My Long List of Amplifiers and My Personal Review of Each!
So I have been in a long journey looking to find the best amplifiers for my martin logan montis. As you know, the match between an amplifier and speakers has to be a good "marriage" and needs to be blend exquisitely. Right now, I think I might have found the best sounding amplifier for martin logan. I have gone through approximately 34-36 amplifiers in the past 12 months. Some of these are:
Bryston ST, SST, SST2 series NAD M25 PARASOUND HALO PARASOUND CLASSIC KRELL TAS KRELL KAV 500 KRELL CHORUS ROTEL RMB 1095 CLASSE CT 5300 CLASSE CA 2200 CLASSE CA 5200 MCINTOSH MC 205 CARY AUDIO CINEMA 7 OUTLAW AUDIO 755 LEXICON RX7 PASS LABS XA 30.8 BUTLER AUDIO 5150 ATI SIGNATURE SERIES 6005
With all that said, the amplifiers I mentioned above are the ones that in my opinion are worth mentioning. To make a long story short, there is NO 5 CHANNEL POWER AMP that sounds as good as a 3ch and 2ch amplifier combination. i have done both experiments and the truth is that YOU DO lose details and more channel separation,etc when you select a 5 channel power amplifier of any manufacturer. My recollection of what each amp sounded like is as follows:
ATI SIGNATURE SERIES 6005 (great power and amazing soundstage. Very low noise floor, BUT this amplifiers NEEDS TO BE cranked up in order to fully enjoy it. If you like listening at low volume levels or somewhat moderate, you are wasting your time here. This amp won’t sound any different than many other brands out there at this volume. The bass is great, good highs although they are a bit bright for my taste)
NAD M25 (very smooth, powerful, but somewhat thin sounding as far as bass goes) Bryston sst2(detailed, good soundstage, good power, but can be a little forward with certain speakers which could make them ear fatiguing at loud volumes)
Krell (fast sounding, nice bass attack, nice highs, but some detail does get lost with certain speakers)
rotel (good amp for the money, but too bright in my opinion)
cary audio (good sound overall, very musical, but it didn’t have enough oomph)
parasound halo (good detail, great bass, but it still holds back some background detail that i can hear in others)
lexicon (very laid back and smooth. huge power, but if you like more detail or crisper highs, this amp will disappoint you)
McIntosh mc205 (probably the worst multichannel amp given its price point. it was too thin sounding, had detail but lacked bass.
butler audio (good amplifier. very warm and smooth sweet sounding. i think for the money, this is a better amp than the parasound a51)
pass labs (very VERY musical with excellent bass control. You can listen to this for hours and hours without getting ear fatigue. however, it DOES NOT do well in home theater applications if all you have is a 2 channel set up for movies. The midrange gets somewhat "muddy" or very weak sounding that you find yourself trying to turn it up.
classe audio (best amplifier for multi channel applications. i simply COULDNT FIND a better multi channel amplifier PERIOD. IT has amazing smoothness, amazing power and good bass control although i would say krell has much better bass control)
Update: The reviews above were done in January 2015. Below is my newest update as of October 2016:
PS AUDIO BHK 300 MONOBLOCKS: Amazing amps. Tons of detail and really amazing midrange. the bass is amazing too, but the one thing i will say is that those of you with speakers efficiency of 87db and below you will not have all the "loudness" that you may want from time to time. These amps go into protection mode when using a speaker such as the Salon, but only at very loud levels. Maybe 97db and above. If you don’t listen to extreme crazy levels, these amps will please you in every way.
Plinius Odeon 7 channel amp: This is THE BEST multichannel amp i have ever owned. Far , but FAR SUPERIOR to any other multichannel amp i have owned. In my opinion it destroyed all of the multichannel amps i mentioned above and below. The Odeon is an amp that is in a different tier group and it is in a league of its own. Amazing bass, treble and it made my center channel sound more articulate than ever before. The voices where never scrambled with the action scenes. It just separated everything very nicely.
Theta Dreadnaught D: Good detailed amp. Looks very elegant, has a pleasant sound, but i found it a tad too bright for my taste. I thought it was also somewhat "thin" sounding lacking body to the music. could be that it is because it is class d?
