Educate ME? A big theme of this whole thread and life in general is that one knows very little about anything without experience. With components, listen to something in your own system before commenting about it. For maxima95, you know nothing about my zip cord, and Rane EQ because I doubt you have listened to them at home. If you have, then you can report exactly what you heard. Otherwise, criticizing my expertise is foolish.
As for other experience of actually knowing what live unamplified music sounds like, from a close distance where the main mikes are, very few posters here have even a fraction of my experience. So, anyone's criticism of "elevated top end" is totally uninformed. The reality is that most systems I have heard are dull and lacking top end. If that's what someone LIKES, they are entitled to their taste, but it is divorced from the concept of high fidelity to the real thing. Most people have snubbed the original goal of system building, which is imitating the live experience. Instead, they have adopted the goal of softening of real sounds.
It is true that I don't have experience listening to most gear discussed here. However, most of my comments are about general principles of sound and my listening findings from Jay's videos, which apply to all components. Without understanding general principles, such an audiophile will continue to randomly try any component and burn out emotionally and financially when little progress is made. What are your goals? If it is to color the music according to your changing tastes like women's fashions, that's what happens. If your goal is high fidelity, getting real world listening musical experience is the most efficient way to satisfy that goal. No burnout and financial ruin, just a closer appreciation of what the real music offers. |
psnyder149,
No, about 43% preferred my Rouge, which is not a minority. After getting my amp back from Jay and listening further, that finding of 43% is actually a solid endorsement, since I estimate that the taste of this thread is 90% in favor of soft, pleasant amps with rolled off HF. I am not claiming that Jay's mystery amps are soft and rolled off, because even I found that the differences between mine and his were fairly small, and my findings are only comparative. Jay's mystery amp is still very revealing, much more than any tube amp, although we have to wait until Jay does the SS/tube A/B to be sure. However, Jay has already said the VAC system is soft and offers the pleasing (to him) soulful sound he likes. When something is less brilliant and more pleasant, the advocates of such euphony wax poetically how it is more soulful, with more finesse, refinement and the like.
I posted a few pages back how the midhall listener correctly says that the softer sound of these euphonic amps is a closer imitation of the reality of that midhall sound. However, this is fallacious, because most recordings, especially pop/jazz are upfront because the mikes are close. For the listener seeking high fidelity, the 1st row seat is closer to the sound of the recording, and the electronics with the more brilliant HF presentation is a closer imitation of that reality. |
speedbump6,
Your post is correct, assuming that subjective preferences divorced from the ideal of high fidelity are the objective goals for enjoyment. Everyone has different preferences, sure. But only a small % of a-philes are trying to imitate reality/high fidelity. So I have a preference for the goal of high fidelity, and most people have a preference for just what pleases them without an objective standard.
Now let's assume that a group of listeners with the high fidelity standard get together and discuss how a system compares with the sound they just heard at a concert from the first row where the mikes are. I think I remember that you have a nice collection of guitars, so you are knowledgeable about the different sounds of guitars. Your like minded guitar connoisseurs hear a concert of guitars and other instruments from the first row. If your friends are perceptive, they can agree that the bite and transients of the live guitar is best revealed by your system, but the body resonances of the live guitar are better revealed by your friend's system, although this system sacrifices the bite/transients. This is where subjective preferences can be respected, because they are referenced to the real live music. But without reference to live music, subjective preferences have less meaning, and are totally arbitrary. Why spend time and money on arbitrary preferences? This leads to burnout and abandonment of the wonderful audio hobby. |
grey9hound,
You're right that 49% is a minority. That's just a meaningless fact used by politicians to say that the guy who got 51% of the votes proved his mandate, will of the people, and similar BS. Landslides are something like 60/40, similar exaggerations of the truth. No doubt you have plenty of life experience to know that some outstanding people you knew were in the minority. In fact, major innovators are a tiny slice, by definition. They stand out from the crowd. |
psnyder149,
Thanks for revealing your musical background and professional accomplishments which enables a more fruitful discussion. BTW, in 1976 I did medical internship in Pittsburgh and took care of a retired Pgh Symphony violist and principal 2nd violinist. They gave me great violin lessons.
My experience is that most pro classical musicians have mediocre low fi audio systems at home. They spend so much time practicing, rehearsing and performing music that they don't want any more recreational listening at home. They know that even fancy audio systems don't come close to what they hear at close range on stage. But they know that midhall sound is so dull compared to stage sound. Here is the opportunity for the audiophile who doesn't have the opportunity to hear the exciting stage sound. A decent system often has more exciting detailed sound than the live midhall sound. This is because a good recording is usually made with close mikes near the 1st row, with very close spot mikes on individual players, with variations due to engineer taste for ambience mikes mixed in.
