Very close comparison on round 2, perhaps more difficult than the already difficult round 1. By a very narrow margin, I again prefer #1 to #2, as I think #1 in round 2 is the same amp as #1 in round 1. At first I decided to concentrate on the loud dynamic part at 5:40 for #1 and 11:55 for #2. Very very close, maybe #1 is more fierce on those scary thunder/lightning-like blasts, the way it should be for these sounds, so #1 is more accurate and detailed, but only by a fraction of a hair.
The quiet guitar twangs followed by the voice, "it's a mystery ..." starting at 0:48 for #1 and 7:00 for #2 are more revealing of the differences. #1 shows the guitar slightly more sparkly crisp and with more delicate nuance than #2. The voice is more raw and dry on #1 and warmer on #2.
The lesson is that low level detail from quiet music is better at differentiating amps or anything than banging away with loud stuff.
With the stock power cords and Straight Wire speaker cables on round 2, I come to the same conclusions as in round 1 with Transparent all the way. Since round 2 was more difficult for me than round 1, I think that the Transparent cables are more revealing of the differences than the stock + Straight Wire cables. Since the amps are so close, I could imagine that if I think #1 is more detailed than #2 with the all Transparent system, then #2 might be more detailed than #1 if #1 is handicapped with stock + Straight Wire, but another shootout would need to be done to confirm this. I would suggest a future shootout could be done with Jay's amps between all Transparent and stock + Straight Wire. Apparently Jay has already done this for himself. He found that within seconds, the Transparent was shown to open up the universe. I defy anyone to reliably say within seconds which amp he prefers. It took me many back and forth trials over the last hour to come to any conclusions, and I am still not totally sure. I could change my mind tomorrow. |
Chazzzy007,
Bring your great ears to see if your perception and preference matches mine. We had fun in the DAC shootout, and I think these amp differences are much smaller than the DAC differences. |
Derek,
5:43 vs 11:55 is for macro dynamic force.
0:48 vs 7:00 is for micro detail. Perhaps most revealing is the spoken male voice right after the delicate guitars. Normally the voice for music should have a little natural warmth, but this recording is designed to be fierce, fitting the tense subject of "private investigations" so I think that just like the closing fierce crashes at 5:43 and 11:55, the spoken voice should not sound romantic, but should be scary and raw. I find #1 best communicates what the engineers and composer intended for this piece. |
You are smart for recording all 3 videos with different ancillaries, keeping both amps on the same ancillaries. The 725 should enable easier analysis of the amp differences. Just like Transparent was more revealing than stock + Straight Wire, making round 1 easier than round 2, the 725 should perform in like manner. I guess you can do round 3 with a song you already know has been accepted by YT. Thanks for enduring YT frustrations for us. |
Jay,
yyzsantabarbara wrote that he is offering his ricevs' modded Voyager for your evaluation. He notes its clarity with a little warmth. My guess is that you and people here and on your YT channel will love his amp for its winning combination of power, clarity and a little warmth. Apparently your undisclosed amp seems to have these attributes, and I believe his Voyager GaN will be the most worthy challenger to your undisclosed amp. My stock Rouge has made a great showing, but I tip my hat to yyz's efforts and the possibility that his modded Voyager gets the gold medal, and I get silver. |
Jay,
Now that I have established my credibility, why don't you try #16 or 18 zip cord on your speakers, bare wire on the terminals of the XLF and amps? Many people don't like zip because the bass is weak, HF are tizzy compared to any audiophile speaker cable I have tried. Put another way, the audiophile speaker cable is relatively dull and veiled compared to zip. Forget about technical arguments like how zip has low quality materials. Just listen, and hear the positive attributes of zip even if there are flaws. The positive attributes will differentiate the amps even more.
Maybe I missed it, but did round 1 use Transparent Opus speaker cables for your mystery amp and Straight Wire speaker cables for the Rouge amp? If so, then the Rouge had a handicap for round 1.
A big lesson of this shootout is that there is no perfect amp. Money has little to do with the truth of this statement. The Rouge has flaws, yes. But so does the mystery amp. I wish we could compare the mystery amp to the Soulution 701 monos, perhaps the best amp for clarity and other qualities. We already know that the 725 preamp has more clarity than the mystery preamp used in this A/B. Even the 701 has flaws. Some listeners here and on the YT channel stated that #1 (probably Rouge) has greater clarity and detail even with its flaws. If I am wrong, and #1 is the mystery amp, then this paragraph still applies--they are close, at least on YT. Whatever the distortions of YT, this A/B has been far more difficult than the DAC shootout and most of your past shootouts, all on YT.