Krell Duo 300: Good amp. Nice and detailed with enough power to handle most speakers out there. I found that it does have a very nice "3d" sound through my electrostatics. Nothing to fault here on this amp. Mark Levinson 532H: Great 2 channel amp. Lots of detail, amazing midrange which is what Mark Levinson is known for. It sounds very holographic and will please those of you looking for more detail and a better midrange. As far as bass, it is there, but it is not going to give you the slam of a pass labs 350.5 or JC1s for example. It is great for those that appreciate classical music, instrumental, etc, but not those of you who love tons of deep bass.
It is articulate sounding too Krell 7200: Plenty of detail and enough power for most people. i found that my rear speakers contained more information after installed this amp. One thing that i hated is that you must use xlr cables with this amp or else you lose most of its sound performance when using RCA’s.
Krell 402e: Great amp. Very powerful and will handle any speaker you wish. Power is incredible and with great detail. That said, i didn’t get all the bass that most reviewers mentioned. I thought it was "ok" in regards to bass. It was there, but it didn’t slam me to my listening chair.
Bryston 4B3: Good amp with a complete sound. I think this amp is more laid back than the SST2 version. I think those of you who found the SST2 version of this amp a little too forward with your speakers will definitely benefit from this amp’s warmth. Bryston has gone towards the "warm" side in my opinion with their new SST3 series. As always, they are built like tanks. I wouldn’t call this amp tube-like, but rather closer to what the classe audio delta 2 series sound like which is on the warm side of things.
Parasound JC1s: Good powerful amps. Amazing low end punch (far superior bass than the 402e). This amp is the amp that i consider complete from top to bottom in regards to sound. Nothing is lacking other than perhaps a nicer chassis. Parasound needs to rework their external appearance when they introduce new amps. This amp would sell much more if it had a revised external appearance because the sound is a great bang for the money. It made my 800 Nautilus scream and slam. Again, amazing low end punch.
Simaudio W7: Good detailed amp. This amp reminds me a lot of the Mark Levinson 532h. Great detail and very articulate. I think this amp will go well with bookshelves that are ported in order to compensate for what it lacks when it comes to the bass. That doesn’t mean it has no bass, but when it is no Parasound JC1 either. Pass labs 350.5: Wow, where do i begin? maybe my first time around with the xa30.8 wasn’t as special as it was with this monster 350.5. It is just SPECTACULAR sounding with my electrostatics. The bass was THE BEST BASS i have ever heard from ANY amp period. The only amp that comes close would be the jC1s. It made me check my settings to make sure the bass was not boosted and kept making my jaw drop each time i heard it. It totally destroyed the krell 402e in every regard. The krell sounded too "flat" when compared to this amp. This amp had amazing mirange with great detail up top. In my opinion, this amp is the best bang for the money. i loved this amp so much that i ended up buying the amp that follows below.
Pass labs 250.8: What can i say here. This is THE BEST STEREO AMP i have ever heard. This amp destroys all the amps i have listed above today to include the pass labs 350.5. It is a refined 350.5 amp. It has more 3d sound which is something the 350.5 lacked. It has a level of detail that i really have never experienced before and the bass was amazing as well. I really thought it was the most complete power amplifier i have ever heard HANDS DOWN. To me, this is a benchmark of an amplifier. This is the amp that others should be judged by. NOTHING is lacking and right now it is the #1 amplifier that i have ever owned.
My current amps are Mcintosh MC601s: i decided to give these 601s a try and they don’t disappoint. They have great detail, HUGE soundstage, MASSIVE power and great midrange/highs. The bass is great, but it is no pass labs 250.8 or 350.5. As far as looks, these are the best looking amps i have ever owned. No contest there. i gotta be honest with you all, i never bought mcintosh monos before because i wasn’t really "wowed" by the mc452, but it could have been also because at that time i was using a processor as a preamp which i no longer do. Today, i own the Mcintosh C1100 2 chassis tube preamp which sounds unbelievable. All the amps i just described above have been amps that i auditioned with the C1100 as a preamp. The MC601s sound great without a doubt, but i will say that if you are looking for THE BEST sound for the money, these would not be it. However, Mcintosh remains UNMATCHED when it comes to looks and also resale value. Every other amp above depreciates much faster than Mcintosh.
That said, my future purchase (when i can find a steal of a deal) will be the Pass labs 350.8. I am tempted to make a preliminary statement which is that i feel this amp could be THE BEST stereo amp under 30k dollars. Again, i will be able to say more and confirm once i own it. I hope this update can help you all in your buying decisions!