I learned these things from my experience over many decades, starting when my HF sensitivity was better--my preferences haven't changed. As for my use of EQ to boost HF, the defining moment came in 1995 when I started to do recordings of my orchestra at a medical school lecture hall. I used good equipment--Neumann KM 184 cardioid mikes in stereo ORTF configuration close above and behind the conductor's head, Bryston preamp, Prism A/D converter into digital input of the Panasonic DAT pro recorder. The young conductor and I heard the immediate playback on my headphones, and we were both disappointed by the dull thud of the overblown bass and dull HF. All that great recording equipment and mike placement didn't matter. I then went to Sam Ash, a store for rock/pop bands, disc jockeys and such, and bought the Rane EQ. I cut the bass and boosted HF. For my next recording shortly later, we were both pleased with the newfound brilliance and overall balance/musicality. This conductor had his mediocre home speakers on the floor, but he knew good sound. Of course, this lecture hall was not designed for music and really was acoustically dead and dull, but I managed to salvage it with the EQ. I used similar EQ settings in better halls with other orchestras, and had excellent results which were far more detailed than commercial recordings of the same pieces.
My audiophile days began in 1977, and I was brought up on the prejudices of typical audio retailers who shunned EQ. So in 1995 with that conductor's blunt criticism I had to do something. I shed this audiophile prejudice, and am grateful to him for his constructive criticism, which opened up worlds for me. I continued to use the EQ for my home system with commercial recordings, and did well, adjusting the boosts for different recordings. Even in the flat position without EQ, the Rane ME 60 was more open than my Spectral DMC 10 gamma preamp, and with the EQ settings everything rose to a transformative level. It does great things for the cello, your instrument. Without EQ, on dynamic speakers and even my clearer electrostatics, there is too much boom without enough artificulation. Then with EQ HF boost, it is remarkable how the buzz of the string is revealed. You can hear the naturally gritty effect of the rosin on the bow. I start boosting above 8 kHz, but the EQ bands extend down to about 1 kHz to reveal the upper midrange harmonics. Yes, it can be artificial, so you have to adjust this effect according to your preference. Even the great cellist, Pablo Casals used crude match sticks between the strings and the ebony fingerboard to correct imperfect fifths, etc. As a musician, you do what you have to do to get results. Many audiophiles are trying all kinds of tricks to get better sound, and I admire all of this. It's just a pity that many are not open minded to try this with EQ, based on audiophile prejudice.
None of the above is preaching or commandments--it's just mentioning the possibilities learned from my experience, so there is no need for people to think I need to be counselled.
Like you, I got my inspiration from my father, an EE who built his mono Altec Voice of the Theater 7 foot corner horn, and his 30 W mono tube amp. I loved his sound. He convinced me that horns are the best dynamic speakers because horns are a natural form of amplification which enable lower distortion. Jay would have loved them. They didn't shout, unlike other horns I heard later. But after I got my electrostatics and SS amps, my father admitted they have lower distortion and better HF than his horns. He also bought a SS home theater amp and used mixed 2 channels for his mono Altec. He also said the SS amp had better overall sound and clarity than his tube amp, his baby. That's open mindedness, learning from experience. |
Jay,
I spoke to Steve today. He is going to the show with the latest tweaked GTA speaker, his Pass electronics, etc. He said you will interview Greg and him. You should have fun meeting other people he will introduce you to. Bring lots of recordings. I'll hear it all when he returns. |
Jay,
The Arion Audio tall speaker in the Jefferson Room posted 12:04 PM is interesting. The drum recording doesn't present these speakers in the best light. Ask them to play your recordings to judge them better. I saw but didn't hear a smaller version of these speakers over 2 years ago at Harry Weisfeld's VPI House in NJ. The tower uses stacked variants of ESS Heil tweeter technology, which "squeezes" air as the driving principle. Harry said they are faster than ribbons. 105 dB efficiency enables these drivers to go down to about 100 Hz, with the subs providing bass. The entire speaker system is about $25K.
Back in 1970, I heard a small speaker containing Heil tweeters. At $450/pr, they had more extended and pure HF with natural realism than any other speaker at the time. At age 17, I couldn't afford them.
Of course, I await your video of the latest GTA speaker system. Steve will be glad to play your recordings. |
Jay,
Which microphone did you use for the show recordings? The internal mike of your phone, or your better Shure external mike?
|
The last link is impressive--the AGD room. 2 way small speakers like this are excellent for clarity, if you can live without much bass extension. |
Great interview, Jay. I hope you come to Massapequa to hear Steve's system. It is a fairly large room which is much longer than wide as is typical. Your room is a little wider but not as long. In my experience with setting up various speakers either on the long wall or the short wall, there is more bass when the speakers are on the long wall. I think you will get more bass in your room than in Steve's room, so you might not need as many subwoofers. Two per side may do it for you, so you can save money. You can always add more subs if needed.
