WC and all,
As an interesting experiment, bypass the preamp by connecting your source to the power amp. In my case, I use the volume control on my Benchmark DAC which is not bypassable. All line stages suck because the circuit always loses information, transparency or whatever you want to call it. The increase in dynamics from the extra line stage is not worth it to me. Often more distortion and fat bloating is perceived as increased dynamics. Along with the increased dynamics, you also get loss of focus, loss of highs and the murky/confused spatial effects that go with these losses. An example of the dynamics/clarity tradeoff is an old school tube preamp or amp which may have increased fullness and dynamics compared to a more accurate SS piece. Another example relating to speakers is the accurate Magico compared to the Focal. The Focal has more dynamics but it is not as accurate as the Magico, according to WC's listening observations. Many mini monitors give the illusion of more dynamics and bass due to the mid bass bump, but of course this is not true accurate bass. The line stage gives a smaller version of this effect. If your source doesn't have a volume control, just choose an appropriate musical selection where unity (0 dB) gain on the preamp gives a satisfactory volume level, and you will hear the vast difference with and without the preamp. Of course, most of your music will require different gains on the preamp, but this experiment is enlightening. I resent paying big bucks for a SOTA line stage that still corrupts my music. I am able to bypass the line stage by using my DAC volume control. With my phono stage that doesn't have a volume control, I do need another method of volume control. I use the admittedly cruder volume control on my Rane ME60 EQ, which I find absolute necessary for the reasons I posted recently, and several people here confirmed the necessity of an EQ unit. I agree with techno_dude who said the use of the EQ is life-changing.
|
Guido, I agree with the potential risks, although they are mitigated by the basic practice of having the power amp off when you unplug and plug in, the way I'm doing it. With my 75-77 dB very low efficiency electrostatic speakers, unity gain yields a comfortable moderate volume level, although for conventional speakers with 10 or more dB higher efficiency, the musical selection for the bypass test could be a soft voice, instrumental solo, or soft brushes on the drum to avoid the blasting effect. Another option is the Music First passive transformer based volume controlled "preamp." I heard one of the models in several repeated bypass tests in someone's system, and there was NO difference. There's even a plus 6 dB switch, which produced NO difference, and gives the option of that 6 dB of gain for those who want it. The Music First has high quality switches, rotary attenuator and lots of inputs, so anyone--show me an active line stage that equals it in terms of clarity and uneditorialized neutrality. I didn't live with the Music First at home, so I might have missed something.
Guido, did you A/B the Rowland 925 with the Merrill Veritas, Mola Mola Kaluga implementations of the NC1200? Thanks for commenting.
|
Guido, true, but for a limited selection of musical excerpts, WC and others can choose something where unity gain (about 12:00 mid position on many preamps) gives the correct volume level so the bypass test can be done. Obviously, level match by ear or by measurement. At a minimum, the bypass test has great educational value. For full flexibility in volume control, I regard the crude volume control on my Rane a slight handicap compared to the overwhelming benefit of bypassing the line stage and using the EQ of the Rane to yield overwhelming benefits. The electronics of the Rane circuits are very good, more transparent than many audiophile line stages I have tried, although admittedly I have not tried the super expensive ones that many people here are using. Once people realize the ultra importance of the EQ, I challenge anyone to demonstrate that adding any line stage on top of the EQ gives benefits without the tremendous drawbacks of the added sonic impurities introduced by the line stage.
|
doitwithlife,
I've got a treat for you, if your values are in line with mine. Don't finalize your order just yet. What are you considering? Also, read my posts about the Rane ME60 EQ, which is true value and in many cases eliminates the need and expenditure for a preamp. Anyone who is prejudiced against EQ just doesn't know what they are missing. The Rane cost $600 when I got it in 1995. Someone else mentioned the Manley Massive EQ, but it is expensive at over $5000, and reviews say that it softens the sound due to the tubes. The Rane is SS and pretty colorless. If you want a cost effective preamp that is probably the most neutral of anything out there, I talked about the Music First yesterday. I heard the model for about $5000, not the top of the line.
NOW FOR THE TREAT. I have been listening to the Mytek Brooklyn Amp, described in the latest Stereophile. I agree with most of the sonic impressions in that article, confirmed after about 100 hours of listening so far. I use a CD on repeat for about 15 hours per day. So far the sound hasn't shown significant changes with time, but the main variability is the powerline. The resolution and focus could change significantly on a moment's notice, even though it is plugged into the Shunyata Denali conditioner. The fact that the sound changes on a moment's notice makes me think that it is not related to breaking in, as guidocorona has described, but I could be wrong, and will have to see. After years of struggle and frustration with the tremendous variability of the sound from the wall and other power conditioners, I find that the Denali is the best unit of its kind. With my Bryston, the sound is NOT variable, and much more focused and clear with the Denali. The Denali is well worth the $4000 retail price. I am not sure whether I will keep the Mytek, since my little Bryston 2.5 B SST2 has the most extraordinary extended highs, but the Mytek is very even handed and revealing of all the freq ranges, instruments, etc. The top end is refined and extended, and I am hearing the clarity of the lower pitched instruments. I haven't tested the power output by listening to big orchestral pieces, etc, because if I have reservations about the tonal balance and clarity, I don't care about power. This unit I got from Music Direct used for $1600. I will make a decision in another month. If I return it, it will have several hundred hours of break in on it, and you or anyone will have the opportunity to get it cheap. If I keep it, then even the retail price of $2000 is a bargain for what you get. If you want neutrality, clarity and refinement, this Mytek Brooklyn Amp is hard to beat at nearly any price, and is certainly the best bang for the buck at its price.
|
Guido--fascinating development about the Merrill Elements. More to say tomorrow, but I have to control my passions while I sleep on it. THANKS SO MUCH. A game-changer.
|
Guido, thanks for updating us on Merrill Audio. I notice that on his website, Veritas and the other prior models are not listed. So it appears that Merrill thinks that the new GaN transistors are a game changer. The Ghz bandwidth is most intriguing. I have grown resentful of Spectral's claim that their Mhz bandwidth produces the SOTA sound, provided that you use their preamp and MIT interconnects/speaker cables, otherwise the amps go into unstable oscillation. If the amps don't blow up, they get damaged over time, supposedly. Spectral won't warrantee the amps unless you buy the whole ball of wax. MIT cables are veiled and suck, based on my home auditioning years ago, although I haven't listened to the newer items. Spectral doesn't permit too many reviews. Their whole design/marketing philosophy is like the emperor with no clothes. So congratulations to Merrill for having the vision to use the new GaN devices which will probably make obsolete the present horse and buggy devices, all of them with inferior speed and other specs. Merrill doesn't have too much info and I will be disappointed if he designs and behaves like Spectral, requiring purchase of his preamps and cables to warrantee his amps. I am not knowledgable about the GaN devices so I really don't know about the potential compatibility issues. Also, I wonder about Merrill's philosophy of no negative feedback. Bruno Putzeys of Mola Mola and the designers of Soulution utilize lots of feedback to reduce distortion because they claim their very fast circuits enable the benefits of negative feedback while making the transient intermodulation distortion downside negligible. I had the Mola Mola Kaluga amp at home and vouch for its speed and low distortion. It had been used by the dealer, although I don't know for how many hours.