Gryphon cables add that relaxed feeling. You are the first person to spot that. Why do you think I bought the Gryphon xlr within 24 hours after I heard them here in my room and sold the VALHALLA 2? It was too much energy with gryphon. Finally someone understands WHY I went with gryphon cables. :) Systems matching....that’s what i have been working on ever since I got the mephisto. This is the SAME EXACT THING that someone else who just bought a mephisto is working on after watching me do it. He didn’t know why it wasn’t playing nice with his sasha Daw. Patience ... Nothing is plug and play with some brands and the mephisto is far from a plug and play Amplifier. This is why I don’t think it should be purchased by anyone who has zero understanding of what they are getting themselves into. I also have said this on my videos but I don’t think people really hear what I say because they skip a lot of the video. Anyhow, today’s video you got to hear the magnepan with gryphon speaker cables. I used the same songs so you all can compare how things change by switching speaker cables on the last two videos.
You all should take the time to read the comments on my YouTube videos. This way you get a general understanding of what the general audience is feeling each step of the way.
The last two videos sound very detailed and spacious but for me they lack body, warmth and richness. Going straight from dac to amp, specifically the Mephisto as good as it is, might be too much of a good thing.....not sure power cords or cables would be able to improve things. The D Agostino HD Preamp with the Mephisto and the VIP / Dragon HC cables into the Maggies I believe would be much better. I do realize the cost ratio of components and cables to speakers is ridiculous, just talking about tonal balance.
Trying to get REO Speedwagon to sound good on a high end 2 channel system is really tough, especially with the Mephisto. Classical music audiophiles have it so much easier than rock / pop audiophiles do. There are so many rock / pop / R&B tunes I would rather listen to in my car than on my system at home.....too bad.
Maybe it was the Nordost that was tilted up not the amp. Nordost has always had that reputation. Gryphon has never been considered tilted up. I heard the Gryphon at a dealer with transparent and it was warm sounding. Maybe the Gryphon is just revealing of the cable or anything else in front of it.
Music is such a competitive profession that many young musicians who are talented and excellent performers can only make a living doing street performances. For audio purposes, even mediocre performers can give an education about what live sound is. You can get close or further away from them to learn the effects of distance, and throw a dollar into their case for a few minutes of listening. But to hear great performers in a concert hall in an ideal seat which is hard to get, you have to pay sometimes several hundred bucks. You go to a great concert mainly to hear the music and not judge the sound, because most of the time your seat will be inferior.
For really great performances, I go to youtube to hear the recordings regardless of sound quality. For top performances, I have a few modern recordings in good sound, so it is worthwhile to spend some money on the audio system.
viber6 I do appreciate the sound of real instruments in a well designed space and have been present at numerous recording sessions. I was financial partner in a commercial recording studio a few years, as part of my addiction to audio. Having heard top musicians play around, and be serious take after take, has maybe made me unimpressed with most street musicians, sure great ones get discovered playing on the street, but you seldom see or hear originality. As i am not yet a fan of classical music, small venue concerts with Leonard Cohen, Joan Armatrading and Van Morrison have been sound wise my greatest experiences. You can find excellent recording in most kind of music, not only classical.
Once you hear the power of a full scale Orchestra in a decent hall you can’t help but be swept away by it. The problem is that Classical is so very difficult To reproduce in the recording process and the playback system. I think a system that can do Classical right can do any other genre with ease.
True, but the point of my experience was to tell about how a single instrument like the sax is difficult to reproduce properly. I merely heard the sax out of my car window, and the sax bell was pointed away from me. Still, most audio systems are an embarrassment by comparison. I just think that a low mass open baffle design comes closest to reproducing the tone of a natural instrument. Get this right for a single instrument with as little coloration as possible, and the rest follows for groups of 2 instruments, then 3 and so on for the full scale orchestra. Audiophile things like soundstage are secondary to getting the tone right, without the overlay of artificial box speaker resonances. When I heard the sax from a compromised position like inside the car, I didn’t crave the nonexistent soundstage, but was delighted by the pure tone.
Agree about classical. If live classical is used as a reference, and the audio system is the highest quality, the tone is right, and even processed rock will present the correct tone as the recording engineers present it. So even WC’s videos of processed music show that the 20.7 gets the tone more natural and correct than the Alexia 2. Even processed recordings have sections with reasonably natural voices and instruments, although I hate the artificial electronic bass without natural harmonics on those recordings. And even the mediocre quality sound of my computer and youtube still shows these differences between the 20.7 and Alexia 2.
viber6 Why this sudden focus on open baffle speakers when you have never even heard one yourself ? Jay is comparing Maggie’s and Martin Logan at this time, why not concentrate on the current speakers being reviewed instead of a hypothetical speaker you have never heard ?