Whatever the identity of #1 and #2, it is objectively apparent that #1 is brighter and perhaps distorted compared to #2. One knowledgeable musician wrote me privately said #1 is better in most ways. I bet that for exciting recordings such as Metallica and the last minute of Private Investigations with those shocking outbursts, #1 brings more excitement, whereas for romantic soft music, #2 is preferable. Jay, please tell us what you think for different types of music.
|
tweak1,
Regarding the foot shuffle on Private Investigation, etc,--on which amp are they more obvious, #1 or #2? Can you locate the timings which show this? After round 1 and 2, what are your objective findings about #1 and #2, and which do you prefer?
I expect the ricevs' modded Rouge to be about equal to your EVS1200. Ric used an Italian company for his stock IceEdge before he modded it, and learned about Rouge. So I expect your stock Voyager to be better than my stock Rouge. Yyzsantabarbara finds very significant improvement to the stock Voyager with ricevs' mods. That's why I am presumptively giving the gold medal to Voyager, and I accept the silver medal. |
cascadesphil,
This is a happy outcome for you and us. You can give us a second opinion about the relative merits of the EVS1200 (IceEdge) and the modded Voyager (GaN) in your system and with your ears and music. After that, it would be great to drive to Jay and compare the Voyager to Jay's reference amps, both the Constellation and the mystery amp. If it is too cumbersome for Jay to do another shootout video, at least a discussion between you and Jay would be most informative for us. Maybe Jay can do a YT video of that discussion, which will attract attention. |
cascadesphil,
Right. Who wants to read ASR "reviews" devoid of listening impressions? By that criteria, Jay's class A 200/400 watt amp should be weak in the bass compared to the Rouge 600/1200 watt. I doubt that is true--Jay will let us know for sure. |
Grannyring,
From yyz comments, the Coda #8 is warmer than some of his other amps, such as the Voyager and especially the AHB2. The Rouge is neutral to me. What specific sonic qualities did you find with the EVS 1200, which is comparable to a modded Rouge? |
Round 3, like round 1 may have a difference in speaker cables--Transparent for Class A amp, Straight Wire for Rouge. This may handicap the Rouge, Jay should clarify this in his comments on his final assessment.
Still, I again prefer presentation #1 to #2 for #1's better clarity on the voice and sax. Voice at 0:30 for #1, at 5:50 for #2. Sax at 4:40 for #1, at 10:00 for #2. #1 shows more focus and upfront quality on voice, with clearer enunciation of syllables, as a test for HF resolution. Sibilants on syllables are an important component of the complete tonality of the voice, and it is unfortunate than many audiophiles are so allergic to sibilants that they end up with smoothed, duller sound.
The sax is also more focused and upfront on #1. More HF content thins the sax a little on #1. On #2 there is an overall more laid back impression of both voice and sax. The voice and sax are both fatter on #2.
These are still small differences, although I think the 725 helps to show the differences better. With the more resolved and transparent 725, the differences between #1 and #2 are greater.
My vote is #1 on all 3 rounds. |
Yes, don't be shy. Kindly give your analysis and preferences here, chazzzy007, thezaks, grey9hound, ricevs, mrdecibel, rh67, speedbump6, 4425.
derekw_hawaii, logydoghan, psnyder149, kren0006, cascadesphil, tweak1, yyzsantabarbara, viber7--continue to elaborate on your previous comments.
Thanks to all for their impressions. Thanks to Jay for his work and upcoming analysis. We have all learned a lot. |
kren0006,
Thanks for your detailed comments. I do know what you mean. You also have good ears, so even if you and I have different preferences, I know that in the future I can find your comments about other products useful to me. |
kren0006,
I give 80% probability that Rouge is the #1 presentation, like you. But at home, the Rouge has a darker sound than my Mytek or Bryston, with more bass, lower midrange content. This group would have hated my Mytek, so that's why I sent the Rouge, which did well. Because of the darker sound, I still admit a 20% probability that Rouge is the #2 presentation. We'll know soon! |
lordrootman,
Correct, right on the money. You have great ears also. Thanks. |
thezaks,
As with viber7, you also have great ears. I know we have different tastes, which is fine. Thanks for your assessment. |
viber7,
Great analysis. We objectively hear the same things, so your assessments are informative for me. That means on a future product assessment, I can rely on your ears to then consider that product for myself. If you prefer #2 for your musical tastes, that's fine with me. I just have trouble with someone who says that #2 is more incisive and dissects the music better. If he says he likes #1 better because it is more laid back and so forth, I'm glad he likes whatever he does and can save lots of money by going for #1, but for purposes of informed discussion this listener's analysis is not useful for me. |
logydoghan,
Agree with everything except one point. Both the Rouge and mystery amp are serious amps of great quality. Different sounds for different tastes. Each has advantages and drawbacks compared to the other. It is incorrect to say that one is better than the other, especially since most honest people found them close. Those who say that one blows away the other are merely hype-sters, salesmen, etc. But it is correct to say that the Rouge is a great amp, and not just for the price.