Guido, keep us informed about the production models of Merrill Elements. As an aside, I think meaningful auditioning of anything at shows is nearly impossible, because you don't know the system. You only know things by A/B extensive listening in your own home reference system. I have even made big mistakes by doing A/B tests at friend's homes, only to repeat the tests at home and come to opposite conclusions. For now, I would not buy any expensive piece of horse and buggy electronics until we see what Merrill has done, and other designers start using the GaN devices with their different approaches. Have any other designers tried the new GaN's?
THANKS A MILLION, Guido!!
|
RIAA, funny RHEA. Rhea Perlman (married to Danny DeVito) was funny on Cheers, but I don't know if the RIAA was ever funny. Actually, many old preamps had different EQ curves--RIAA, AES, and I forgot the others. But these curves are still restricted and boring compared to the much greater flexibility to be gotten from thoughtful use of an EQ like my Rane. Mastering engineers have much more sophisticated EQ's on their mixing boards than even my Rane.
|
WC, I agree that a product should FIRST be evaluated straight out of the box. But it is also interesting to try different tubes, as with the BHK. Let's say the BHK and BAT are very close in original stock condition. Then for the BHK you try tubes or different manufacturers, or better yet, try Roger Majeski's tubes with better specs. Then you may find that the character of the BHK changes substantially depending on the tube, then you can say that the BHK is significantly better or worse in a certain sonic way, depending on the tube, and now you have a clearer preference for the BHK or BAT than you had before the tube experiment. I remember you preferred the stock BHK for electronic music, but the Mac2301 for vocals. How about going all the way and trying the 2301 with Majeski's best-spec tubes to create more accuracy, and then I wouldn't be surprised that you might report that the 2301 beats the BHK in every sonic way, for most/all types of your music. All this is audio connoisseurship fun that separates us from the casual midfi listener. Take two pretty girls wearing the same outfits. You rate A as a 9, and B as an 8. Now dress up B in an elegant outfit, and demote A to wearing ripped up jeans. Then you might rate B higher than A. That's why females spend lots of money on clothes. They do Miss USA competitions with everyone dressed to kill. How about if they did it with everyone wearing the same mediocre jeans without makeup? Not as entertaining with stock jeans. You see my point, although admittedly I may exaggerate, ha ha.
|
doitwithlife, I am not sure you stated what your present electronics are. Can you give just a little more info about what your Elipsa speakers are? The Maggies are excellent, so it would be interesting to hear what you prefer in the Elipsa. When you break in your new BHK preamp and amps, please tell us how they are different from your present setup. I sympathize with the hassles involved with extensive traveling to hear things. A meaningful audition is impossible, except for basic observations and to get to know the host. Home auditions are a must if you are spending serious money.
|
To several experienced tube rollers here, thanks for your knowledge. I only have the 1 experience years ago with Roger Majeski's tubes on the Theta tube preamp. Perhaps each manufacturer of the same tube type has a general sonic signature, but I also believe that there are variations within each manufacturer. Roger grades the tubes according to noise and perhaps other objective specs. This may be the most useful approach, rather than going by names of manufacturers. As an analogy, a McIntosh apple may have a generically different taste than a Gala, but taste a few Gala's and they might have subtle differences. Of greater differences would be size and shape of the Gala apple. This is just nature's variations, and I believe that despite the illusion of the same tubes from a batch, there are variations in materials and random slight variations in the manufacturing process. Some manufacturers of expensive SS electronics do transistor matching for this reason. Also, the manufacturer of the tube electronics may have his own sound preference and put in the tube that matches his preference, but that doesn't make it authoritative. That's why tube rolling is important, according to your own preferences. I am not referring to making gross changes such as KT120 vs. KT150, because you are making a new design which may backfire. Just try the different samples of the KT120, for example. I have no connection to Majeski, so I have no bias, but I am just talking about what makes the most sense to me.