I would be happy to recommend some classical pieces you would enjoy. Years ago, I attended a classical concert give by the violinist, Nigel Kennedy. He was dressed like a rock star, and wanted to show the connection between jazz and classical. He played a fast virtuoso jazz piece, followed by a fast classical Bach piece. He succeeded in showing that both pieces had similar style and spirit. Classical music had developed almost all melodic and harmonic forms by 1900, so later popular genres utilized classical advances for their own purposes.
Certainly, I have not heard any open baffle (OB) dynamic speaker, but am relying on a trusted friend, tweak1, who has owned all types of OB speakers such as planar ribbon, electrostatic, and dynamic. He got me thinking that OB is a concept I had previously not considered, and therefore, OB dynamic speakers are things that may appeal to many people here. Also, another reader who owns the original MG III and is considering some dynamic OB designers, gave me the idea also.
You are right, just listen to the 20.7 vs ML 13A for now. I just had some brain storming before this exciting comparison is shown to us by WC.
Well all I can say to that is that I know many classical music lovers who attend the symphony on a weekly basis that will disagree with your assessment of the two Types of speakers. The Maggie’s lack the detail and transparency required to reproduce the leading edge of the string instruments not to mention the speed and impact of the Dynamic jump Of the full orchestra. Again the area Of music you find more important may be different than what others find important. For you the open baffle design is your preference. I certainly respect your opinion and understand your preference. I understand the benefits of both designs both giving you a different perspective on the music. You realize David Wilson was a classical music lover and recording engineer for for the large orchestral music. He has produced some of the best recordings of larger orchestras. I think the Alexia 2s have excellent tonal Balance and harmonics given the right electronics. Besides you haven’t heard the Alexia 2 in the current setup as it is now with the current electronics and cabling.
carey1110, I own the Audiostatic 240 electrostatic speaker, which is an OB electrostatic. My general point and new thinking is that the open quality of OB designs is a combination of the driver and the OB factor which minimizes the colorations imposed by boxy resonances. It is possible that a box speaker with far superior drivers will have less coloration than an OB design with mediocre drivers. It's a chain, with all the factors contributing.
Go back to the videos and listen carefully to "Q&A, Fink" on the 20.7 vs Alexia 2. For the opening voice, then the faux hand claps and then the faux tambourine that is like the lid of a metal trash can, the 20.7 has more clarity, snap and natural tone than the Alexia. The Alexia is like canned corn, but the 20.7 is like fresh corn. There are some people who may prefer canned corn to fresh corn, but that's another matter. The major advantage of the Alexia is superior deep bass. The 20.7 has the SOTA tweeter, which WC also has noted. Although he didn't play any orchestral string music, the superiority of the 20.7 tweeter can be heard with any music.
BTW, most classical audience members are sitting far enough away, that the HF and snap are diminished, so their attention is drawn to the huge dynamics of a large orchestra. But if you want to seriously compare live classical music to recordings whose main microphones are about in the 1st row, or closer above the stage, the reference point for the listener is in the 1st row, not any further back. In recordings, there are often mikes mixed in which capture the ambience of the hall, but the main mikes are up close. There are often very close spot mikes for individual instruments.
When I go to concerts, I often cannot get my preferred seat, 1st row center. I might only get the 12th row for a famous performer, so I listen to the first piece there. I am horrified by how muddy the sound is, although I enjoy the music. I quickly move up to the 3rd row for the next piece if there are empty seats, and the sound is much better, but still not so great. Very often, for the next piece, I get my 1st row seat, and the sound is delightful, with everything I want--clarity, snap, natural tone, and of course, plenty of dynamics.
Cant really compare the alexias to the Maggie’s, as they were shown with different setups, meaning cables. There are also open baffle speakers that are not stats. I have the Emerald Physics 4.7s in my bedroom. Nice speaker, but can’t say the difference was what I was expecting. From what the OB guys say, I was expecting a much bigger difference. Yes many box speakers do have a “boxy” sound to them. I remember my Martin Logan’s having great detail, but lacked feeling, soul. This was around 2005. The Vandy 3As never had a boxy sound
Cant really compare the alexias to the Maggie’s, as they were shown with different setups, meaning cables. There are also open baffle speakers that are not stats. I have the Emerald Physics 4.7s in my bedroom. Nice speaker, but can’t say the difference was what I was expecting. From what the OB guys say, I was expecting a much bigger difference. Yes many box speakers do have a “boxy” sound to them. I remember my Martin Logan’s having great detail, but lacked feeling, soul. This was around 2005. The Vandy 3As never had a boxy sound, but their design is more like an open baffle in a way
Boxiness is often subtle, as in an overlay of coloration, which I tried to describe in my furniture analogy between the pure wood and the layers of paint added to the wood. The best, most expensive boxes have the least coloration among boxes, so that is a big factor in the much higher cost of SOTA box designs.
