Guido,
Recently I sat up close in a 4 hand piano arrangement of The Rite of Spring. It was more violent than the orchestral version, believe it or not. This piano arrangement revealed so much that I didn't know from the orchestral version. It is extremely dynamic, but the piece has so much complexity that I think WC is better off at first with the popular pieces I mentioned. Also, the recordings of von Karajan are on the DG label, where the recording philosophy is lush and spacious which detracts from the excitement of these hard hitting pieces. Boulez recordings are on Columbia Records, now Sony Classical. Sony recordings have been criticized for stridency in some cases, but their upfront sound character suits these exciting pieces.
WC, for a short exciting solo piano piece, go for the last movement of the Beethoven Moonlight Sonata, only about 5 min of fast, furious dynamics, especially in the recording by pianist Vladimir Horowitz. You won't doze off, but if you do, a few seconds later a loud quick outburst will charge you up.
|
WC,
Right on with your perceptive observations. Your wife has good ears also. How are you doing with some of the classical pieces rec by me, Guido, Al? The Prokofiev Classical Symphony rec by Al is only moderately loud at natural live levels. Peaks of 85-90 dB, most of it 60-70’s, much subtle details at 30-40 dB. You can listen to this piece at nearly live levels at night. The Lampi will reveal the low level detail best, which is important for full appreciation of classical pieces. Most classical digital recordings after 1990 are not harsh, so the ref 10 won’t be needed to soften the sound, and will be at a disadvantage by submerging the low level detail.
|
WC,
Agree with bigddesign3. The most important thing to do is get the balanced version of the Lampi. You will get 6 dB more gain, which will make any additional preamp unnecessary for most music, unless you are still addicted to euphonics. For maximum detail, ditch the additional preamp with its distortions. Also, the optimum position of the volume control for the highest needed volume is near wide open, for purity and fine gradations of volume options. If an additional preamp's gain at your max volume is mid position, you are getting a little more distortion. The differences between RCA and XLR cables are much less than the big advantages of using the XLR for its additional 6 dB output. If you still want even more gain in order to try amps with very low gain, many preamps with less euphonics than the ref 10 would be suitable, such as ref 6, Lux C900 especially for its tone controls, Block, Momentum if it has tone controls, etc.
|
jafox,
Cut out your disrespect for my comments. Your musical expertise is unlikely to hold a candle to mine. Whatever equipment I haven't heard, I gain insight from WC's accurate descriptions, so my comments have validity. Euphonics as described by WC are the opposite of accuracy, which you may not value, but WC certainly honestly states the difference. |
A person with expertise is not to be called arrogant or spewing nonsense. In most fields, the expert is well paid, appreciated and respected. When you are a passenger on a plane, you don't persecute the pilot who holds your life in his hands. There are many other obvious examples. In the case of audio, it is impossible to have a valid opinion without enough musical expertise, otherwise it is just a random trial and error process of spending money on toys without anything meaningful being accomplished. I don't expect any payment for my musical AND audio expertise, and there are plenty of people who value my input. And I don't assassinate the character of anyone I disagree with. The real technical experts here, such as almarg and bill_k, just give useful info without engaging in any nasty comments. Forthwith, I won't respond to anyone not offering proper respect.
|
grey9hound,
It is not necessary to hear every component yourself to have a valid comment. If WC or any reliable listener factually describes something as having a euphonic sound, you can make valid statements based on experiences with components you have heard that have this type of sound. In your case, you have heard solid state amps with dry sound that you don’t like, so if WC described the Boulder as such, you would not consider trying the Boulder in your system. You could make a totally correct statement that the Boulder PROBABLY is not good for a listener who wants sweet, laid back sound. If you went further and said the Boulder DEFINITELY is not good for a listener who wants sweet, laid back sound, I wouldn’t jump on you and accuse you of being the all-knowing ALMIGHTY--I would accept the possible inaccuracy of your statement but give you the benefit of the doubt and give you credit for a valid and useful comment. Useful, because someone who, like you, hates that type of sound, knows to avoid it, and also for someone who likes that type of sound, to consider it for their system. |
WC,
Although I have no experience with either the Pacific or those tubes, I suggest you get specific info from your sources as to why they prefer something. Grey9hound made a specific tube recommendation if you wanted to soften the sound--that is more useful than a source telling you to get this or that.