|
WC, thanks for your useful list above. The Mac 2301 and BHK might make the list if you get the best grade of tubes from Roger Majeski. Thanks to grey9hound for the link to tubeaudiostore.com, Roger's website. Read all the technical sections to realize why Majeski is probably the most authoritative source. I believe that accurate sound is associated with the best specs if you know what to measure. In general, tube electronics have the worst specs, and Roger explains why poorly matched random tubes may be a big factor why. Get tube electronics to have the best specs possible, and then they ought to provide the utmost in realism aided by more accuracy than the stock versions have. I had one experience 30-35 years ago with Roger's best tubes in my Theta preamp and vouch for the big difference in accuracy obtained. The new sound was more real, as well as more accurate and still smooth but with cooler midrange, which I maintain is characteristic of the real thing. Let's hear from more experienced tube equipment owners here who try Majeski's tubes. |
Guido, thanks for mentioning the Technics R1 amp which uses GaN transistors. I also like the fact that even the heaviest mono Merrill 118 only weighs 65 lbs each. Almost all of the SOTA amps are beasts which nearly disqualify them from consideration by anyone other than young, strong guys with lots of friends to help with the lifting. The second to top 116 is still nearly as powerful as the 118 and only 40+ lbs and $22,000, a reasonable price for a SOTA new generation contender. The 114 will probably still be a powerful amp at way below $20K. Let the new generation devices de-throne the horse and buggy overpriced units like you know what, like the Japanese girl who just beat Serena Williams in tennis. Audio engineering is the most primitive of all engineering fields, unlike aerospace, IT, etc. The brightest engineering graduates go into fields other than audio. The typical audio designer never took advanced math, or is mostly a hobbyist with a smattering of technical training, like my physical therapist friend who is picking up carpentry jobs after he learned his new trade by watching youtube videos. But Merrill is a master-degreed engineer who is blazing new paths with better devices, unlike most of the big name audio engineers who are just making horse and buggy warmed over stuff. Today's cheap laptop is better and more advanced than the SOTA unit of 5 years ago. The opposite of overpriced today's horse and buggy audio. Everyone should listen seriously and critically and boycott most of today's overpriced mediocre junk. Encourage the deserving new underdog to prosper. |
To all,
I would never want to appear arrogant. But I speak with lots of knowledge, a lot from my electrical engineering father, who worked in aerospace and knew many top engineers in all fields, mathematicians, physicists, etc. In high school I thought I was an excellent young mathematician, but his vast experience showed him that I was mediocre in comparison to the utterly brilliant people he worked with, so he advised me to become a practicing physician, which I did. Even worse, I thought I was a great young violinist, but my father was a critical listener and told me I would never make it as a professional musician. Years later after entering competitions, I realized for myself that my father was right. I find my career as a doctor very fulfilling, and enjoy playing music as an excellent amateur. The smartest thing I ever did was to listen to my father. So all you guys, respect what I say. I take lots of time to impart my experience. One of the most important benevolent things I can do is to expose much fraud in the audio industry and overpriced mediocre products which I have personally heard at home. You all work hard for your livelihood, and deserve to be protected financially from mistakes based on audio hype. I have made my own share of mistakes, and probably all of you have done the same. WC has done his big part in telling the truth about how equipment really sounds, in his unbiased way. I am doing the same, in my own way. And WC yesterday said it was sad how subpar most Mac amps are, except for the 2301. Most Macs are thus overpriced for what they are, according to the listening WC has done and some of my own listening. Mac lives by its glitzy appearance and marketing hype. Of course, I am not referring to Apple. As I said, in computers, phones, etc., you generally get value and quality for your money, vastly unlike consumer audio. Pro audio is different, and there is more value for the money there, because the demands of the production business means there is little tolerance for audiophile desires such as expensive casework, etc. Pro units have utilitarian appearance.
One particular audio writer I respected, Peter Aczel of the Audio Critic in the 1970-80's, said the same things I am saying. Aczel, wasn't a trained engineer, but he knew several important pioneers, and he always stuck up for value to the audio consumer. I often didn't agree with his sonic perceptions or preferences, but that's OK. His heart was in the right place.
|
mtbrider, thanks for correcting my spelling of Roger's last name. Usually I am a good speller and proofreader, and I laugh at my mistake because I admire Roger's work. |
geoffkait, thanks for your post, more authoritatively supporting my position. |
minorl, thanks for your well considered thoughts. Since I am not an engineer, I will defer to your expertise. Just talk to engineers in aerospace, etc. to see whether audio engineers command the intellectual respect you say they do. Also, there is a crucial difference between the audio engineer who is catering to the subjective whims of many audiophiles who like a certain type of sound but may not value accuracy, and the other engineers like you who are designing for performance and applications based on objective criteria. If your product performs objectively poorly and causes mass disasters like environmental catastrophies, you get nervous about your job security and long term reputation. If your product performs at a reasonable level of accuracy but is overpriced, your company will ultimately lose business because the competitive marketplace with many brilliant engineers will encourage value and a reasonable price for the performance obtained. This is NOT the case with many of the expensive audiophile electronics out there, and even more so with many expensive dynamic speakers out there. If you value accuracy at a moderate, natural sound level, there is nothing like a decent electrostatic speaker whose technology dates back 100 years and is MUCH cheaper than today's dynamic speakers with their expensive drivers. Yes, I realize that to get dynamic drivers to perform with clarity approaching an electrostatic, it is expensive and time consuming in the R&D. The electrostatic principle is simple and inherently superior in low distortion to the dynamic. One of the tenets of good engineering is designing to a price point, optimizing the performance/price ratio. Most reputable engineers do this well, but not most audio engineers, despite their claims that they do. I don't have a test bench, but my hardnosed demands as a value for performance listener and musical expertise lead me to this conclusion. charles1dad, continuing this discussion and to acknowledge your points, perhaps I used too broad a brush, but not much. There are a few audio companies I respect for the value they offer. For example, Dan Laufman of Emotiva personally may not have the technical level of Dag or Pass, but Emotiva is putting out damn good products for the money. I almost bought their top amp for $1000 new. It was absolutely better than MANY high priced gear from other companies, and there is no question that it is one of the top bangs for the buck. When I returned the Emotiva, it took some time for me to get the refund, because they put it on the test bench thoroughly to make sure it was in top condition. That's professionalism which I respect. |
minorl, you make valid points. First, Aerospace is a special case because the customer is mainly or entirely the govt. It is proper that big weapons should be restricted to govt uses and needs, but that limits the size of the market, and therefore prices will be very high. Despite competitive bidding by several manufacturers, it is like a cartel because everyone knows that the govt will pay exorbitant amounts for the very best items which are essential for national security and the drive to outrank rogue world govts. In contrast, the role model for value in sophisticated products is consumer computers, phones, TV's, etc.
Second, you confirm that most aspects of sound are measurable. Better specs will correlate with more accurate sound, if you know what to measure and measure many things. Tube lovers may prefer laid back warm/lush sound, but their equipment often has inferior specs. My one past experience with Modjeski's tubes in my Theta preamp showed that better specs from his top tubes yielded more accurate, less laid-back sound, and a cooler midrange that was still smooth and natural. I want to hear from today's tube lovers who try Modjeski's tubes. I learned back then that whether tube or SS, more accurate and revealing sound correlates with less lushness, verified by better specs. I am not referring to grossly exaggerated highs at unnaturally loud volumes that nobody can tolerate. But normal sensible volume levels in equipment that reveals all the freq ranges in a balanced way without the high freq rolloff of lush stuff correlates best with live, natural sounds.
|
grey9hound, certainly you are correct that the entire circuit tells the story. But minorl states clearly that sound is totally quantifiable, and I extend his statement by adding, "if you know what to measure." There is a basic inconsistency between more accurate sound and worse specs, which I believe minorl would agree with. The fact that you like lush sound with rolled off highs and loss of information is your privilege, but don't claim it is high fidelity. Why don't you try Modjeski's tubes which as part of the circuit will yield better specs, and then tell us what you hear. I did this 35 years ago and found that the difference was like getting a whole new piece of equipment, much more revealing. I only did this once, which is why I am curious to hear what other people find today. If you hear more details of your music still naturally presented but with less lush sound, you will get more out of the music. Remember that most recordings utilize close microphone placement and convey much more highs and other info than the typical listener hears from midhall laid back positions. If you like to hide information relative to accurately reproduced systems, or convert an exciting recording into a laid back one, it is still your privilege. |
WC, Just got the latest Stereophile today. A review of the ARC 160 monos. Reading between the lines, the reviewer seems to be in love with its beauty of sound relative to the more detailed Progressions. Now you can use the money for the Progressions, or possibly more interesting, try the ARC against the 2301 as suggested by RIAA. Then later go for the tubes with the best specs in a real shootout between the ARC and 2301.
|
dracule1--WC does tell us what he likes, but he also describes objectively what the sound characteristic is--laidback, forward, too much highs, bright, lots of bass, sweet or neutral midrange, imaging and space, etc. All with reference to different types of his music. Subjective opinions are less useful than objective analysis and the ability to be an unbiased reporter without corrupting ads and magazine politics. That is why WC's views are most informative.