I am not a cheerleader for the 20.7 as the best example of low mass OB design, because its large size is associated with image bloating. I am looking forward to the ML 13A which is moderate size and probably has more focused imaging than the 20.7. The moderate size Alexia 2 probably also has more focused imaging than the 20.7. I am just discussing purity and naturalness of tone, which seems to be superior on the 20.7 on the videos heard on my computer system. I defer to WC to see if he comes to the same conclusions if he listens in his room or on computer audio.
Yes many conventional dynamic speakers have a “boxinees “, i don’t think Wilson belong in that category, they are very well made. Personally i find the lack of wide range dynamics, thinness in the mid bass and lack of the deepest bass of most electrostatic speaker just as irritating. I spent many years with electrostatic speakers, and love the soundstage and almost spooky quality they can have with voices and acoustic instruments, but their deficiencies in both frequency ends ended up liming the amount of recordings that where enjoyable.
Trade offs guys... NO SPEAKER IS PERFECT. If anyone is selling you this BS then they are LYING to your face. I don’t care what manufacturer it is, all speakers have a trade off.
Wilson has an ability to sound huge and with incredible resolution. Right now, i still prefer the Wilson alexia 2 over my magnepan. Why do you ask? here are a few reasons off the top of my head:
Fullness, dynamics
smaller footprint yet they sound wider than the magnepan
less directional than the magnepan
they sound better with more genres than the magnepan
they need less space to sound just as big as the magnepan
Magnepan has the upper hand with instruments. Songs such as "Chan Chan" from Buena Vista Social Club sounds more impressive with the Magnepan and a tad more organic, but again this is not the same scenario with other genres. So, let’s say there are 100 genres of music (hypothetical), the Magnepan will sound amazing with 30 genres and wilson alexia with the other 70 genres. Holistically speaking, the Alexia 2 will be the better speaker with more music types, BUT the Magnepan DOES beat the Alexia with some genres.
I already recorded the first video of the 13a without the room correction being applied. I want you all to hear what this speakers sounds like without room correction applied and then on a separate video i will do the room correction and let you hear the "after" room correction presentation.
I agree KPS25sc the Wilsons does not have discernible cabinet sound. That’s where much of their technology lies. I think most of the preconceived ideas of boxiness or cabinet sound are from back in the day or lower line speakers. Speaker cabinet technology has come a long way, not just with Wilson but many others too. I have owned numerous electrostats, Soundlab U1and A1, numerous Martin Logan’s CLS, CLS 2 and 2z, The Prodigy, Acoustat and quad 63 and 57s and Apogees. They all seem to me to have different tonal balances. The Acoustat had a plastic sound. None of them seem to have the true weight of the instrument but kind of a skeleton effect of the instrument. The apogees seem to come closer than all the rest but Out of all those the quad was the most captivating but only in a very limited type of music. So while they have their niche and are fun I don’t think for me they could replace a well designed and executed dynamic speaker. If you wish to sit and listen to a violinist like Nigel Kennedy then and electrostats will do fine. However I like a wide variety of music so the OB style is just too limited for me.
If you want a dynamic speaker, which is honest, well balanced, detailed agile and gets tonality spot on for instruments then look no further then ATC created by Billy Woodman who is also a piano player. ATC arise from a studio monitor audio back ground who produce professional and consumer HiFi. Their speakers are passive and active. There is a lot of admiration for their passive speakers but hearing the active versions is like crossing the line and the veil is lifted! But it is for audiophiles who can face the ’truth’, so if you want super space walk about in soundstage in tube fashion looking at the trombone player from all angles, then this brand is not for you. However if you want to capture the live performance, the ambience, the technique used by the individual players. recognition of instruments used (Gibson orStratocaster guitars, nylon or steel strings), the natural presentation without any affectations to the sound, imaging and above all emotion of that evening then try ATC; but beware poor recordings will be shown as they are and not artificially enhanced to sweeten the ear...