|
WC,
Tube rolling is obviously a complex subject. I believe it all boils down to the specs of each tube, and not a particular brand. Manufacturing quality control is variable, which produces different specs. That's why I would call Roger Modjeski who grades the tubes according to spec tolerances. Discuss the Lampi and what sound you want with him. Nobody does transistor rolling for SS equipment--you expect the SS manufacturer to do the matching and get the designed specs of the whole circuit. But tube rolling is akin to redesigning the parameters of the circuit, which might explain the large variations in sound with different tubes, both in specs and material variations not measurable by standard specs. Just my intuitions. |
grey9hound,
Very interesting review of tube trials in Lampi Pacific. You know that I would prefer the KR300B, which is the stock tube. This probably explains the precision of the sound of this DAC which WC likes.
|
I thank everyone who opened my eyes about the Lampi Pacific. I am looking for precision/accuracy, and with the KR300B, the Pacific may provide it. However, bigddesign3 said that the Lampi with its tubes may provide a good balance with SS amps, so I am wondering if that means it is still euphonic like most tube preamps, although much less, in the manner of ARC ref 6 rather than ref 10. A finished DAC product is a combination of an amplification stage plus the DAC chips or circuit. I am wondering how much of the difference in DAC products is from the differences in DAC's or the preamp stage. I suspect that the quality of the Pacific is mainly due to its preamp stage where tube rolling has a big effect. If the designer has chosen the KR300B tube for its precise sound, he may have designed the most accurate tube preamp as well, which is already included in the Pacific. A tube is a natural amplification device by virtue of its vacuum, rather than SS where electrons flow thru material. I believe that someone is capable of designing a tube circuit, using the right tubes, which gives the holy grail of both accuracy and naturalness, without the need to obtain an approximation of naturalness by injecting pleasant euphonics. Maybe the designer of the Pacific has achieved the holy grail. Are there any SS DAC's in a similar price range as the Pacific that have greater accuracy/precision?
|
|
grey9hound,
Thanks for your info about tube SPECS. So I guess that different designs and implementations use different materials, which have their "sound". Perhaps these materials have specs that conventional measurements don't reveal, in a manner similar to how amps with low distortion in certain parameters still have different sound. Also, Roger Modjeski found variations in those conventional specs due to random manufacturing quality control, so he grades tubes on the basis of the amounts of tolerances permitted. I wonder whether he grades KR300B's. Also, WC said that various tubes have different gain, but that is probably true of totally different tubes, but not for the same tube made by different manufacturers which would still have the same specs. In any case, the differences in gain would probably be much smaller than the 6 dB output difference from XLR vs RCA.
In a related vein, this reminds me of how some manufacturers of tube and SS amps let the user adjust the bias to change the sound. Lower bias often makes the sound more detailed and dryer, higher bias makes the sound less detailed and warmer, from my reading.
|
WC,
Nelson Pass has stated that his philosophy is to design for a specific likable euphonic sound in mind. While there are differences, and it is possible that the xs series might be different from the usual euphonics, it is too expensive to find out, especially when you have the excellent Titan which probably beats any Pass. For your ultimate amp, you have the Block which is probably a keeper for a long time, so your money is tied up with that.
|
People talk about "tube-like" mids and highs. Does that imply relaxed with less analytical precision? It looks like the Lampi Pacific with KR300B tubes is on the precise side and less relaxed than with the KR PX4 tubes, according to the interesting article posted by grey9hound. So does the PX4 make the Lampi more tube-like? The ARC ref 10 may be considered more tube-like than the ref 6 because of its more relaxed, laid back and buttery (good word, WC) sound. So what does tube-like really mean if there are so many types of tube sound?