When you come to NY, you can come to my place and hear my system. I am very near JFK or LaGuardia Airports. Steve is an hour east from me. I'll show you the utility of my EQ. I'll also play my violin for you. My day off is Wed. Next best is early Sat afternoon. CD's only in my system. |
Jay,
Your video of the Joseph Audio has 2 lousy recordings, so I can't judge them. With your music, how did the Joseph compare with the GT Audio?
I liked the JBL horn speakers for their clarity. It didn't sound bright probably because the horn is large and covers a wide freq range, so you have good coherent detail. My father's large Altec 511 horn covered 500-22kHz, so was coherent. Later I heard the smaller Altec 811 horn which covered 800 upwards. It was much more colored.
Did you go back to hear the tall Arion Audio ESS-type speaker with your music?
|
Jay,
Don't rule out GTA in your room just yet. My room is cluttered with all my years of accumulated stuff. No doubt if I had a dedicated listening room the sound would be better, but even with my limitations, the speakers do the talking (I like Mike Fremer's phrase). You could still place the GTA panels approximately where you have the XLF's. The panels are reasonably narrow. You could get only 2 subs per side to have a less cluttered room, and placement of the subs is less critical than for the panels. But the GTA sonic purity and all the other qualities you seek would overcome the slight limitations you have.
The Joseph Audio is certainly more room friendly, but how did the clarity compare with the GTA on your music? How about the tall Arion Audio ESS speaker on your music?
|
No, the GTA is second best for clarity only compared to my electrostatics. I will hear the latest version of the GTA soon at Steve's house. There is a tradeoff between size and sonic purity. Very tall panels are not as well time aligned compared to shorter panels, but certainly tall panels give more dynamics and SPL capability. Still, the GTA offers most people the best balance of all sonic qualities, IF their room can accommodate them. In a smaller room, the main panel has significant output down to 40 Hz, so most music is reproduced excellently without need of the subs. With the previous model I heard last year with the subs off, I could hear a soft 37 dB note clearly. The relatively narrow panel is room friendly. A tall ceiling is an asset for best performance.
Ricevs speaks the truth about the importance of time alignment. I agree that the JBL Everest looks time aligned. Henry201 had an excellent post recently about the lack of time alignment in most speakers, referring to an old Stereophile article from John Atkinson. Even the best time alignment isn't so great, since there is a relatively long delayed output from speaker cabinet resonances, etc. However, simple re-alignment of individual drivers improves the time alignment although not perfectly. This is the great contribution of Dave Wilson in his upper end models, confirmed by my recent experience better aligning my Enigmacoustics tweeter with my main speaker, and ricevs' experience with the K-horn modified for better time alignment, and his Altec horn with the Electrovoice tweeter.
|
Jay,
Even if your room is not ideal for the GTA speakers (neither was the showroom you heard them in), you will get better sonic quality in every parameter than if you brought in a more room friendly speaker and set them up perfectly. So how did the GTA compare in clarity with the Joseph Audio?
Is running your channel more important to you than satisfying your quest for the best possible sound for your musical pleasure? You know that I dislike Pass electronics from my personal experience and from your videos, but the GTA is the only system I have heard that sounds great with Pass stuff. You implied this also on your video with Steve.
When you eventually sell the Wilson XLF, everyone will know that you enjoyed your life with it, and that you haven't necessarily found anything better. The same will apply with the GTA. You won't have much difficulty selling the GTA, because your YT viewers will have experienced great sound from it, no matter what ancillary components you have used with it. The GTA is so low in distortion and natural that any cheap component will sound decent with it. Of course, better components will be appreciated and there will be greater differences with the GTA than most other speakers.
I said in the past and currently that I am not buying the GTA because my speaker is still the champ for clarity. It is wrong for people to question my integrity and endorsement of GTA just because I have something better for my needs. The GTA is the only speaker I would buy if my present speakers deteriorated.
|
grey9hound,
Yes, you're right. My bad typo error. I meant 37 Hz. As a musician, I have perfect pitch, and heard a low D note which is 37 Hz. It was very soft in level. Specs about the 6 dB down point on bass are not as important as resolution. Amplitude frequency response is less important than resolution. High resolution of any speaker compensates for less amplitude.
|
kren0006,
Why do you question what I say I hear from my speaker vs GTA or any other speaker? Your implications that I am near deaf and have poor taste in what I value shows a complete lack of respect for my competence. You say that your responses to me are nothing personal, but your remarks indicate otherwise.