I picked up on the "canned corn" comment but let it go - thanks for brining it back. Though I understand the intent of the poster with that comment, it surely does not accurately describe that speaker. Just like "boxey" doesn't either.
OK, I listened again to the 20.7 and Alexia 2 on the song "Q&A, Fink." There is not much HF in that recording, and my mediocre computer speakers wouldn't reveal much HF anyway. I found the hand claps slightly more brilliant on the 20.7, not a blowaway. WC didn't answer the question about which tweeter is more extended or revealing, so I'll be generous and call it a draw.
More significant is the opening voice. I found the 20.7 offers a more palpable, coherent vocal tone than the Wilson. If the tweeters of both speakers are comparable, the midrange of the 20.7 is faster than the midrange of the Wilson, so that the midrange keeps up with the tweeter better in the 20.7. This is explained by the low mass midrange planar driver being almost as fast, but of similar character to the ribbon tweeter. Dynamic tweeters can be wonderful, as in the Wilson, but the downfall of dynamic midrange and lower freq drivers is their different character of slowness and more coloration. The boxy design is a disadvantage that slightly handicaps the Wilson, although I accept the fact that it is one of the top box designs with the lowest amount of coloration from the box. That's what money buys. I also have little doubt that the top M series of Magico also has lower coloration than the A and S series. All the Magicos have excellent freq response, but the M series was designed to have less boxy coloration due to more sophisticated technology.
On other selections, the Wilson has a somewhat more hifi-ish coloration. Upper midrange instruments are a little pinched, due to the slight incoherency between midrange and tweeter drivers. I can see how the Wilson may be perceived as having more detail than the 20.7, due to the pinching effect, but I hear the 20.7 as being both detailed and smooth, and more like natural live music. Analogies are usually flawed, but I'll say again that the 20.7 is like fresh corn, and the Wilson like canned corn, but great canned corn where the processing plant slipped in a little spicy pizazz that many people like, EVEN ME at times, and for certain music.
The ML 13A will probably have the most coherent sound, since the same stat driver covers the whole range from 300 Hz on up. Long time readers know my feelings about curved panels, so I won't prematurely rate the ML 13A vs the 20.7 until everyone can listen for themselves very soon.
stargazer3, Which active ATC speakers do you recommend? Prices? Thanks for this info.
That depends on your room size and how much you want to spend. For audiophiles who are on the beginning of the ladder the SCM19a & SCM40A I think are under $10,000.00 in your country. Then onward models is coming into serious ATC music. The SCM50 (created in mid 80’s) has a sort of a cult following as it is honest neutral and will simply reflect the rest of your system. It has been a reference speaker for decades with What HiFi for purposes of reviews. I can go on & on about their passive and active speakers, its best I send you this link which consist nearly all professional reviews as to their Speakers and electronics. It also lists all available components from ATC.
I hope you may find what you are looking for. It was your previous posts as to music reproduction and Classical music that inspired me to mention ATC, after all if it is good enough for Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd and Abbey Road Studios its worth researching..
I listened again to "Baby I love the feeling" on both 20.7 and Alexia 2. The opening jangle of HF percussion is crisper on the 20.7, and also more open and smoother without the slight pinching or "wrinkles" of the Alexia 2. Next, the voice has the same fresher, more natural quality on the 20.7. Even though the instruments behind the voice sound processed due to the recording engineering, the 20.7 presents everything as fresher, or less canned than the Alexia 2. WC described the 20.7 as a little more organic than the Alexia 2. I think "organic" is similar to my word "coherent," so we agree on the character of the sound, just using different words.
I will admit that for a box speaker, the Alexia 2 is better than I originally thought. I can understand how the slightly hifi-ish canned quality of the Alexia 2 is somewhat irritating with the Nordost + Mephisto, so the Gryphon cabling is preferred by WC. But I believe that the smoother, more natural 20.7 would perform at a higher level with the more transparent Nordost cabling. There are no irritating aspects in the midrange/HF of the 20.7, so the Nordost would bring the positives without the negatives.
My computer audio doesn't reveal imaging or soundstage, but only the tone quality, so it is possible that the 20.7 flaw of bloated imaging heard in a room would put the 20.7 at a disadvantage compared to the Alexia 2, for this aspect of the total sound.
