializing the news. I love the colors of the real music, but if the audio system colors or editorializes it, I am losing the real music to an extent. The truth is that all systems editorialize, and I seek the least editorialization. So my quest for the highest clarity and detail in the system is different from my quest for the beautiful colors of the real thing--the live unelectronic music.
Chazzzy, I have used several headphones in my regular audio system. My favorite is Beyerdynamic 880, then AKG 1000, Grado 1000. I tried various electrostatic phones--expensive Sennheiser, Stax going back to 1980. I had hoped that the purity of the stat phones would give me the purity of my stat speakers, but the headphone effect is like being in a closet, which greatly magnifies the bass, muddying everything. I have improved the situation by using small cups around the cushions which give me a little distance from my ears, creating a close range ear speaker. Still, the tonal balance is not as pleasing as my in-room speakers. My favorite phones I listed are dynamic ones. Horrors--I have bashed dynamic room speakers while I like these dynamic phones! Why is this? The dirty secret is clever EQ by the designers of these phones to avoid the confining closet effect of phones on your head, and tailor the sound to the designer's liking. Judicious EQ really works in many situations.
I haven't used these phones on my computer outputs in a long time, so I don't remember whether they benefit me. Part of this is laziness, but many headphone lovers after initial fascination, get tired of it. We like music in a real space like our room or hall, but don't like it given by intravenous injection with the headphone. I'll get out my Beyerdynamic 880's and listen again. So for all of Jay's videos over the last year or two, I have listened with just my iMac stock audio system. It's good enough to let me hear the differences Jay presented.
I wish Kren well on maximizing the potential of his Spendor. If a Chord dac has the precision that opm says, then the Spendor could have that magic marriage of sweetness and even higher clarity, which I enjoyed when I briefly played that great 1736 Strad. Well done, Kren! |
pokey77,
Oh yes, thanks for acknowledging agreement. Even with different preferences, there was something we agreed about. The more open are the communications, people can realize they agree about more and more. This requires an open mind. I could come over to anyone's house, blindfold them, learn their tastes, and show how I could please them with judicious EQ that suited them. If they want more detail, I could swap their speaker cable for zip cord, and they would beg me where to buy this unknown component for $10-100K which reveals more HF and dissolves veils. "Oh, is there a review of this 500 lb monoblock or cyber plasma cable that I could read to confirm what I just heard?" No there isn't, from the audio press that thrives on presenting expensive things to serve the interests of the audio industry.
Now Jay has concluded that spending over $30K or so on a dac is a waste of money, which should be put elsewhere. I say the best speaker. I stlll preferred the MSB over the cheaper Rossini, but the differences were small. You could live happily with either dac. |
Kren,
Yes, for smaller scale music, mini monitors are quite compelling. One additional reason I just thought about is how the drivers are close together, creating better time alignment. Perhaps Dave Wilson was inspired by mini monitors and wanted to create large speakers to utilize this concept. With my medium height electrostatics, I place them close together to obtain tight imaging like my former Rogers mini monitor. What do you think of ricevs' most recent video of those medium size cheap speakers a few pages ago? I'll see if I can post the link later today.
chazzzy,
Yes, I heard all of Jay's videos using the stock iMac system exclusively. For video 3 of MSB/DCS at work, I used my HP laptop exclusively. That system has less bass and more HF dominance than my home iMac. I was better able to hear the differences using the HP vs iMac. Since I mainly listen for midrange/HF accuracy, I found the HP system to be more revealing. No headphones in either case. I will get out my headphones and see if I can hear the differences easier than with the stock iMac.
On violins, the pinnacle of design and results was reached by Strad. He lived to 93 and was still making violins when he died. He experimented with different shapes, thicknesses of the top and back. I played an early 1690 instrument, and mostly the instruments of his golden period from 1700 to 1736. That wonderful 1736 was made at age 92, the year before he died. (There is hope for me as I continue to improve with age.) It is pictured on the cover of a CD/LP from 1987, to commemorate the 250 year anniversary of Strad's death. It is early digital and has some severe digititis in a few spots, but it is live and upfront exciting. It is SCD13 from START (state of the art) Records, released 1988, called Gala Stradivarius Concert, from the Royal Academy of Music Foundation. The entire string orchestra plays Strad instruments (he also made a few violas, cellos, basses). I have both the LP and CD.
No later violin maker has figured out why Strad is still king. I have read theories which sounded good. One particular maker claimed he understood the great makers' tuning system of topographic thicknesses of the top and bottom. I played his instrument and wasn't impressed, unfortunately. So SOTA was reached 300 years ago!