Many years ago, I heard a big Rowland with its gold casework and cylindrical handles. A gold temple. In the store, compared to some other SS amps, that Rowland was overly sweet and rolled off. But Guidocorona has informed us that the new Rowlands have a neutral, highly resolving quality.
|
dracule1, ricred1,
This is an interesting discussion about how we use words to describe what we hear, and how we define "subjective", "objective", "opinion", "perception". Medically speaking, the shape of our ears, frequency response, hearing thresholds, etc. are all different from each other. Nobody really knows the electrical inputs from the acoustic nerves to the part of our brain that does the perceiving, so in that sense there is more objectivity from laboratory measurements of any part of our system or in its totality. However, we have each lived with our own ear-brain mechanism and know it like any part of our body, so different environmental sounds can be compared fairly objectively. In visual perception, an obvious example is perception of the blue sky on a perfect sunny day without clouds. Even accepting various degrees of color blindness, everyone can describe the sky as blue through a long life of experience, unless you are completely color blind. This is a decent level of objectivity because nobody will say "it is my opinion that the sky is blue." It is literally honest and correct to say, "I perceive the sky as blue," and then to say quite objectively that "the sky IS blue" because my perception is accurate and we all know what the word "blue" means. If a person with normal perception later describes the color of the sky as yellow, he is either wearing orange glasses with blue filters (I use these glasses at night to suppress the blue light that interferes with sleep) or he develops a medical visual perceptual disorder. In audio, a component that generates lots of bass or lots of highs relative to the rest of the freq spectrum can be objectively described by anybody regardless of whether he likes ("opinion") that sound ("subjectively"). The ability to hear things carefully and then to intelligently describe what you hear is a learning process founded on experience with music and the sounds of nature. Even when playing in the orchestra, the oboe gives an A 440Hz and we all listen carefully for a few seconds to make sure we perceive the A accurately before we tune our instruments to match the A. And the word "laid-back" is not an OPINION, it is a fairly objective observation and even definition that describes rolled off highs. Whether you LIKE that sound is your opinion or preference, another matter. The intelligent audiophile must further develop listening abilities so that communication is more meaningful and precise, rather than just saying it is all a matter of opinion or this or that component is better ("I just like this and you don't, so get lost"). Through a process of developing a vocabulary and developing better listening skills, our subjectivity and perceptions will move closer to objectivity. In life, more objectivity is sought, as with good evidence in legal cases, or a speeding ticket with the visual proof from 2 timed camera shots that you are guilty and there should be no dispute.
|
thezaks,
Ah, we're coming to a common understanding about objectivity and subjectivity, great. A few minor differences, though. We both agree that people hear differently. This is OBJECTIVELY true, demonstrable by basic hearing tests. See how agreement is easy when you have objective facts and measurements to back you up? However, at age 65, I have hearing deficiencies above about 10 Khz, so I don't claim to be as objective and revealing as a good microphone. Even in 20 year olds, I have measured hearing deficiency at 18-20Khz compared to 9 year olds. I try to be as objective as possible within my limitations, and acknowledge that there is quite a lot of subjectivity/uncertainty in my perceptions. So audio is not about total subjectivity vs total objectivity, it really is some combination of both. And charles1dad, pure subjectivity is completely unreliable, since the reviewer doesn't understand what he is listening to and doesn't have the basic vocabulary to describe it intelligently. On the other hand, pure objectivity in reference to lab measurements only may not tell you completely about how a system sounds. We are trying to do more measurements to get more info, and the challenge is to combine the measurements in some way to correlate better with everything we hear. John Atkinson in Stereophile often does a good job of correlating his measurements with the sound the reviewer describes. WC doesn't have test equipment, but he nicely describes objective and subjective characteristics, since I believe he has a great ear and is articulate about his findings. So let's try to get more value from our comparative listening and reporting by doing both objective and subjective analysis.
Individual preferences is another subject. Someone might LIKE that bass bump, but should be honest and objectively admit that there is that bass bump and he just likes it. As minorl said above, the bass bump is probably unnatural--I agree with his objective observation that the bass bump is there in some systems I have heard, even though it is a certainty that he and I hear differently in some ways, and my opinion matches his that it is unnatural. On one level, this opinion is subjective, since we weren't at the recording session and don't know objectively what the engineer really did. But you can play numerous recordings through such a system and objectively say that in most cases, it is an objective fact that the system has a bass bump. The more knowledgeable you are about natural, live music and the more informed is your listening, your subjective statement becomes more authoritatively objective, although not completely so. |
thezaks, you have entered into a whole new generalized conversation about recognizing the distinction between subjectivity and objectivity. I was a devout male chauvinist before I discovered the utter brilliance of a woman named Ayn Rand, whose Objectivism philosophy has had much influence in world affairs. Many people have difficulty accepting that there are facts and good principles that are objectively demonstrably true and logical, even if certain naysayers deny their validity through claiming that EVERYTHING is subjective and a matter of opinion. "You and perhaps many others perceive what is objective", "other views of claimed objectivity will also include different required elements in order to be objective to them"--my approximate quotations show the confusion. Particularly, "objective to them". First there is the objective reality of the real sound, either live or recorded. Then you have to perceive it, so the statement "objective to them" is illogical. Rather, it is correct to say "subjective to them" because "to them" means personal perception. Some people have a lot of experience and have developed a high level of interpretive understanding of what they hear, and accurately describe their perceptions whose accuracy reflects this understanding. In the case of the blue sky, this is a relatively elementary example where a high level of objectivity is recognized. The challenge is to develop more sophisticated levels of objectivity in audio that more people can recognize as objective, although I don't expect anyone to be able to do an accurate spectrum analysis of a sound by ear to compete with test instruments. But I think it is realistic to expect people to agree on something like, "speaker A in this room has more bass output than speaker B when both are played at the same subjective and measured wideband volume levels." This is an objective statement of tonal balance that is easy for 2 people with acceptable hearing to communicate, and they can easily agree because of the objectivity. If the two people disagree on whether speaker A is better than B, that is a subjective evaluation. The more things that can be objectified, the higher the chance of agreement and the lower the chance of bitter fighting to prove whose ego is bigger, who is a liar and dishonest, etc. The most fruitful outcome may come when 2 people who are trying to be objective, agree on some things, but one person hears things the other person doesn't, they have a discussion, and then they thank each other for the increased knowledge that they obtain when they put their heads together. In time, further discussions and learning will increase the level of objectivity. It is not productive if they just say that one product sucks and the other is good without that objective discussion. But it is better if one person says, "look, we both agree that this one objectively sounds more upfront with more detail in the music than the other, but since I know that you prefer laid back sound, I understand your preference for the laid back less detailed one." That is a consistency between objectivity and subjectivity that both people can respect. The combined approach of objectivity and subjectivity is more fruitful than either one to the exclusion of the other.