I hope in the near future cascadesphil brings his modded Voyager to Jay to compare with his mystery amp. I predict that the Voyager will give everything the mystery amp does, and cascadesphil and Jay will honestly say that the Voyager is a great amp, and not just for the price. If Jay has the time to do that video shootout, then the votes could be more evenly balanced for either.
The Coda #16 may be a similarly superb SOTA amp with a little warmth that competes with any ultra expensive amp. At $13k without meters or $16K with meters, it is considered cheap in Jay's world, but more expensive than many want to spend. All these amps, plus Boulder 1161 or 1160 should be considered as serious challengers to the ultra expensive amps. It is also interesting that viber7 said that the Block in AB mode is more like the Rouge, and preferable to the class A mode for certain music. That indirectly confirms that if the Rouge is very similar to the Block in AB mode, then the Rouge is of high quality that competes very well with much more expensive amps. Maybe the Rouge vs Boulder 1161 which is mainly class AB would be a tough fight. $1700 vs $22,000 or $32,000.
Jay, see if Mike will permit you to bring over the Rouge to compare with his Boulder 1160 or 1161. |
psnyder149,
Let's discuss your statements, "I begin this longwinded post (Ron, you can just ignore it!) by addressing a presumption that brightness equates with detail. This is a false equivalency. What artificially high brightness sometimes does is make the details more apparent, it does not create them." Later, "Amp 2 is both less bright and more detailed."
There is some truth and falsehood in the above. Yes, we agree that brightness makes the details more apparent. (I am not advocating CREATING details, because that is distortion not present in the recording). It means nearly the same thing to say that brightness equates with detail. The 2 statements ARE equivalent, but of course other factors are involved in overall detail perception. See my last paragraph. In musical terms, brighter components call more attention to higher freq, so the higher freq overtones of any instrument and voice are revealed more. The less bright component usually calls attention more to lower freq, because the HF overtones are lessened. This may happen with midrange dominant material like voices. Less HF may be more pleasing to some people because the beauty of the midrange stands out. Revealing more HF takes attention away from the midrange, so the midrange seems less prominent. That's why the component which is less bright may seem to have more midrange detail which is preferred by some.
An obvious gross illustration is if a speaker tweeter is blown. There is little HF, so all you get is midrange and bass. But it is obvious that the speaker with the blown tweeter is missing the HF overtones which are a part of the natural sound of any instrument. It is important to reveal all the HF overtones to fully appreciate any instrument. The component that reveals less HF overtones is at a disadvantage, unless there are other factors as discussed in my next paragraph.
I will give an example of an experience I had many years ago that you might use as an illustration of your viewpoint. I had the Mission 770, a midsized floor standing dynamic speaker. It was bright and I liked it. I also had Stax SRX mk III electrostatic headphones. The tonal balance of this headphone on my head was less bright and balanced more to lower freq. Matching volumes, the Stax was far more detailed and musically natural than the dynamic 770 speaker. But that was mainly applicable to the midrange and lower freq. With HF instruments, it was a toss up between the 770 and Stax. Extreme HF like triangles were more lifelike on the 770, whereas upper midrange material like trumpets were better on the Stax. But the reason that the Stax overall was superior to the brighter 770 was that the Stax was a full range electrostatic which is far superior to the dynamic driver principle of the 770. Only in the dynamic tweeter was there good resolution perhaps comparable to the Stax in HF. But if I drove either the 770 or the Stax with a brighter amp, I got better clarity and detail in all freq, with more appreciation of the full spectrum of the tone of all instruments.
More later regarding the shootout. |
psnyder149,
I remember some time ago we had a good correspondence in private messages. Just refresh my memory about your musical training, experience, what music you listen to, where you sit in the concert hall, etc. Then I can respond later. |
kren0006,
You ignore the fact that a 5 year old has almost no experience with any music at all, whether live unamplified or processed audio. Objectively, his hearing measures better than me, but he doesn't understand what he is hearing or the relevance of it to real music. And he doesn't understand what "better" means. You are incorrect that musical training has nothing to do with audio. Appreciating music in audio systems is about understanding both music and the sound of it in live situations.