Sonus Faber is an Italian speaker maker inspired by the great Cremonese violin makers. Their models include Amati, Strad, Guarneri, the greatest families of makers of all time. The violins of Amati appeal to dainty women who like their sweet, delicate sound. Guarneri del Gesu was the greatest of that family, whose sound tends to be more aggressive and bold of them all. I played a few del Gesu's, and hated most of them, although my friend said that the walls were shaking from the power of a del Gesu he tried. The most prestigious violinists tend to fall into either the Strad or Guarneri camp. Some own both, for different music and moods.
rh67,
Yes, it is good to have a few hobbies so you don't go overboard on any one. The mechanical precision of motorcycles and cars can help appreciation of well designed audio gear. |
grey9hound,
Yes, I found certain tube preamps, like the original Theta, especially when Roger Majeski tubes were used, had more accuracy and detail than others of the classic tube sound. But the Theta was still less accurate/detailed than SS, so that's when I switched to SS. |
kren, Here’s the video from ricevs of the ultra cheap Lil Audio Silver 8 system. https://youtu.be/p_VqDN5-878On the 1st song, "Way down deep" to me the overall sound is brilliant, sharp and clear. To me, all the selections show excellent resolution and neutrality from the diverse voices and instruments. My guess is you would find the tweeter too sharp and hot, and the voice somewhat cold and sterile. Your Spendor D9.2 looks like a nice design with sweeter midrange/HF than this Lil Audio. What do you think? For only $11K, I see why you didn’t find any speaker to equal the D9.2. To spend $15K or more on the Bartok, much greater than the cost of the D9.2, requires some soul searching, unless you think your D9.2 cannot be beaten at many multiples of the price. All the full range Wilsons are multiples of the price, and perhaps even though they might have more HF detail than the D9.2, the sweet midrange and coherent HF of the D9.2 might be superior to that range in a Wilson. It would be great if you can record this song and post here so we could compare the two systems. Jay, Your latest XLF video with the gold bullets sounds great. There is more sweetness and still the excellent mid/HF detail of the XLF. This could be your winning combination that cannot be beaten by any other speaker for what you want. That Lil Audio system does challenge the XLF, though. I hope you can demo a few of those selections on your XLF. Thanks. |
chazzzy,
Thanks for the violin video, which I saw before. In the opening, you see Daniel Hope, a prominent violinist talking and playing. Unfortunately, he is playing in a very reverberant large room with wood floors and no furniture. No good audiophile would put his system in such a room. One time I went to a leading London dealer and was considering two great 18th century violins. His showroom was small but very reverberant. My favorite was violin A. I went back to the hotel and played in the wall-to-wall carpeted cafeteria. This time I preferred violin B. I was confused and didn’t buy either one. I found that in reverberant rooms the sound is darker in sound, with more low freq emphasis. The best rooms for playing, as with audio systems, are some magical combination of bare floors, carpets and other room treatments.
I tried my Beyerdynamic DT 880 headphones into the headphone jack of the iMac. No question that the headphones better reveal the full range sound and spatial qualities than just the stock audio coming out of the mediocre speakers on the back. But the closet-like headphone effect is a disadvantage compared with the openness of even mediocre speakers in a room. These 880’s were the top choice of Headroom, a now defunct company for headphone amps and headphones. They have a gentle, tasteful HF rise which is good for detail. But I found that the crummy Beats phones sold by Apple produces inferior sound to listening to just the computer system without Beats.
More in a PM to you.
|
opm,
Reverb magnifies and scatters all frequencies. I found when playing my violin is that it sounds darker in a very reverberant room than in a room with the right mixture of bare floors and a little carpet, etc. My friend observed this when he listened to me play. Of course, the other extreme of completely carpeted yields dull sound because of absorption at all freq. In reverberant concert halls, this effect is exaggerated--midhall sounds totally veiled because of all the multi path effects. I don't have a technical explanation of what I hear. Room treatments have the most benefits in reducing smear from low freq, but bad reverberant rooms smear HF as well, resulting in darker sound.
35 years ago, TAS had a review of top world concert halls. They rated the Vienna Musikverein as #1, and said that any seat sounded excellent. So I went, and tried the 3rd, 12th and 25th rows. That hall is fairly reverberant with its wooden floor, chairs and walls. The 3rd row was clear, but the 12th was rolled off, and the 25th was so badly smeared that I moved closer because it was intolerable.