|
For the record, minorl and grey9hound had the only intelligent and worthwhile responses to my last admittedly long post. The rest are tongue tied and impatient. Sure, I am eager to hear WC's developments, but lately he is very happy with his 2301's and is relatively quiet because he is enjoying his music and other life. Yes, I could start my own thread, but I have no particular topic to address. I find it more useful to comment on any topic that is raised here, with ramifications outside audiophilia that several people have found interesting.
Grey9hound, your comment is interesting about whether laid back sound is less detailed. I have experiences in the concert hall that lead me to this conclusion. One time I could only get a ticket in the 15th row. I was unhappy because I couldn't hear that much detail of the music. All I did was look at the empty seats much closer. When there was a break, I moved up to the 5th row. Better, more detail, but then I moved up to the first row--voila!, an exciting, detailed experience. Of course, the first row was louder, but the tonal balance showed more highs although everything was enhanced. Keep in mind that the microphone placement for most recordings is close, so the objective truth of what is on these recordings is closest to the sound heard from the first row. And, as mayoradamwest, the professional trumpet player on this thread said, the very close sound heard from within the orchestra on stage is MUCH more detailed than the sound heard by anyone in the audience, confirming my thoughts. Another way to look at this is to remember a lot of comments in the audio press, where a component that has a tonal balance more to the highs will have more detail, although the reviewer may not like it because he finds that sound to have less fullness and body, qualities which he values. That's a fair, honest statement. Still another observation is that I have tried more laid back amps at home to compare with my reference. Of course, the sound impression I got was different and interesting, and some details I knew from my reference were still audible, but others were missing, particularly in the highs. But do the reverse, and start with a laid back amp, get to know the music and the amp. Then switch to a more upfront amp, and you will be shocked to hear many more details revealed. The differences from going from laid back to upfront are usually greater than the differences from going from upfront to laid back. This is because the upfront amp reveals the detail, which you may still hear in the laid back one, since you ALREADY know what to listen for. Of course, the upfront sound may need getting used to, and don't listen at unnaturally loud volumes, where even too loud live sound is unpleasant, shouty, etc.
More generally, I know some here have learned from my extensive life musical experiences. For people who disagree with me on some things, this stimulates me to organize my thoughts and better explain my ideas, and sometimes modify them based on some of the valid points made. I have certainly learned from many people here. Don't be rude and say, "get outta here" because that shuts everyone down to a certain extent. We all have much to learn from each other, as long as we are courteous and respectful. We can ignore who we don't like, but it is more fruitful to voice disagreement and explain why, in a courteous way.
|
I am impressed that the Dag preamp was the most transparent and detailed with the Gryphon. Since you have small reservations about the Dag, I think the most interesting shootout would be Dag + DCS + Gryphon (or Dag amp) vs DCS alone + Gryphon (or Dag amp). Your preference for the Lux preamp means that you still like some flavoring, and you may not be quite as ready to accept the clarity and naturalness of bypassing any preamp. My proposed shootout should help you resolve this issue. Perhaps the Dag preamp has close to the purity of no preamp, and has the advantage of giving you extra dynamics so you could have total satisfaction at high SPL's as well as low-medium SPL's. Use that wonderful recording of the guitar and voice to do the next shootouts.
The problem with using the Dag amp is that it may be inferior to the Gryphon. I believe your Gryphon is the best amp for purity and most other things, so you would be comparing the softer Lux preamp + accurate Gryphon amp with the accurate Dag preamp + a softer Dag amp, a kind of apple/orange mixed comparison. I think I remember your shootout with Dag Momentum amp against others, and it was softer than the Gryphon and even the best Pass XS300.
|
mrdecibel, I am dismayed at the ridiculous high prices of many exotic horn designs today. Have your heard any of them? What do their designers know that Paul Klipsch didn't? My father admired Klipsch, who lived to about 98, a great pioneer.
|
WC, read the glowing review of the Constellation Centaur 2 in the latest Stereophile. However, there is a telling line from the sales rep, Irv Gross, where he says that the main difference between the Centaur and the Inspiration is the power. For comparable sound quality, why pay 5 times as much, even if the Centaur permits you to blast your ears off. Watch out for hearing damage. The Inspiration Stereo is still pretty powerful. I am saving for the Merrill Element 118, which is more powerful than almost anything and may have the purest sound quality. As Guido said, the ultimate shootout will be the Rowland 925 vs the Element 118. The Element is "only" 36K retail. I am willing to be patient for another year until reviews and more experience with all the Elements is discussed. Meanwhile, I don't want to waste big bucks on obsolete dinosaur technology, until I see what develops with the Elements.
|
WC, I know faxer. I heard his GT audio near-full range ribbons and can vouch for their naturalness, neutrality and clarity. Even without the separate large woofer stack, the ribbons go down low to about 40 Hz. Only for music with very low bass were the woofers audible. As ribbons, they are better than any Maggie in the ways you know I value. They are efficient and dynamic, although I don't know if they rock the way dynamic speakers do. Don't interpret this as an biased endorsement of my friend's work, I am just recommending the speakers as a great value for the quality of sound from them. They compete favorably with the top Martin Logans at a much cheaper price.