You have not heard either my speakers or GTA in person. You disparage my EQ and zip cord without ever hearing them. That is the cardinal sin of closed mindedness around here. Why don't you emulate Jay's increasing open mindedness and respect for others' input?
|
Kren0006,
Again you are a victim of the myth that a $60K speaker beats a much cheaper one. Even at the show, Jay found the $37K Joseph Audio speaker to be his top choice over several very expensive systems he heard. No, it wasn’t because the expensive EMM electronics were superior to the Pass in the GTA room. If the Joseph is so great, it would still sound excellent on Pass or even cheaper stuff.
And Jay found the Alta $10K speaker excellent. From the AGD video, I liked the Oceanway 2-way speaker.
The bottom line is that my speaker/tweeter combo has better resolution and clarity than any current production speaker available. I am honest to admit its limitations in bass extension and macro-dynamic output, where the GTA is far superior. Same goes for my speaker without the added tweeter. This rare used speaker goes for a whopping sum of $500.
|
Steve, thanks for your best wishes for the survival of my speakers.
Jay, my delicate speakers and wire connections won't survive transport to Steve's home. No need for me to take risks. When you visit Steve for an audition of his GTA, you are welcome to visit me and hear my system. I'll pick you up at the airport, travel to my place, then to Steve's.
New things aren't necessarily better than old things. Old school tube electronics do some things better (I have heard these things) than new SS. Despite GaN specs and theory, the Merrill GaN I heard was overly warm, not for me. Ben Peters, the designer of my Audiostatic 240, did better with that 1980 model than his later designs. Newer (than Audiostatic) Martin Logan and SoundLab electrostatics are inferior implementations of the electostatic principle. The issue is not new-ness, but whether the designer understands basic principles of time alignment and radiation patterns.
Most new violins from today's top craftsmen sound like garbage compared to 50 year old instruments. Many 300 year old instruments like Stradivarius are still considered the gold standard, verified by my experience. Some of them have had lots of repairs and have aged, but the top violinists of today seek these and other old master violins for their tonal beauty and even power (surprise).
|
ricevs,
I enjoyed your last post. I have a little different interpretation of our motives. You and I are passionate about our long experiences and imparting this to anyone willing to listen. But it is less motivated about bragging, than being excited to help others by sharing our experience. Some people think of ego as that feeling of superiority to others in various ways, but a healthier view of ego is the satisfaction when someone recognizes what you say has merit and may enhance their life. We are similar in the fact that we don't force others to throw away their components, but merely mention other possibilities. We may be repetitive, but this isn't necessarily a bad thing. There are a few basic principles that apply to all audio equipment. For example, judging tone quality applies to speakers, preamps, amps, cables, analog or digital sources, etc. Jay may demonstrate amp differences, but the same discussion applies if he later demonstrates source differences. It is repetitive discussion, but useful as it applies again and again in different contexts to the next many comparisons Jay will demonstrate. It also applies to many types of music. Before joining this thread, I never heard of Nils Lofgren. I can describe his guitar playing and enjoy it as I do classical guitar. Rhythm, dynamics and tone apply to all types of music, so people of different musical tastes can have more in common in these discussions.
Just be careful not to say "you really know nothing." This is a negative retort to someone, because the truth is that everyone knows something. Give each person credit for what they know. If you disagree with what they say, it is best to explain why in objective, respectful ways. Ego aka self esteem is a good thing, and everyone needs it, while respecting the other person's ego.
|
Jay,
I can't do ANYTHING for 8 hours straight. Even the best pleasure of S-X wears off after a short time. You take a break, do something else pleasurable for a short time, then return to each of your pleasures another time. Classical music concerts have less than 1 hour in the first part, then intermission for 15 min, then another 45 min max, for a total of 2 hours. Most of the time the music is soft, but the brief moments of dynamic peaks are thrilling. A great piece of music is skillfully written this way to avoid saturation of the senses.
The first mouthful of my favorite ice cream is the best, with diminishing returns with each bite after that. At the end of the portion, I want more, but this is an addictive sickness that always ends badly, so I have learned to stop with the first portion.
|
Jay,
Great news of the new amp, sounds good. But first please reveal the identity of your mystery amp which was used in the A/B of that vs mine. Everyone wants to know. Don't also make it a mystery why you haven't revealed the ID of the mystery amp. The only valid reason is that it costs a million bucks so nobody here would buy it and then wouldn't care what it is.
|
There is the same conflict of interest with dealers that carry every other product you have reviewed and mentioned the name of those products. By this reasoning, you wouldn't reveal the name of any product you review. I don't follow your reasoning, but it would be interesting to learn.