When I hear “organic” I’m thinking absence of electronic haze, hearing the wood tones or metal tones or flesh tone if vocals, lack of signature. Where as “coherent” I think of not hearing individual drivers separately, consistent from the highs to the bass. Like the sound emanating from one full range driver, or no speaker at all. Not noticing the speakers in the room is the ultimate coherence. IMHO. I think its very difficult to make any assessment between the two speakers since the two videos have different electronics. I think you’ll find the Alexia 2 will let you hear what ever electronics are in front of It even more so than the Maggie’s. I think you’ll see that when he puts the Alexia’s back in. They will take on the character of the electronics and cables you have in front. Maggie’s a little less so and more forgiving. I can agree that between the two videos the the latest Magnepan one is more pleasant that the other Alexia. However I think this has much more to do with the cabling changes. When the Alexia is back in we will see.
Correct. Nobody has heard the Alexia 2 with what i have been using over my last 2 videos. Tomorrow’s video will be the 13a. We will do 2-3 presentations with them and then circle back to the Alexia 2. Hopefully by the end of the month the Gryphon Pandora has found its way to me.
Many speakers are designed with a box sound in mind. Harbeth is one of those. They claim the box sound is used to achieve a warm tube like presentation that draws you in. A lot of people like them. However if you trying to achieve real true live sound this speaker is limited in its resolving power and dynamics and will not cut it.
carey1110, Using your definition of "organic" as the absence of electronic haze, revealing the pure metal, wood or flesh tones, that is exactly the original point I made about live unamplified music, and I hear the 20.7 as coming closer to that ideal than the Alexia 2. Listen to the 2 songs I mentioned and see what you think. I agree with your definition of "coherent" as having a consistent sound from bass to HF. But suppose a speaker is warm and veiled--it can have coherence, but that means that all ranges are equally mediocre in resolution. So I like your definition of "organic," and this purity is the most important characteristic of live unamped music and the speaker that comes closest to that.
It is true that ancillary components will change the sound of a great speaker, but you'll see that this won't change the obvious differences between the 20.7 and Alexia 2. Their basic difference is much greater than the difference between amps and cables. But both videos I heard used the Mephisto--the latest one, and the latest one with the Alexia 2.
I'll take your word that the Harbeth has a boxy sound--no amp or cable will change that. Some may say that a speaker with wide dispersion drivers will have much less boxy sound. I suppose that is true to an extent. But the box will still create all sorts of resonances that create that hazy overlay which submerges the pure tone we love of instruments and voices.
WC, Of course, with the next video of the ML 13A, include the same songs as on the 20.7 and Alexia 2. Same Mephisto amp of course. Looking forward to this!
When I hear “organic” I’m thinking absence of electronic haze, hearing the wood tones or metal tones or flesh tone if vocals, lack of signature. Where as “coherent” I think of not hearing individual drivers separately, consistent from the highs to the bass. Like the sound emanating from one full range driver, or no speaker at all. Not noticing the speakers in the room is the ultimate coherence. IMHO.
I agree 100% . I think that is a perfect explanation of the terms
Viber I understand you like panels better you’ve stated over and over. I understand that. I just disagree on how you describe the Alexia as being boxy and not tonally correct. Tonality will vary with cables, room, equipment etc. As far as coherence the panels usually have an advantage since they have fewer drivers. However Wilson has really closed the gap with regards to coherence and hit a home run with regards to dynamics both macro and micro. Slight changes in volume level is more obvious. Smaller More subtle Instruments deep in the Soundstage become more clearly delineated. Dead quite black background. The wood and weight of instruments very well portrayed. When you listen to this speaker you will only hear what’s in front of, ie cables, amps, preamps, source, and recording quality. My question to you would be, have you ever heard this speaker in person? Listening on your computer will give you a very rough perspective maybe if you have a good set of headphones. However to really hear the awesomeness or to be able to discern the differences you describe you have to be there. That is why WCs input is so crucial.
WC - Please take this in the spirit it’s given because it is done with respect for what you are doing. - I haven’t watched every video, so I may be wrong, but I honestly cannot fathom how anyone can make meaningful assessments of equipment when the setup is being changed virtually every day. Or every couple of days. I think you can get a first impression is a couple of days, but IMO, it takes much longer to really know what a component change adds to the system. For example, I recently added new speaker cables and it took about a month for me to come to a conclusion about what was better or worse than what I was using before and to judge the full depth of the new cables’ effect on the system. I am now breaking in a new IC and I don’t feel it is anywhere near its potential after 4 days. It may well never improve, but I would have to give it a minimum of 2 weeks to a month and listen to a variety of music before I would presume to make an informed statement of how this IC fit into my system. I think it’s laudable that you are basing your opinions on first-hand experience with every piece of equipment you talk about, which is far more valid than a large group of people who conflate reading about a component to actually hearing it in their own system. It’s just that I personally am wondering about the validity of conclusions made with such short-term exposure in a rapidly changing environment. Be well.