An analogy is that my taste sensations may be good, but I don't have the proper experience and education to be a wine or food connoisseur. I would need to take courses, go to cooking school, or gain a lot more real experience than I already have, in order to be qualified to be a connoisseur.
So Paul, please answer my questions so we can have a more intelligent discussion. |
Jay,
Soundstage with inaccurate electronics such as classic tubes or euphonic SS is big and bloated. But with accurate electronics like the S 725 it is smaller, with Individual images being more focused (smaller). Think of this as like a chessboard with 20 pieces clearly positioned and lots of empty spaces. The inaccurate electronics shows a larger, artificially magnified complete chessboard, but you can only find 15 pieces which are all larger and fuzzier, with obliteration of some of the empty spaces. From your descriptions of the 725, its high clarity, detail and transparency matches your observations of its soundstage.
No, I never saw or heard the 725, apart from your excellent videos where I picked up immediately on its stellar qualities. I have experience comparing other accurate electronics to euphonic ones, so I make the above statements. I'm sorry you sold it. The 725 is the best teacher you have ever had. |
Jay,
Before the 725 goes, maybe you can at least comment on the relative sonic qualities of it and your mystery preamp. If the character of the mystery preamp is similar to its companion mystery amp we just heard in the A/B, that would shed further light on that amp. I wish you had the time and energy to do an A/B between the two preamps. I was impressed with the 725 video you did a while ago, but that wasn't an A/B. |
I don't recall Jay saying that ARC or VAC as tube gear was better than 725 with either mystery amp or Constellation. Often Jay likes the diversion of tubes which help him relax. I remember Jay loving the 725 for its clarity, and also loving the mystery preamp for its different, more relaxed presentation, but I hope Jay can clarify how he now feels. A SS vs Tube A/B would be of interest, more so if it is also blinded, although it will be pretty obvious which is which. The tube lovers will say that the SS has unnatural brightness in HF and lack of clarity, and the SS lovers will say that the SS is natural and lifelike and the Tubes dull with less clarity. |
tweak1,
Scaena speakers are a contender. As much as I like ribbons, tall line sources are not time-aligned, because the distance to your ears from the top and bottom is different from in the middle, with infinite variations between. The Scaena doesn't appear to be that tall, so this problem is a little minimized. But the Wilsons ARE time aligned, which is a big factor in their clarity. The XLF has extraordinary treble clarity from the main tweeter which is uniquely used down to 1000 Hz, a big advantage.
Still, Jay should audition the Scaena, since listening is better than theory. |
Psnyder149 said PS Audio (power regenerator) versus everything plugged straight into wall yielded some improvements in clarity but lost dynamics so it was a trade off with overall small improvement. Jay, what exactly did you find?
It is worthwhile to improve outlets, wiring, and power cords, but RF noise must be dealt with, especially in urban places. In my NYC apartment, the RF is so bad that variations in sound at times are much greater than variations in amps. The Shunyata Denali 6000 greatly reduces these variations, but the idea of a pure sine wave is appealing. I am disappointed to hear about these drawbacks from the PS Audio--maybe it is due to their regenerators' own electronic distortions. Ricevs has reported big improvements without drawbacks from the Goal Zero battery/invertors. |
ricevs,
What is the problem with an all-in-one unit like the Goal Zero Yeti? The current Yeti 1500X has plenty of power and is reasonably priced still. Why would a separate 3000 watt inverter and battery be better? Sorry, I remember you posted links to such products many months ago, but maybe you can mention some again. Most important, have you personally tried them vs Yeti at home? Jay's negative experience with the PSA P20 shows that you must listen rather than fall in love with promises based solely on theory. |
ricevs,
Thanks. Can you link or mention the separates--3000 watt sine wave inverter, the batteries and charger?
I would think the larger Yeti can handle low power which is the case in classical music most of the time without having the fan come on. For loud transients, of course the fan would come on and then shut off quickly. In loud sustained musical passages, if the fan is on, you don’t hear it. But for soft passages, the fan obliterates low level detail, of course.
A more important factor is that when I talked to Goal Zero, they weren’t familiar with audio uses, since they market these products to campers and kitchen appliance users. They claimed that for audio uses, problems with grounding occur. They didn’t know how this could be prevented. Have your friends had problems with hum? |
Jay,
Didn't you prefer the source and preamp components on the Shunyata Denali, rather than into the wall or power strip? The Nordost qb8 is a special case with some quantum technology I don't understand. How does this Nordost compare with the Denali or a plain power strip? |
The Nordost system brings clarity to the entire freq range. As with more accurate electronics, increased clarity is associated with leaner bass, but the bass is tighter with greater clarity. More musical details are revealed without distortion because Nordost is carefully designed. It takes some time to get used to, and ultimately when more of the music is understood, you realize this is most natural and lifelike.