|
mrdecibel, thanks for relating your experience. Because of that, your views have clout and command respect, notably your integration of "objectivity, subjectivity, participant, experience." I agree that often the first row has disadvantages, mainly because it is lower than the stage and the piano can sound funny, as respected_ent said a while ago. You have to look up, which is a bit uncomfortable. Instruments radiate upwards, so the first row listener may lose some information, even though proximity will be important to preserve high freq, which are severely lost through distance due to air absorption. I loved the Klipsch LaScalas when I last heard them in the early 1970's, at the time driven by an average receiver. They reminded me of my father's custom made Altec Voice of the Theaters from 1965, which gave me the audio bug. Even though I love my electrostatics, I don't think there is anything like horns for voice authority and naturalness. My favorite tenor, Jussi Bjoerling was so commanding and gorgeous on those horns.
|
4425, oh yes, WC is very interested in the D'Agostinos (Dags). He is just waiting for an attractive deal. My guess, based on reviews and my listening experience with Krell, Dag's former company, and having met him and knowing his personal musical/sound preferences, is that the Dags will have a powerful, ballsy and fairly accurate personality. In comparison, the Constellations may have a powerful but lighter, more nimble, faster response, although possibly warmer and sweeter than the Dags. Of course, as RIAA says, this is just speculation, and we won't really know until WC does his actual listening.
|
WC, I believe Constellation and Lux are the best bets, for the sonic qualities you just listed. I just think that the Con Inspiration will give comparable sonic purity as the MUCH more expensive Big Cons you listed. The reason is that they all use the same module as building blocks, just more of them in the higher priced and powerful models. Years ago, I spoke to a Con engineer who said the Inspiration has just about the identical circuit as the bigger models. This is what Irv Gross, the sales rep is saying. Read between the lines in the Stereophile review and see whether you interpret it as I do. When I want to consider a SOTA amp, I am most interested in the thinking and R&D that went into it. For the new much faster GaN transistor technology and thinking that goes into the Merrill Element 118, $36K or the Element 116, $22K can be justified, not $55K for the Big Con Centaur which has the same R&D as the $11K Inspiration and is probably a modest improvement based on power only. What were the problems with the Inspirations you heard about and wrote recently? In a similar price and power range, the Con Inspiration would probably compete effectively with the Lux. Suppose the Lux is modestly or a lot better than the Con Inspiration. I don't see the Big Con turning the tables around and beating the Lux. A BIG CON at $55K, pun intended. Maybe you can dip your toe in the water with the Inspiration and compare to the Lux which is reasonable even at $15K retail. I suggest not diving in headfirst at $55K for the Big Con Centaur, A/B the Lux, and being disappointed at the money you spent and hearing techno_dude say "I told you so." For that $55K, you might as well get back the Rowland 925 which you have considered in a class by itself. Then wait another year or so for the Merrill Element 118 at a relative bargain of $36K to see if it dethrones the Rowland 925.
|
WC,
For power cords, did you compare AQ Hurricane HC to Nordost Odin 1, with amplifiers or with Denali or Niagara 5000 power conditioners? It seems easier to find used power cords with 15A connectors. Getting 15A to 20A adaptors could work, but maybe introduce compromises.
|
dguitarnut, again not wanting to appear biased towards my friend faxer, I will say that his ribbons alone are quite extended in both directions, with a slight deficiency only below 40 Hz. In the low teens, they are a superb value for the sound quality which is near SOTA. As a skinny tall speaker, it is very room friendly. I went over to faxer's nice, large listening room, toed in the lightweight ribbons to the head, and everyone was impressed at the dramatic improvement in focus, clarity, HF extension, etc. Admittedly, a DIY product is unknown, so would have low resale value, but they are cheap enough so that even a total monetary loss on this DIY speaker would be much less than that of the Neolith, and even the CLX. Although I have not heard the Neolith I have already posted about the sonic drawbacks of huge curved electrostatic panels, based on my extensive past listening to a few similar products, with theoretical confirmation. Use your double PhD's and do the integral calculus about why large curved panels have major aggregate losses especially in the highs at the listening position, compared to skinny panels, and especially SOTA point source dynamic tweeters such as in WC's Magico. The CLX is better than the Neolith in these aspects, since the HF come from a narrow panel, although it is still curved. For SOTA, the CLX versus these DIY ribbons would be a good comparison. Both are excellent speakers for both absolute sound quality and value for the money.
|
david_ten, this Statement VAC amp may sound great, but $150K for something using dinosaur tube technology should give anyone caution. In one fell swoop, the much cheaper new technology Merrill Elements may demolish it, although we will patiently have to wait for experience of listening to them with breaking in, etc. to really judge. Maybe tube lovers will still think that the VAC is SOTA after evaluating the Elements, but that price tag should be respected by anyone who doesn't have money to burn. 4425, correct. Dealer opinion is often biased by the deals they make, politics, etc. There is no substitute for your own personal evaluation. |
Guidocorona, thanks for your impressions. Are you implying that the "house sound" of all the amps you just mentioned is leaning in the direction of mellow, smooth, laid back? According to reviews, the earlier Soulution amps were crisp/analytical, but the later ones were mellower. Is that your listening experience as well? For tube amps, ARC tend to be crisp, but still somewhat tubey compared to many SS amps. I've never heard any VTL. I remember your extensive review of the Merrill Veritas over 1000 hours of break in. Aside from your comment about the treble prominence of the Element 118, how was the overall clarity and detail retrieval relative to the broken in Veritas? A night and day blow away? I think the word "crisp" best summarizes what I value, since it implies precision in all the frequency ranges, not just a treble emphasis. Often the midrange and even the bass is clearer because of more energy in the treble, due to the overtones of lots of harmonics which are of higher frequency than the midrange/bass fundamental. These higher harmonics are natural, and when revealed it may seem that they are emphasized relative to the fundamental, but they are part of the total sound of the instrument. For example, the string bass has lots of highs due to the scraping of the bow on the string. I once played the open G string on my violin into a spectrum analyzer. Most of the energy was in much higher frequencies than the fundamental at 200 Hz. That doesn't mean the treble is excessive, unless it is obvious in some hyped up recordings where the treble is truly out of line. You will find that in the 15th row of the hall, the treble and many natural high harmonics are reduced from air absorption of distance, compared to the 1st row where the total sound is more revealed, fundamental and harmonics most inclusive. The 1st row sound will be relatively crisp compared to the mellow 15th row sound.