Viber I believe the 2nd video of the Maggie’s is with the gryphon cables which I agree have better tone. The cable has better tone not the speaker. We haven’t heard the Alexia with that cable.
@WC - First of all, I appreciate you taking my post as it was meant and not as an attack. I fully agree with your approach, as it perfectly serves your ultimate goal, which to create a successful You Tube channel and build a consultation service. You’re absolutely right. Many people want instant gratification and you are giving it to them. Be well and I wish you great success.
@chayro thank you for the question above. I appreciate your sound, educated comments.
On a different note, today i have the Martin Logan video dropping at 3pm Eastern time. I simply CAN NOT WAIT to hear the reaction from many of you lol.... i can already hear the back and forth that is about to begin once you all hear the logan.... Magnepan owners, brace yourselves because i suspect there will be strong opinions coming from the Logan camp.
carey1110, Agree that it is confusing to really compare 2 speakers unless every other component is the same--electronics, all cables. I really want to see what you hear, specifically, on "Baby I love your way" between the 2 videos as is. In the opening HF percussion, for the 1st time today I heard the subtle glassy overtones and their decay. I had heard this song over 10 times, but it was the 20.7 that first revealed this glassy character. Going back to the Alexia 2, the glassiness was there, but less obvious. The opening keyboards sound more natural and open than on the Alexia 2, which sounds a little pinched/congested by comparison.
Summarizing my observations, I honestly conclude that the speakers don't have radically different sounds. They are both high quality, with some differences. One set of cables may or may not get me to prefer one speaker over the other with a different set of cables. But reasonable tweaks of my Rane EQ which still preserve the essential musicality of each speaker would definitely change my mind about which speaker I prefer. This is because the EQ has 50 times the effects compared to cables, and has more effects compared to different amps. No, I haven't heard either the 20.7 or Alexia 2 in rooms, but I have plenty of experience with many systems to know the overriding importance of the EQ. Using EQ, I could still tell the slightly artificial sound of the Alexia 2 in comparison to the 20.7, but I could tweak the EQ subtly differently for each speaker, and in a singly blinded (not double blinded) test, someone could play both systems and get me to say that I prefer the Alexia 2 to the 20.7 overall. For example, I could bring out the HF percussion and those glassy overtones better on the Alexia 2 with one adjustment on the EQ, than on the 20.7 with another EQ adjustment. Whatever slight reduction of transparency there is from the Rane electronics compared to a SOTA line stage, this is hugely compensated for by the opportunity to tweak the sound using the EQ function.
chayro I agree that changing too many things makes it difficult to assess one item. Changing speakers throws everything off. If we a evaluating amps then that is what needs to be changed. Everything else has to be constant while you switch different amps. If your evaluating cables then you can’t switch speakers in the middle of the process. However you can get an initial feel of a cable or amp when you switch them in if everything else remains the same. Now if you’re just trying to create different systems completely then that is different and the variables are endless. What works in one system may not work in another of course. So with too many changes too quick And then trying to evaluate a single cable or amp or speaker on a video is pointless. All you can do is say yes I prefer the sound of this system, not the speaker or the amp or the cable. These systems will usually revolve around a speaker. So we can optimize each one of your choosing. Let’s say would I prefer a Martin Logan system or a Magnepan or a Wilson system. In that regard the videos can provide help in deciding which system you prefer.
Viber I haven’t used an EQ since the late 70s so I cant speak to that. As I stated I can’t make a judgement on the two speakers without everything being the same. I just know the Alexia 2 well and your description seems off to me In reality. As far as the video I will give you my feedback if the two speakers are properly demoed with the same components. Given the almost limitless approach with amps and cables here on WCs channel, I’m confident the Alexa 2 would excel in every area and would more than satisfy you as a musician and audiophile. Go to a local dealer and hear them in person and I think you’ll understand.
carey1110, Agreed, but I find the comparative videos of WC more informative even with mediocre computer audio, than at dealers. But just tell me what you hear with the present videos as they are, regarding the specific things I mentioned for "Q&A-Fink" and "Baby I love your way." It is not a value judgment about what you or I prefer, but about describing sounds objectively.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