I like the simplicity of the Nordost qb8, but can we get the benefits without having the entire system (power cords, interconnects) of Nordost? Since Jay is using other brands with the qb8, maybe the answer is yes. Perhaps a Nordost power cord is top priority with the qb8 and the most important add-on. |
psnyder149,
You said about the Nordost SortKones, "They do not add anything, they just seem to focus and give more clarity and allow more detail through. My only analogy is cleaning a dusty window."
Thanks to you, so I will try them. Whether footers, electronics or cables, your statement communicates the ideal. Avoid warm things that add richness, bass, etc. The dusty window is like these things falsely added. The clarity and detail reveals more of the music. That's the Nordost philosophy. Even my cheap Nordost Vishnu power cord shows these traits.
|
The Alexx V seems intriguing. Like the XLF, the tweeter covers much of the upper midrange. The bass drivers are not as large as in the XLF. The reviewer implies that the bass is tight but not very deep. My guess is that the Alexx V is more coherent and tight than the XLF. So what did you dislike about the Alexx V when you heard it locally 2 summers ago?
Time alignment is most important for clarity and focused imaging. Wilson is the master, and I wouldn't consider any dynamic speaker company that ignores time alignment. The Magico M9 can produce lots of bass, but the reviewer implies the overall effect is a big sound which is unfocused. |
grey9hound,
Who knows how Transparent "calibrates" the cables. That's why the simplest, universalist approach is to use a 30 band EQ like my Rane ME 60. You do your own "calibration" by ear to either a subtle or larger degree. The cable deniers claim that the differences in sound of cables is largely due to EQ. They are largely correct. Transparent is laughing all the way to the bank with their $5000 "re-certification" BS. |
Jay,
Nice sound. Someone asked you to consider the large Soundlabs. As much as I like the electrostatic principle, the large convex curved Soundlabs violate the principle of time alignment. I've heard several of them, and their image is bloated, which detracts from the clarity of the electrostatic principle. My electrostatics are much smaller, and I beam the 48" x 5" panel to my ears for maximum clarity.
When will you reveal the identity of your mystery preamp + amp? Why wait? A few of us think we know, and I hope you reveal it before getting the next preamp (Classe delta?). |
I was reading between the lines in the Alexx V review that Jay posted. The speaker is tall, but the time alignment focuses the sound so it is not as big as a large Magico that the reviewer refers to. The reviewer doesn't mention the M9 which is the largest, but he talks about his small Magico S1 which focuses well. That's the advantage of small speakers, and the idea that the large Alexx V gives focus combined with power is very compelling. That's what time alignment does. With small speakers the drivers are close together, so time alignment is inherently easier than for large speakers where the drivers are far apart. For low freq, the wavelengths are large, so time alignment is less critical. That's why large Wilsons have the 2 bass drivers in a standard configuration in the lower cabinet. Genius, Dave Wilson.
Henry201, what evidence do you have that the large Wilsons are NOT time aligned nor phase coherent? Dave Wilson sought time alignment, which is thoroughly expressed in the setup procedures. Why would anyone put up with the ugly staggering of the non-bass drivers which is used for time alignment, when they could get a typical neat looking upright coffin of a box with Magico? Magico is not time aligned, which is a big factor in why I found all the Wilson models Jay has owned to be superior in clarity to the Magico M3 and M6 he owned. If Magico took their excellent drivers and time aligned them, their speakers would have more clarity.
Jay, one factor in the evenness of the freq response of the XLF is that the brilliant HF balances the very full bass of the largest bass drivers in the line. |
rbach,
The only thing I was vague about was the statement about the M9, which I have never heard in person or in videos. What I know from Jay's videos is that the M3 and M6 are big, bloated and unfocused compared to all the Wilsons Jay has presented. He reached a turning point especially with the Alexx, and I am on record as saying that the XLF especially has many excellent qualities that I value. I even preferred other speakers he presented, such as Franco Serblin and Fyne, to the Magicos. Magico spends all this money on the M series--drivers, cabinet design, which is great, but they ignore time alignment to their detriment.