|
decathlon1991,
I had a Krell evo 2250 which was a smaller version of the evo 402e. The 2250 was neutral, not like the warmer Krell KSA 50 I owned years before. Overall, Krell is warm for SS. I really liked the neutrality/clarity of the 2250, but I returned it when it quickly developed some high volume distortions, I read how Krell had reliability problems back then.
|
I gather that just playing CD's is better sounding than streaming or local files of the same recording. Is that the experience of people here?
dbarger,
Comparing my CD's and LP's of the same recording, here is my experience over many years. With my young Denon 305 MC cartridge with ultradetailed Belles phono stage (a Pass XP15 phono stage was a veiled dog by comparison), detailed Alphason HR100S tonearm on Goldmund Studio TT, the LP was far more detailed with especially HF openness. As my Denon 305 cartridge aged, the CD is now better. I have a refurbished Denon 305 which I haven't mounted yet, but the old 305 is still satisfactory.
Euphonic cartridges like Koetsu and many TT's make analog merely euphonic, so any decent digital system is far more revealing than these analog systems, so I think Jay is on the right track with digital. Analog isn't worth the hassle, unless you like forgiving sound.
|
dbarger,
I started audio life around 1978, rapidly improving my vinyl setup reaching a pnnacle around 1985 with the TT/arm/cartridge/phono stage I mentioned above. But even with friends' low-fi setups, the LP was clearly more detailed and open than the CD of the same recording, around 1985. Something must have been wrong with those early CD's--I had an LP where side A was from an analog tape recorder, and side B was from a digital recorder with both recorders fed by the same signal. On this LP, analog side A was lifelike and musical, digital side B had those early digital HF artifacts, but both sides A and B were equally open, unlike how the LP wiped out the CD on other recordings. So I bought a cheap CD player in the early 90's. I wasn't happy with CD until the pressings or A/D converters improved. When I started to do live recordings on DAT in 1995, I found that my recordings sounded more neutral/detailed onto the digital medium of DAT than onto VCR analog tape, although I never had the opportunity to do it onto a good reel-to-reel machine at 15 ips.
|
Jay, sorry, the last several links you posted are not highlighted.
|
I agree that for 6 figures, an amp should do everything superlatively well. However, no audio product is perfect, regardless of price. My cheap electrostatic speakers demolish all other speakers for clarity above 100 Hz, but they absolutely fail in macrodynamics and bass extension. I've never heard CH Precision, but it might be analogous to my speakers in that it is the best in nearly everything but deficient with bass, very low impedance loads, etc. The CH designer may have decided to put the money into his priorities and let other sonic qualities be shortchanged. If you demand that he fix the deficiencies, the good things may get worse.
I never heard the Parasound, but tried the Bryston 3B SST. It had powerful bass and dynamics for its mere 150W, but its clarity was poor and the midrange very colored.
All products at all prices should be evaluated according to one's priorities. Unless an expensive product is miles better than a cheaper product, it will always be scrutinized more carefully and probably rejected by the discerning listener.
|
kren0006,
Totally correct. You get the speaker you want, then find an amp that works with it.
For my inefficient speakers, a more powerful amp is desirable, especially if it can handle the very low impedance in HF. But if the powerful amp is short on clarity, I'd rather have a lower power amp with the clarity, and just accept that my system can't handle big scale music at high volumes. An interesting case is my powerful Rouge amp you heard on the videos. It is powerful enough to play all music I like through my speakers, but my Mytek is slightly clearer with medium power, and can play most of my music. I prefer the Mytek overall, although for rare occasions for dynamic music, I will connect the Rouge.
|
The XLF is very efficient, so a low power cheap tube amp could still produce nice music from it. Yes, bass could be improved with an expensive SS Boulder amp. But if you want powerful deep bass, the Boulder driving the ProAc may be able to produce decent bass, but the total musical content won't compete with the XLF + low power tube amp.
|
ronres,
No, most a-philes know that the speaker is the biggest factor determining the total sound. The speaker is the main course, but the ancillary components are merely the relatively subtle spices enhancing the dish. Take your favorite amp, but if you don't like the speaker, the total sound will be bad. But take your favorite speaker, and any amp will produce decent sound from that speaker.
|
ron17,
I'm all for getting the best components in the chain--everything is important. But the speaker forms the basic character of the system, so it is the first priority, even if one is wealthy and can spend unlimited sums. Horns are over 100 dB efficient, so even a 5 watt amp will be enough. But horns have significant colorations, so what's the point of being able to use any amp, if you find speakers that suit you better.
|
ron17,
I accept your observation that the new amp on your speakers was thin, threadbare, and missing in bass compared to your Simaudio. But look at the big picture. You would really hate my speaker, since its sound is thinner and has less bass than any speaker discussed here. Its degree of thinness is FAR greater than the thinness of the other amp compared to your Sim. My speaker is still much thinner in sound driven by a fat sounding old classic tube amp, than your speaker driven by that thin sounding amp you were going to buy. My statements are consistent with the fact that the speaker is THE most dominant factor in the character of the total system sound.