What a BS review from TAS.
|
chazzzy,
The recording is on the laid back, mellow side, then all of a sudden near the end, the higher pitched flute surprises with its loudness. I didn't hear much HF from the flute, but it is brighter than the preceding instruments, so appears to stick out on this veiled recording. The ear is most sensitive at 3-4 kHz, so we are hearing high energy in this upper midrange/lower HF region. Sibilance is usually at 6 kHz, and is usually heard with consonants of the voice especially since singers often put their lips on the mike. Processing effects exaggerate this.
|
kw6,
Thanks for your input, but in my experience Martin Logans with their curved panels have less clarity in HF than the few straight panels like my Audiostatic 240. The original Kingsound King was the best of that company. Sanders Sound Systems are decent straight panels. ML designs yield a large sweet spot, but due to multipath distortion and rolloff of HF off axis, are not as revealing as straight panels, which have to be carefully angled to face the listener's ears. Narrow sweet spot, but worth it for a single listener.
Curved panels have multipath HF smearing, and Jay actually demonstrated that a Wilson had better clarity than Martin Logan 13. I love the HF on Jay's XLF, finding them more revealing than most electrostatics, which are curved.
I do appreciate the uniform coherence of most electrostatic panels in their range, but HF is their shortcoming. In fact, way back, the Koss 1A was a large stat panel with a large dome tweeter for HF. At the time, I didn't understand their rationale for using an "inferior" dynamic tweeter. But the overall sound of that Koss was excellent--the dynamic tweeter had excellent HF extension which complemented the midrange and bass transparency of the stat panel.
No doubt that your Logan does a good job with the saxophone, which is mainly a midrange instrument. But for the HF bite of the sax, I like straight panels better. |
kw6,
Also, for the violin I prefer ultimate HF extension which gives the bite and attack. The miracle of the live violin or any other brilliant instrument is the marriage of sweetness with bite/attack, which no system quite manages to do. One day a fabulous transducer will be available, driven by the sweetness of tubes. I heard the Alan Hill-designed Plasmatronics speaker which used the plasma gas above 500 Hz. Very natural and sweet HF. Some electrostatics were driven directly by tubes, such as the original Beveridge, Acoustat X. I heard that Beveridge, but it was a little rolled off in HF, still with a wonderful midrange and spatial effect. A later Beveridge was a conventional stat able to be used with any amp, which I never heard. |
kw6,
Right. Stats have great purity so you can get nice subtle punch and crispness with low SPL. I am happy with string quartets played at average levels of 50-60 dB and peaks of 80 dB. The high efficiency of hybrid Logans gives great satisfaction for higher SPL's in classical and jazz music, but for loud rock, dynamic speakers are better. Sanders Sound Systems uses hybrids with straight panels, also good efficiency. Very reasonable prices due to sales direct. 30 day free trial, and Roger Sanders is a nice guy to talk to. He started out using curved panels, and switched to flat panels. His white paper on the subject is informative. Unfortunately, he is a small company, so doesn't get good rooms at shows. I heard one in a customer's large room at his home and was impressed, but at a NY show it was demonstrated in a tiny room and sounded mediocre. |
Jay,
Your last video has something for everyone, good job. You know how the last few words are the punch line? You said if someone is looking for a forward dac, go for the Chord DAVE. Bingo! |
Let us know the customs rates from whichever country. I'm waiting for my Rouge Audio amp from Italy. |
Totally correct. Reference songs are needed, so we can judge the objective quality of the system, not the beauty of the song. In a way, the music shouldn't be too enjoyable, because then we would get distracted from the purpose of A/B'ing. Good music can be enjoyed on a mediocre system, which is not the purpose of the A/B.
Jay, I'll be a little contradictory and ask you to play the same songs from the video from ricevs, of the Lil Audio Silver 8. I reposted it on the previous page 334. The next video of the smaller Lil Audio is veiled and rolled off compared to Alexx on the song, "Liberty." However, the Silver 8 seems to be outstanding, far superior to the smaller Lil Audio. How it objectively compares to your XLF system is unknown. Both are superb in different ways. That's the value of A/B'ing on the same songs. Thanks. |
If the Soulution 725 has the expected characteristics of--
incredible dynamics
- amazing bass
- 8k resolution
- musical,
Then Yes to all your questions--"Will it best my Gryphon? Can this preamp make my Gryphon amps sound better than their own preamp?
Can constellation Audio sound better with this?"