Many reviewers write flowery prose to please manufacturers who advertise. Many of them have little musical training and experience, and have no reference for what live unamplified music sounds like in various environments at various seats in a hall. |
henry201,
I agree that certain things are not a matter of opinion--measurements are facts and cannot be disputed. I am interested in these facts about how Wilsons are not time aligned, but you haven't provided any links to support your claims. I don't know whether you have the time to do this. As a practicing physician, I don't, and would appreciate any information you have the time to provide. This is not commonly known. Most owners like Jay may not have the technical studies in mind, but either they or a Wilson expert set up the speakers, moving the upper drivers to achieve some sort of time alignment. The results of this setup are audible. It may be tricky to do, so some owners pay or have the dealer/expert do it as part of the retail price, and the results are worth it. I have some further technical insights, but they are only theoretical. What matters is the practical sonic results of doing the time alignment procedure, even if it is flawed. |
Jay,
I enjoyed your analysis of the S 725. This is consistent with your video with Mike B at Suncoast where he thought that the Boulder amps were a little tubelike compared to the Soulution amps.
One persistent question--is a top quality preamp better than DAC direct? There is a comment from King Ng near the top of the comments on your YT video. He has the Soulution 760 DAC which uses a top quality analog application stage with the same 500K microfarad capacitance. He implies that the 760 direct into his amp is a tiny bit better than adding the 725. I would think that most Soulution owners are after the highest clarity/transparency, so that makes sense.
My confusion is rooted in the following. Assume that DAC direct to amp means that the digital conversion is one stage, followed by the analog amplification stage, then into the amp. When you insert the preamp, are you adding another stage into the preamp, OR are you bypassing the DAC analog stage, and going from the digital conversion to your preamp stage and then into the power amp? If the second applies, then may the purest preamp stage win, and then if the dedicated preamp is purer than the analog stage of the DAC, it is clear that using the dedicated preamp stage is best. But if the first applies, then you are adding an additional stage. Since no electronic component is perfect, not even the 725, this would explain how King Ng found 760 direct into the amp is the best by a hair.
Since you like a "little sugar in your coffee"-type sound, that explains why you prefer the added preamp if the first way applies. Then the 725 is like a pinch of sugar, and other preamps are like several spoons, much sweeter and warmer. |
ronres,
I agree that "implementation trumps theory." For example, I love the low mass electrostatic principle, but I don't like how most electrostatics with large convex curved panels are poor implementations, and they have compromised clarity as a result. Dynamic drivers in boxes have obvious theoretical problems, but the implementation in the Wilson XLF is nearly the best I have seen, and the sonic results speak for themselves. I've had lots of belt drive and direct drive (DD) turntables over the years, and my Goldmund Studio DD has far superior sonics than my original Denon flagship DD. But my Linn Sondek Valhalla belt drive was far better than the Denon, just not as good as the Goldmund. At one point I owned the original belt drive Win Labs, and when I got the Win DD, it was better, using the same arm and cartridge. I cannot generalize and say whether DD is better than belt drive. |
Jay,
Ricevs has a good suggestion to look into Ralph Karsten of Atmasphere. His tube amps are unique, and probably offer the highest clarity of any tube amp, while providing the naturalness of vacuum tubes. I've always thought that electrons move better in a vacuum, and I wondered how electrons moving in solid semiconductors could be as natural. Classic tube lovers tolerate the rolled off HF and loose bass in return for the glorious midrange. I've experienced it, but when I caught on to SS's superior HF and bass control, I abandoned tubes.
As an experienced designer, Ralph has been studying class D for a long time, and may have come up with something you would like, for a mere $5300. |
Ricevs said it best--"Almost all DACs have an analog stage on the output of the DAC system. It is there, you must use it."
Therefore, for clarity/transparency, DAC direct is best. This is true if the output impedance of the DAC unit is comparably low as the output impedance of the added preamp, both going into the power amp. Adding a preamp imposes a layer of filmy fuzz. With the 725, the layer is very thin, like nanometers, so to speak. With most/all other preamps, the layer is thicker, like millimeters. For Jay and many listeners who want that extra "sugar in the coffee with more dynamics" type of sound, they prefer the extra analog preamp stage. |
pokey77,
Kren0006's statement has some merit in the context of where the listener is in the concert hall. Even a knowledgeable classical music lover who is accustomed to sitting in the 12th row (one third of the way back in a large hall) would be surprised if he moved up to the 1st row. The 1st row is MUCH brighter than the 12th row. It is louder, but since HF are absorbed more with distance than lower freq, and hall reverberations smear the HF preferentially, the 12th row sounds very rolled off in HF compared to the 1st row.