When will Element production be finalized, and when will you have an opportunity to review them? Of course, we will have to patient for the 1000 hours of break in, in your usual style of evaluation and reporting! Still, I hope you can be as excited as WC is when he loves to give us his early impressions, always updated as he listens further. Thanks again.
|
WC, I agree with your post last night for its honesty and truthfulness. You seem to presently prefer a revealing sound that may be slightly on the sweet side, like a slight dose of hazelnut creamer and whipped cream in your coffee. In that case, the Lux or any Constellation with their somewhat sweet midrange would give you just about everything you want. This is my guess based on reviews and the comments of yourself and techno_dude on the Lux. On the other hand, the fact that you have been enjoying the Magico for a longer time than other speakers suggests that you value the idea of a window into the music. You described the Magico as a neutral, accurate conduit/window into the music, despite more prominence of the highs than what you were previously used to. The increased highs make it possible to hear all the overtones of all instruments, as I shared with Guidocorona the other day. For the most accurate/revealing neutral window, you might also consider the Soulution 711, which is available on A-gon for $34K or so asking price. For many years when I was horrified at the tonally distorted sound of early SS, I took refuge in lots of tube equipment. Then I got the best tubes from Roger Modjeski, and later got the excellent Grant Lumley tube amps. All of these had less sweet personalities with more accuracy, until I got an early Spectral preamp and amp and realized that by this time SS was maturing and giving just about everything important. I began demanding more and more accuracy and information retrieval, which can only occur with neutrality. Don't spend a lot of money on stuff with a residual coat of sweetness. That's why I believe the cheaper Constellation or the Lux M900u represent great value at this point. Spend serious money on the Soulution 711 or the coming Merrill Element 118 whose qualities still are not known for sure.
On further thought in response to 4425, as much as you would like to listen to everything for yourself, the constraints of money and time make this task just about impossible. So if you trust the ears and the honesty of that guy who said the Constellation beats the Dag in the ways you mentioned, that narrows the field for you to consider seriously. From my experience with a few Krell amps from Dag's former company and knowing him, and trusting the ears of a well respected dealer for Dag, Spectral, Parasound, Lamm who said Dag has a more rolled off sound than several of the other units he sells, I'd say you can pass on the Dags unless you can get a fire sale deal on a Dag which you can listen to and then sell quickly without losing any money.
|
techno_dude, I like the neutral-maximum clarity as sonic goals of Spectral, but in practice it may not work out for a few reasons. First, they require a complete Spectral system because of the Mhz bandwidth, which means the Spectral preamp, MIT interconnects and speaker cables which have their own colorations that one may not like. Years ago, I found MIT to be veiled. They are ridiculously expensive for just being glorified filters. The coming Merrill Elements have Ghz bandwidth to put Spectral's Mhz bandwidth to shame. I hope Merrill doesn't require their whole system for absolute compatibility and prevention of blowups from so-called problems from unfiltered high bandwidth. Soulution Mhz designs don't require a complete Soulution system that I am aware of. Second, I recently went over to a seller's house and A/B'ed my Bryston 2.5B SST2 with his older Spectral amp that didn't require the whole Spectral shebang. We both agreed that my Bryston was faster and more exciting than his more mellow Spectral. He was a dignified seller who could have assumed that I can't hear properly and dumped all over my Bryston in favor with what he was selling, as MOST DEALERS DO. This was a great surprise to me, so despite reviews and the mystique of Spectral, I found out the truth only from my own listening. That Spectral unit could have developed different sound through aging--I don't know. Getting back to WC's ARC ref 10, you are right that he may have a sufficient dose of the tube hazelnut cream coloration so that he might appreciate the most neutral and revealing SS amps like series 7 Soulution (probably the best value and absolute performance is the 711 available on A-gon), Mola Mola Kaluga at a more "modest" $16K retail, or whatever else comes along. I am patiently waiting to see what develops with Merrill Elements.
WC, I am guessing that your BAT has similar type of sound and performance to Dag, at a small fraction of the Dag price, so keep the BAT around as a bargain reference.
|
almarg,
Good points, but my beef with Spectral is their requirement that you get the whole shebang of Spectral/MIT stuff. The Spectral dealer won't even sell you the amp alone, unless you buy the whole shebang. Even an A-gon seller a while back had the warning not to use the amp alone without the other Spectral components.
|
rickdog,
What a fanciful thought, interesting! That brings me back to my contention that present audio technology for music systems is primitive compared to NASA and similar sophisticated high tech applications. High tech is objective, unlike the subjectively oriented desires of many audiophiles. As I said many times, the ideal audio goal is to combine objective measurements and descriptions with subjective observations. With more education about the nature of real-life sounds and ability to describe accurately what you hear, the subjective perceptions become more objectified. But when too many audiophiles dismiss the need for objectivity and just go by their subjective whims, the electronics industry doesn't take them seriously and moves on to the much more advanced objective requirements in aerospace, computer and other high tech fields.
|
bill_k,
OK, I will read your links, thanks. I was under the impression that the GaN transistors Merrill is using are themselves Ghz devices, whereas the conventional transistors Spectral is using are Mhz devices. The devices must be the fastest possible in order to get negligible signal delays, which enable use of more feedback if desired to reduce distortion further, which is the approach used by Soulution and Mola Mola. Merrill avoids use of feedback, since he claims that speed is maximized this way. I am not a technical expert to favor one of these approaches over the other, but in the end, educated listening will be the judge. Of course, since audio signal output is only 20-20Khz, it is OK to filter the output, once the internal signal processing is handled with speed and accuracy. |
bill_k,
I get the impression from your link that the Merrill's GaN Ghz transistors are in the signal path, not as the switching freq of the power supply. This implies that the circuit has Ghz bandwidth with the appropriate highest speed, which then gets low pass filtered at the output for 20-20 Khz or whatever audio bandwidth. Merrill is implying that this amp design yields the fastest speed, according to my reading of it.
|
Guido, I hope you are safe and you didn't sustain losses due to Florence. In NY, we just had a moderate rain yesterday.
|
bill_k, agree with you. Thanks for your insights. At $36K, careful scrutiny is certainly appropriate.
|
Guidocorona,
I am on pins and needles awaiting your opinion about whether the Merrill Element 118 had detail and resolution that blew away the Veritas, for example. Or even the Rowland 925 which you own or have heard? All this technical speculation is interesting, but the bottom line is the sound, which only you have heard.