Yes, my other statement about the horns wasn't relevant to your observations, but it still illustrates that if you don't like a speaker, no amp driving it will please you. But if you love your chosen speaker, you can get some pleasure from many different amps driving it, although of course you'll find an amp such as the Sim that maximizes your pleasure. For Jay's XLF, it is my favorite speaker of all he has had, and I enjoy the sound from any of the ancillary components he uses with it, even the euphonic tubes, although I like it even more with the 725 preamp, and the top SS amps he has had.
|
I know the short previews of OCD Mikey are just that, but all he says is that the 725 and Taiko are "better, more involving, etc." What does that mean? I hope he clarifies what he means in the full videos to come.
|
HIS preferences mean nothing. "Finesse, rich, etched" at least have some meaning even if not precise. Most useful are actual musical or technical comments, such as "the guitar is crisper with A vs B" or "bass is fuller or tighter" or "HF are more dominant than midrange" and so on. These statements are more objective and can be respected regardless of individual preferences. If you ask a dealer about product A, and he says he likes it better than product B, you have learned nothing, but if he describes the sound character of A and B, that is useful for the customer.
|
psnyder149,
I agree with Ivor of Linn that the source is most important. Of course, the speaker has to be decent enough, but not necessarily the best. I have even been shocked that listening to a great recording on the car radio sounds better than a routine recording on a great home stereo.
It doesn't matter what the rest of the system costs. I experienced the Linn phenomenon in a friend's system of Rogers LS 3/5a speakers. I brought my top of the line Denon TT and the same Denon 303 cartridge to compare with his Linn LP12 original version with the same Denon 303 cartridge. The Linn wiped out my Denon TT in every way and it was a much greater improvement than any other upgrades my friend had made.
Most people are in love with their speaker no matter what it costs, whether cheap or expensive. The speaker/room combo is still the defining criterion of the overall presentation of the sound. It is reasonable to spend as much money as desired to get the best source and electronics.
For midrange/HF clarity, there is no speaker at any price that comes close to my cheap Audiostatic 240/Enigmacoustics tweeter combo, after my decades' searching. A great recording then makes the highest experience of reality, especially from analog master tapes.
|
Psnyder149 and daveyf,
I remember the so-called mystery of the magic of LP12 setup. There were setup gurus in the 70's and 80's we all worshipped. Not being too adept with my fingers, I still adjusted the springs for a low suspension or a high suspension, and used my bubble level. It is really a simple mechanical system. As with every tweak, you listen to different setups. No matter what I did, the LP12 had a buoyancy and airy life that eluded the Denon direct drive. The SOTA Sapphire with the same arm and cartridge was like an leaden elephant with its turgid, muddy, bass heavy sound.
The original Linn of my friend came with the Grace 707 arm. I was talked into the Mission 774 arm because of its azimuth adjustment through rotating the arm tube, then the Ittok arm. But the Grace 707 had the most lively, buoyant sound. I ended up with the Alphason HR100S arm, which was cooly neutral. I then experimented with the Alphason/Denon 305 cartridge on a Win belt drive and direct drive TT, then my final Goldmund Studio TT, which bettered the Linn at its own game. The Alphason arm was better than the Goldmund T3B straight line tracking arm which was mushy sounding by comparison. That's a lesson to not necessarily go with the same company's products. Later articles from Mike Fremer showed the weakness of straight line tracking arms, despite the attractiveness of no tracking errors.
Linn and its colorful marketing man, Ivor Tiefenbrun deserve credit for the principle of Source First.
|
daveyf and psnyder149,
My LP12 from the early 80's was the Linn Valhalla. I remember the original. Do either of you have the experience comparing earlier to later versions? I lost interest when I got a Goldmund Studio package for half price. By transferring my Alphason/Denon from my Linn to the Goldmund, I demonstrated the better focus and brilliance of the latter. I had fun comparing my Denon cartridge on the Linn, Goldmund, and a Win belt and direct drive table. Like psnyder149, I am no longer adept at delicate cartridge swapping to the arm. I screamed when I broke delicate tonearm wires to cartridge pins and would have to solder new pins, etc. Nowadays I sit back and listen to my CD's tweaking the EQ to suit the recording. I admire anyone these days who carefully does an A/B of different LP12 versions with the same arm/cartridge and setup. So what specific sound characteristics apply to the newer LP12 versions compared to the older?