Is the objectively brighter sound in the 1st row unnatural, contrived and distorted? NO. From the perspective of the 12th row enthusiast, it is too bright with too much detail. The 12th row is just his preference. But to the 1st row listener, the 12th row is dark, veiled and mushy with lack of clarity. Who is correct? Both are correct, from their perspectives. If they swapped seats, they would both agree that the 1st row is brighter with more detail, but they differ in their preferences.
Suppose the concert is being recorded. They see that the main microphones are near the 1st row, with several spot mikes very close to individual musicians on stage. The engineer tells them he is not using any artificial processing with unnatural reverb flooding the carefully mixed mike feeds. Later, they get the finished recording, go home and listen on their accurate audio systems. They would agree that the 1st row sound was closer to this recording than the 12th row. Still, the 12th row guy might prefer the 12th row sound, but that is merely his preference even if he admits that the 1st row sound is more truthful to the recording which aims to show the 1st row sound. |
Kren0006,
Also, if you look at the YT votes on the 3 rounds of A/B between my Rouge and Jay's mystery amp, about 40% preferred mine, and 60% preferred Jay's. Not just votes, but there were plenty of detailed verbal analyses preferring mine for clarity and the same for Jay's on clarity. Many people thought the amps were close, and they couldn't make a decision as to preference. Even you had some doubts, and considered that there was a small but significant chance that #2 amp was mine. We agreed on that. It is true that the best listener was Jay in his room, but don't assume that all the YT comments were from people listening on their mediocre computer and were stupid. One guy even went all out to say that anyone who didn't think that #1 (mine) is more detailed needed to get his hearing tested. I thought he was extreme, and I honestly wouldn't say that.
The great thing about Jay is that he considers and respects everyone's observations and opinions. He repeatedly says that his findings are his opinions only, based on his own listening and preferences. So don't make the mistake of latching onto anything he says as the gospel truth. You are doing the same thing of selectively supporting the findings and opinions of people who agree with you, which you criticize me of doing. |
kren0006,
You should study my last post to learn something. I even gave you credit in a small way. There are general audio and musical principles that underlie all audio system listening. Although I have never personally tried Jay's gear, similar principles apply, which I have mentioned. Pity the person who lacks general understanding, whose only choice is to endlessly try more gear until he is bankrupt or burned out. This occurs at all price levels and degrees of wealth.
I discussed how DAC direct is purer and more detailed than adding a preamp. Jay actually agrees with me on that aspect of sound, although he prefers the added flavor and dynamics of the extra preamp stage.
BTW, if you claim that musical experience has nothing to do with audio system listening, just realize that you yourself rely on your own musical experience to choose and judge audio equipment. You have piano or other instrument training which gives you a reference. You have heard live piano in certain rooms or halls--those experiences have convinced you that the piano is not bright, so you choose electronics like ARC and Spendor speakers whose tweeter is not brilliant to suit your concepts and preferences. Nothing wrong with that. However, in large halls or environments at close distances, the same piano is much brighter and crisper, which I alluded to in my last post.
Finally, imagine in the 23rd century, an alien just arrives with super hearing to 100 kHz, and threshold sensitivity of minus 20 dB at 3000 Hz. He can hear an ant crawl. A normal 10 year old Earth child with hearing to 20 kHz and thresholds of 0 dB is ridiculously hearing impaired by comparison. Who is more qualified to assess an audio system playing music? Not the alien with super hearing, because he has no experience hearing music and has heard no human voices speaking or singing. But the child is more qualified, because he has already had many years of experience hearing the voices of his parents and friends, and maybe a few years of musical experience playing instruments or hearing music in the street or wherever.
Please respect my experiences, and I will do the same for you. But cut out your derogatory (direct or implied) remarks about me. In private emails and on this thread, Jay and I get along just fine, while maintaining somewhat different preferences. He is respectful, unlike you. But you can change that. I am reaching out, and hoping for a more fruitful sharing of ideas between us rather than negative bickering. |
ricevs said, "I have the feeling that if you straight wire bypassed most tube gear........you would find it "adding" that "reel you in soul thrill".