You raised an interesting point about whether amps with extended or even excessive high freq (HF) are suitable for sostenuto (sustained) music or just for percussive music. A few wonderful pieces come to mind to discuss this. First, the prelude to act 1 to Wagner's Lohengrin, one of my top favorites that tearfully melts me. (For those not familiar, the famous melody of "here comes the bride" is from Lohengrin.) The violin section is divided into several high note parts to begin the piece. High harmonics on top of high fundamentals. They are played sostenuto at a soft piano dynamic level with a few soft crescendos. This music is truly celestial, so maximal resolution of HF is of utmost importance to appreciate the beauty of this piece. As a good pun, celestial qualities are associated with highs (HF) as well as the "high" altitude. I have not played this piece in any of my orchestras, and I have not seen the score (written sheet music), so I won't be surprised that when I do get to see the score, there will be lots of details revealed that even I have not yet perceived. That's why I say to people who like laid back rolled off HF sound, you sadly don't realize what you are missing. Second, Borodin, From the Steppes of Central Asia, which I have played in orchestras from when I was very young to more recently. It opens with high harmonics of HF in the violins at a soft pianissimo level. It starts with a high harmonic on the E string, then modulates to the high harmonic on the A string. The instant moment of that modulation is an awesome experience, greatly realized by full HF revelation. These HF harmonics serve as background to the midrange theme played by the flute, then English horn and later by the other wind instruments. As a violinist immersed in this music at close range, I was smitten by the brilliant revelation of these sounds. Its beauty is tremendously enhanced by the HF brilliance, and again anyone who prefers laid back sound is sadly missing out.
On a slightly more technical level, sostenuto (sustained) sound may sound smooth and continuous, but on a micro level, there are fine percussive elements in it. For example, violinists use sticky rosin on the bow to get traction of the horsehair to the string. To get a sustained sound, it is required to continuously and gently scrape the string, all very skillfully to avoid unpleasant harsh scratching and crunching. The gentle scrape produces plenty of HF which actually go way beyond 20 Khz. If you listen to any violinist at very close range, a large part of the total sound is that scraping noise. Also, wind instruments like the French horn produce sound via turbulence (a kind of percussion) of the air flow, and papers by James Boyk show a lot of HF up to 9000 Hz in the French horn when it is usually considered a mellow, midrange instrument. So my conclusion is that maximal revelation of HF (of course other lower freq as well) in electronics is essential for full appreciation of any music, whether percussive or sostenuto.
|
Guido,
Thanks for your informative post last night. When do you think you will be able to hear/review the production version of Element 118, or 116, 114? Sometimes gratitude for surviving what could have been major devastation leads you to appreciate what you have even more. I am reminded of the Thanksgiving slow movement of Beethoven's String Quartet op 132, particularly in the sensitive recording of the Budapest Quartet about 1963, my favorite.
Despite our kindred spirits, I just have a little disagreement on interpretation of treble response. You describe how the Element 118 relative to the Veritas had significantly "greater resolution of very low level detail revealing/exposing harmonics." This would not be possible if "treble overpressure dampens the perception of low level harmonics." Therefore, to be consistent, this implies that the 118 did NOT have treble OVERPRESSURE. Rather, it implies that the 118's treble was naturally extended, which also creates "larger staging in 3 dimensions, clearer images." If the treble were artificially emphasized and peaky, the soundstage would suffer. This is analogous to italics print, which is sort of like peaky print. If the eye doctor's chart were done in italics, the 20/20 line would not be as well resolved/visible as it is in the usual boldface print. Also, "treble intermodulation distortion" is usually thought of as an objective lab measurement, so I am not sure how to interpret your use of this term. You have also described the "bristles" that you like in live music. I also like these "bristles". Although a subjective word, "bristles" implies to me a sort of jarring perception of small percussive edges in live sound. These edges are high frequency phenomena, not distortions. Overly smooth sound is heard in the 15th row of the concert hall, where much of the HF is rolled off and dissipated, and "bristles" are therefore smoothed over. To me, overly smooth sound is boring, since it is missing much of the startling clarity of the natural real thing, heard close up in all its revealing glory. What do you think of my discussion of the 2 pieces I cited--Lohengrin and In the Steppes? Another example is the Rimsky-Korsakoff Russian Easter Overture. I played this in high school orchestra, and was astounded to see high harmonic passages in the first violin part, which are never heard in most recordings when played on typical rolled off audio systems. These "harmonics" are produced by lightly touching the fingerboard instead of pressing down, creating much higher fundamentals. For example, on the E string, press firmly with the 3rd finger in first position, and you get an A with fundamental at 880Hz. But lightly touch the string at the same position, and you get an E with fundamental at 2520 Hz, with harmonics of that 2520 that go much higher. These phenomena are revealed in the Wagner, Borodin and Rimsky pieces. But they must be reproduced properly, with full HF extension to reveal the truth. Many audiophiles with insufficient musical experience misinterpret natural HF extension for "excessive treble." The treble is NOT excessive in most cases, if you have the true frame of reference to live music, heard reasonably closeup.
|
Guido, how do I PM to you?
|
Guido, I really appreciate our dialog, and welcome the opportunity to privately communicate with you via email. Mine is [email protected]. It is sad that several people here don't appreciate our sophisticated discussion and are just nasty about it. I will NOT start a new thread, because our comments are very relevant to THIS thread, and the some of the better people here do appreciate my insights. It was YOU who introduced us to the Merrill Element, which has the potential to be a real game changer. That stimulated lots of valuable discussion here, which I hope WC and others have found useful. |
WC, be careful in your enthusiasm for the Wireworld stuff. If the highs are relatively rolled off, you will subtract information from recordings, even if it may sound more pleasant and likably coherent. Further listening will verify this.
|
RIAA,
I do appreciate some of your posts, providing useful information based on your experience, and later realizing the truth of what you had to say about amps and dealers, etc. So why don't you acknowledge and respect my experience as well? By the way, my work as a doctor is rooted in the search for truth about root causes of disease and better natural treatments. Most doctors are just drug pushers who don't have the knowledge and commitment that I have. In audio, I have the same goals--search for the truth. And a high proportion of scientists/mathematicians love to play musical instruments and listen to music. We are passionate about our productive pursuits in our careers and as music lovers, not self-indulgent egotists just mouthing off. It just takes more words to explain a position, so it is better to do that rather than shortening it by leaving out crucial thoughts and being superficial. A good doctor takes plenty of time with a patient to explain things. Most patients are unhappy with the insufficient amount of time that most doctors give. So it is with audio--the more input you can get, the more likely you will avoid costly mistakes.
|
Guido, maybe you can simply email me, and then we could communicate privately.
|