It is very difficult to do home trials of turntable/arm/cartridges to compare with what you have. You would have to remount your cartridge onto the new TT/arm, do the painstaking setup, remember what you heard, go back and forth even only twice. You could do needle drop recordings and compare your recordings, but that is like trying to do A/B's from youtube recordings. A somewhat useful exercise, but not as revealing as live in room experience. But it is easy to take a black box CD playback system, even with numerous boxes from top companies, go back and forth and judge.
|
RE: analog vs digital,
My assessment is that neither kills the other. Analog vinyl playback varies all over the map from my 40 years experience. There are euphonic/warm cartridges, turntables, phono preamps that give those listeners that type of sound, and there are highly detailed/neutral cartridges, TT and phono preamps that give the clarity I desire. But digital shows comparatively much less variation than analog. Jay did the dac shootout and concluded that very expensive dac's are very close to much cheaper dac's. Even a cheap CD player can yield good sound that is much closer to the best digital than cheap vs expensive analog. Perhaps the ultimate in analog, 30 ips master tapes really kill all digital systems. I have been impressed by analog tape in casual listening, but have no experience comparing analog tape to the derived vinyl records on playback from disciplined A/B tests.
|
Jay,
I'm glad you met this older gentleman who introduced you to the music of Grieg. Which piece did he play? Grieg is a very popular classical composer, although his music is at the height of the romantic, rather than classical period. His melodies speak to the heart, and they are not complicated or hard to grasp. I recommend the Piano Concerto, which starts with a highly dynamic piano flourish from high to low notes, and back again and again. The 2nd movement is a soft string mood piece. The whole piece has lots of macro and micro dynamics, and is great for system testing.
Another great piece is the Peer Gynt suite no. 1. Another exciting piece with every sonic treat you could want.
The advantage of classical music recordings is that most of them are natural, without any processing, except for some mixing of spot mikes on certain instruments, for balance and intelligent emphasis only. The intent is to have the recording reflect the experience in the concert hall. You will want to have the most detailed electronics like Boulder bring out all the beauty in the details. There will be nothing unpleasant so there is no need for euphonic electronics to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Even the cheaper Boulder components are dedicated to neutrality, so the $20 something grand 1160 will bring out more detail than the euphonic more expensive stuff from Constellation, D'ag, etc.
|
jafant,
There are so many recordings of the Grieg Piano Concerto, because everyone loves to perform it. Just listen on YT which is good enough to make a selection based on sound and performance. If you like more subtle Grieg, I love The Last Spring, Holberg Suite, the 3 violin/piano sonatas, especially the popular no.3, op. 45. The string quartet is big scale romantic. My favorite recording of that is by the Guarneri Quartet from 1965. The sound is too mellow RCA, but the performance is of utmost beauty.
|
Jay,
That Grieg Peer Gynt Suite no. 1, 4th track is full tilt dynamics in the last minute, with a big wallop at the end. At the beginning, keep the volume low, otherwise you will blow out your woofer again. A piece like this has MUCH more dynamic range than you are used to. A proper level is 30 dB in the beginning, rising to sustained 90-100 dB in the last minute, with maybe 120 dB peak at the very end.
|
klh007 and jafant,
Yes, the 4th movement of Peer Gynt Suite 1 is the Mountain King. For harmonic beauty, listen to the 1st and 2nd movements.
After you're done impressing your friends with sonic spectaculars, turn to chamber music. Search YT for Grieg violin/piano sonata, op 45, recording by Fritz Kreisler, violinist and Rachmaninoff, pianist. It is remarkable how much passion/intensity/beauty there is in this 1928 recording. (Sorry it is not posting here--fault of YT). In particular, listen at 10:07, 17:28, 21:25 for the utmost in tonal beauty from Kreisler, one of the very top violinists who ever lived.
Next best is the 1949 recording of Leonid Kogan. But the recordings of modern violinists are mediocre--they have lost the art of romanticism, so who cares about the superior audio quality.
|
Jay,
It would be helpful to do a video of the same song on both speakers using whatever electronics you want. Ideally, use the same ancillary components so we are doing a fair comparison of speakers, but the speaker differences will be greater than the electronics differences. I think I like the new S7, but the music has been unfamiliar so I have no opinion so far. In general, bass porting increases the quantity and extension of bass, but it is less accurate than sealed boxes. The S7 needs 3 drivers to get the bass quantity of the 2 drivers with porting in the Focal, but it makes sense that accuracy of bass is better in the S7.