Quite correct. To a lesser extent, bypassing even excellent SS gear like line stages (easy to do) shows that all electronics adds something, which is usually warmth. I did this bypass test with both the tube and SS preamps I had. Listening to the phono stage alone, going direct to amp, vs the whole preamp (phono plus line stage) going into amp, showed more dynamics, warmth or "soul" for the latter, vs more clarity, transparency with loss of warmth/soul using phono direct. The same applies to DAC direct into amp vs DAC + line stage into amp. Depending on priorities, one is better than the other. For warmth/soul advocates, adding a preamp, or using tubes for any component is better. For clarity/transparency advocates, using SS like the 725 is better than a tube preamp, or DAC direct is better than even that. Too bad Jay is not able to try the Soulution 760 DAC to determine the relative advantages of DAC direct vs the 725 or another preamp added in.
ricevs,
My Benchmark DAC 1 displays more warmth using my Sony CD player's digital out into it, compared to my Sony CD player complete, both into my Rane EQ, then into amp. This is an apples/oranges test, since with the Sony complete I use the Sony internal DAC. The Illuminati RCA 1 meter digital interconnect (Chris Somovigo designed before Kimber took over Illuminati) is excellent, but perhaps the extra interconnect is imposing its character on the chain. That's why some companies encourage an all in one CD player. Dan D'Agostino at Krell advocated the integral CD player approach rather than separates. All this is consistent with your idea that wires affect the sound. The simplest, shortest chain is best for clarity. Whatever the explanation, I now prefer my Sony CD player alone.
|
Jay,
Can you describe what you mean by "sanitizing" the high freq? You previously described the Nordost grounding system as warmer and more musical. This warmth is what tubes and euphonic SS do, but they do it by subtracting HF content. Rough edges need to be preserved, but there is a difference between HF distortion which is bad, and clean HF which are fully revealed and reveal the NATURAL rough edges.
Walking yesterday, I heard the hard clanging sound of workmen hammering pipes across the street 30 feet away. It was still hard 150 feet away. There was no warmth whatsoever, and it was the kind of reaction you get when a great amp makes the music "pop" or "sparkle" on a speaker with clarity. So does the Nordost system preserve or even enhance the pop/sparkle, or does it warm or soften it? So far, you LIKE what the Nordost does, which parallels your love of tube sound. One of your top priorities is long listening sessions without fatigue, but this suggests that the sound is warmer and softened.
The last video is soft and pleasant, but I prefer the original XLF sound you presented months ago. I never found it abrasive, but found it exhilarating, especially with the 725 preamp and SS amp. You seem to have a marked sensitivity to any rough edges, and even with the live singer I presented on a video months ago, I was surprised that you found his voice "shouty." Well, that's how such voices sound in real life at close range. You're still entitled to not like it, and you would run away from the singer's 100+ dB raw peaks. The real question is whether the Nordost system is best for people who like softer sound, and whether people who value "warts and all" clarity should stay away. |
Jay,
While you wait for the VAC Master preamp to break in, maybe you can address my questions above about the Nordost noise reduction system to close out that subject.
About ARC, it's not about price. You found in the past that the ARC ref 6 (or SE version) has a more focused detailed sound than the ref 10. Each unit is unique, so this is just an evaluation of ARC ref 6SE vs VAC Master with VAC amp, and not a generalization about ARC tube vs VAC tube. |
Too bad the 30 day trials are from internet retailers that sell only cheap amps. The audiophile willing to spend serious money needs ultra high end dealers willing to loan out expensive products for a reasonable fee. This would dissuade people who are not serious. But for $200, or $500+ for a $50K component, you would take a minimal loss if you didn't buy, much less than the loss and heartache selling on the used market.
First, you go to the dealer who plays his well broken in unit, you bring your own reference, and compare. If the A/B is promising, you negotiate, because it is not possible to judge anything unless you live with it at home for at least a week.
|
Jay,
It seems like the XLF with neutral, revealing ancillaries is ultimately too irritating for you, so you seem happiest by warming it up with several layers of warm ancillaries.
The financial guru Teeka mentioned that a very complex rock piece was superb on your system. Was it with the VAC + ARC ref 6 SE? It would be informative to do a shootout using this piece with the VAC preamp/amp vs mystery preamp/class A amp. VAC might be great for relaxation, but how about for revealing the complexities of certain music? One type of "engagement" is the emotional relaxation type; the other type of "engagement" is being able to follow more of the complexities in the music. The second is for me.
BTW, the other day I got one of many financial promotions I regularly get from various services. It was from Teeka! This man is on the move. Rags to riches, then losing big in 1998, and picking himself up again to reach success again. An inspiration. |
ricevs,
The more you post "what a crock" and so forth, I realize I don't want to do any business with you. I guarantee you don't have my level of musical/natural sound understanding or experience, although I have learned about the effects of wires from you. Let your technical expertise speak, which I respect, but don't challenge my expertise in other areas.
You don't redeem yourself by professing, "love" and so forth.
|