Why? 8k resolution means clarity, which makes everything sound better=more clarity. After a while, once you understand this basic principle, you won't have to keep spending big bucks to verify all this again and again in many systems. Unless you keep trying to flavor your sound according to taste, which can change all the time.
|
If you find that Pandora + Essence/Antileon "clicks" for you, that means you like the relatively euphonic sound of that combo. But I believe you value clarity more than some people think you do, and my point was that the clearer (so we think from others' experiences) 725 will enhance the clarity of everything--amps, speakers, cables, stands, whatever. Getting the XLF was a quantum leap in clarity which we both appreciate. Your passion for its revealing clarity leads you to be even more enthusiastic at obtaining pieces with reputations for extraordinary clarity, such as the 725. There will never be too much resolution/clarity if you keep SPL's sensible. You already sweetened the XLF will the gold bullets, so I predict the 725 will be a clear winner in every sonic department. For me, I prefer the greater air and crispness of the silver bullets, and I predict that the 725 will still win with silver bullets. Either gold or silver, 725 the probable winner.
Since I recently did better time alignment of my tweeters with my main speakers, I have obtained much greater clarity. With the same Mytek amp, I can't believe how much more music I am appreciating. More details effortlessly come through, and I wonder how I could have missed a few basic melodic lines before. |
Jay,
YES, YES, I am looking forward to hearing the new battery operated preamp. I am putting my Goal Zero Yeti battery/AC regenerator trial on hold, because I want to first try the IceEdge amp Ric recommended, and later with his mods. Look at the 10Audio review of his modded VTV Purifi amp, how it was far superior to the veiled Purifi amp of NAD. Based on Mike Fremer's disaster with the outdoor power switch for his home generator, how his AQ Niagara 7000 couldn't remedy the bad sound, and how the PS Audio PP20 and 15 restored his great sound, I am curious about what you heard with the PS Audio PP's.
My guess is that all these conditioners have drawbacks--AQ, Shunyata, etc. But battery power is the way to go. For low power preamps, small batteries will do, but for big power amps, even the large capacity batteries probably struggle, or give few hours before recharge is needed. You still need the AC regenerator which takes the DC battery power and regenerates the AC. Even the Boulder and Pandora preamp external power supplies may be corrupted by EMI/RF, so battery power/AC regeneration is probably beneficial to even Boulder and Pandora. You may even find that if B is purer than P with their power supplies, the P with battery/AC regeneration may charge ahead of the standard B as is.
This is an unchartered area of important investigation, and you have the opportunity to be a leader in this quest. I will eventually do my own tests, and be interested in what you find. Maybe your suburban power situation is not as bad as mine in big NYC. |
For those with deep pockets, the $20-30K Stromtank battery/AC inverter distributed by D'Agostino is probably the way to go for AC purity. Goal Zero is much cheaper, and was found in a review to offer the exact same benefits as the Stromtank. |
I can't tell much. I don't know if you posted a previous XLF playing this song--I think it is "Liberty." If you did, was it with the silver bullets and other amps? If this latest video is with the gold bullets, there are too many variables, so whatever the new thing is, I can't draw any conclusions. All I can say is that the sound now seems more rounded than before, but there are too many variables to say what the new component does. If you have that previous video, just say what components were used in that, and then say what components are used in the new video, but of course omitting the identity of the new component. |
I don't know what is commonly meant by "noise floor." "Noise" is obvious, like hiss in analogue recordings. But you can hear hiss in recordings at maybe 20 dB, yet there may be great resolution, clarity and detail at 30 dB and above. Even at 20 dB, the hiss is steady, but the changing transients at 20 dB may be audible. Highly resolved amps and speakers will reveal more of the hiss/noise as well as the musical content. On noiseless digital recordings, I have never heard any hiss. We are interested in greater resolution of the information content of the music. If people hear more low level detail from a component, I believe it is because the component reveals more information with less of some type of distortion, but nobody hears the "noise floor" whatever that means. You could have a component with rolled off HF, less resolution across the entire freq range, with unmeasurable noise. |
chazzzy,
Thanks for the moving video of American Soldier. Jay was in the army. Were you? This message should be thought about every day, not just July 4.
|
indranilsen,
Which regenerator products did you try? PS Audio Power Plants or other? What effect on the sound did they have? Although I have never installed better receptacles in my apartment, the power quality is very variable in my urban area. I would expect the power quality to still vary even with perfect receptacles, although the average quality would still be better with perfect receptacles.
With an Isotek power conditioner or an isolation transformer, there was minimal improvement in average power quality, with still wide and bad variation. With my current Shunyata Denali 6000, average quality is much better, but still with some variation.
Maybe you live in a suburban or rural area where the power quality variation is small, so the crucial factor is the receptacle.
|