I remember your S5 from a few years ago. You didn't like it because its sound field was too small for you, but I liked its clarity or tonal balance better than the M3 and M6. I could be wrong, because it was all an apples/oranges comparison over a long time.
|
Jay,
I like the 2:42 guitar/drum/HF percussion recording you played 5/23 at 9:16 AM. Nice clear upfront sound. I hope you use this for your speaker A/B between S7 and Focal.
|
Impressive sound, but no meaningful statements can be made. Too many variables, the recording being the largest unknown. If you present the Focal speakers with the same components and recording, then a proper assessment can be made. You know the best positions for each speaker, and neither speaker is too heavy, so you can do the swap in little time.
|
Jay,
I hope you do a video comparison of the S7 and Focal speakers on at least 1 song so we can judge for ourselves. Later, your opinion will be of interest. I realize that both speakers are heavy, so this is not easy, but just hearing your findings is only one man's opinion. Even if someone has the money to spend, he is not going to buy just based on any opinion, but will want to hear for himself. I don't think any dealer can do as good a job as you in presenting the two speakers playing the same music with the best electronics, hopefully the same Boulder pair for both speakers. A dealer may have a room dedicated to the S7 and another room for the Focal, but this is a far less meaningful comparison than you can do. Rooms change everything. At a famous NYC dealer years ago, I heard a Maggie in a small room like a closet. The Maggie sounded lousy, not at all like when that dealer presented a similar Maggie years before in a much larger room. He probably thought that the other much more expensive speakers deserved his best larger room, while the cheap Maggie could snooze in the closet. Bad, unprofessional attitude on his part.
Thanks.
|
Another A/B video on the Magico S3, S5, S7 would be interesting. Obviously, the S7 has the deepest and most powerful bass, but the new midrange and tweeter drivers look identical the way they are described. The midrange/HF performance of all these models is probably comparable. In a smaller room, the S3 might be ideal. Even in Jay's medium sized room, for music without lots of bass, either the S3 or S5 would be good, plus the attraction of saving lots of money.
|
Ah, "Keith don't go" 2nd song. The recording is quite bright, which I found out when I got the CD. The twang of the guitar is sharp, as recorded, so the system is telling the truth. Yeah, you can get tired of the song, so we haven't heard it on your Alexx, XLF, Focal. The highs on the XLF and Focal also are brilliant, so in order to really judge the S7, I would like to hear this song on your Focal.
|
Jay,
I enjoyed your analysis of Focal/S7. I never liked the M3 or M6 for their surprising dullness, but the S7 seems to be a brilliant exception. I doubt the M6 poor showing was due to the lack of the top Boulder electronics you now have. The "Keith don’t go" song has never sounded so clear, crystalline, coherent and natural--a whole new universe. And that is with the tube ARC ref 6E. All of your previous speakers by comparison were wrapped in a blanket of veiled warmth and plushness. Some like this sound, but the S7 is much more accurate and true high fidelity.
Thanks to you, I am motivated to go to a dealer and hear the S1, S3 models. Do you have any idea of the crossover points? Magico doesn’t say. My guess is that the S7 woofers handle below 300 Hz. A female voice centers around 500 Hz, so the midrange driver would predominate. The male voice centers around 150 Hz, so the bass drivers would have the majority of the male energy. So do you find that the image of the male voice is much larger than the female voice due to more area of drivers used?
This is why I am especially interested in the S1, which is like a mini monitor 2-way in a taller box. The Magico sales manager on a video said that the S1 has a focused image where the two close drivers work together, kind of like a coaxial speaker. So I would predict that the S1 has the most focused, clear midrange/HF of all the S models. It even has response down to 32 Hz, so for most classical music, especially in a modestly sized room, the S1 would be great. BTW, the "Keith don’t go" has the lowest guitar note, E at about 82 Hz, so the S1 would be perfectly adequate for this song. The guitar on this recording has midbass, but also brilliant midrange/HF, so do you find that the image for the low notes is bigger than the image for the high notes? That’s a flaw of larger speakers in general, and why I like smaller 2-way speakers. I was very happy with my little 2-way Rogers LS 3/5a for many years, before I got my midsize electrostatics.
The S1 at about $22K currently, looks like a fabulous bargain for the sound quality. The S3 at about $36K, looks like a great bargain as a full range speaker going down to 24 Hz. I’ll compare them. I don’t know whether you compared these new S1, S3, S5, S7. The implementation of these drivers is fabulous, and I think they are what makes the S series special. Sure, your top Boulders help, but I bet the new S series is the hot ticket.
Hopefully before your Focal leaves, you can record the Keith song on that. I anticipate a come-down from the exciting lively S7.
|
The S7 uses an aluminum cone bass driver. The S3 and S1 use the SOTA nanographene material for their bass drivers. Perhaps the S3 and S1 have more accuracy in the bass, especially mid and upper bass, while the S7 has more power but less accuracy. Are the 6" midrange and 1" tweeter drivers identical in the S7, S5, S3?
What a lineup--the S series.
|