|
WC,
All the tube products I mentioned have widely varying types of sound. Because of this, I think people need to be specific about sound character, rather than saying something is "tube-like." I believe the common perception of tubes is that they are mellow and laid back with that "magic." By this definition, you could say that the ref 10 is more tube-like than ref 6, the Lampi Pacific with the PX4 tube is more tube-like than with the 300B. But is the Pacifc with 300B still "tube-like" compared to SS DAC's such as the Ayre, or is the Pacific/300B more precise and upfront than the Ayre? Then that would made the Ayre more "tube-like" than the Pacific/300B. So, since there are tube products like ref 6 and Pacific/300B with upfront, sharp and snappy qualities, I think this common definition of "tube-like" should be scrapped in favor of more informative descriptions of sound.
|
ron17,
Yes, to me your following description is the most informative--"the mid and top end are smooth, liquid, non fatiguing, easy on the ears." Summary translation by me--the HF are attenuated compared to other products. Both your description and my translation are specific, objective statements that are useful to listeners of all tastes. I assume that they describe your perception of the Sim. Then, for a reasonable description of the Plinius, "the mid and top end freq range could be attenuated by a few dB making it easier to listen to for long periods of time." This, plus your earlier description of the Plinius as "more forward sounding than the Sim. Extremely powerful bass...midrange and top end sounded ever so slightly exaggerated or tilted up (almost like a tone control tilt)," deliver the most useful, objective information. WC also praised the accuracy of your perceptions of the Plinius and Sim. But saying that something is "tube-like" is very murky by comparison, especially since there may be a few tube pieces that are NOT "easy on the ears, smooth, nonfatiguing, etc."
So my question about the Lampi Pacific with KR300B tubes is, "is it still tube-like (excuse the expression) in the sense that it is relatively easy on the ears, smooth and relaxed and such, compared to the top SS DAC's out there?"
|
psnyder149,
My posts have been useful to WC. He has also clarified his descriptions in response to my questions, which many people on this thread have found useful. Furthermore, this thread IS about respect for EVERYONE who contributes. Don't use inflammatory language like "you don't know what you are talking about." Just state your observations as factually and objectively clearly as possible. |
ron17,
OK, I agree that in a few words, your description is similar to that of Doug Schneider. Of course, he is getting paid and is getting name recognition and reputation for his more detailed description, and it is a great example of what I mean by an informative review. It is true that he summarizes the details of his descriptions by using the term, "tube-like" which has the same meaning understood by most people.
My goal is to find equipment that is most revealing, precise and crystal clear. I have an open mind as to any device that can do it, be it triode, pentode, bipolar, MOSFET, J-FET, conventional bandwidth or GaN. Surely there is tube equipment with these characteristics. Therefore, to refer to typical tube sound is just as indefinite as referring to typical SS sound, since there is plenty of SS stuff that sounds soft, warm, rich, etc. |
psynder149,
Sorry for the confusion, because you're right that you didn't say, "you don't know what you are talking about." I said that as general advice for others to avoid saying things like that. It is true what you said that my comments about violins and concert halls don't directly relate to amps, but they were meant to explain in more detail about sonic characteristics by making useful analogies that some people may understand from their experience. WC does the same thing when he talks about high performance cars, food and liquor, and high maintenance women, which give color and help to better explain his findings about his equipment.
|
fsmithjack,
I don't know anything about this turntable, but my vast experience with many TT's such as AR, Denon 6000, Linn Sondek, SOTA Sapphire, Win Labs belt and direct drive, Goldmund Studio, plus so many tonearms, cartridges, phono stages, stepup transformers, may help. These are all complex systems where synergy is important, so the only way to judge is to listen. If you have the same recording on LP and CD and you are familiar with your own and/or the dealer's reference phono system and CD/DAC, you can listen and decide. Too bad cartridges are not returnable, so this is one reason why many have given up on phono. If you want precision and detail, the Rega 10 with Apheta 2 cartridge for $6600. is a great package, reasonably priced.
|
folkfreak,
I hope you continue to post here about your vinyl and digital experience. Aside from the speakers, the source is the most dominant factor affecting the sound of the total system. A great recording is apparent even on the car system.
|
|
fsmithjack,
Thanks for your comparison of the Bricasti DAC to the Rega/Sutherland phono system. Did you use the same recording on LP vs CD for the comparison? Reviews say the Bricasti is very detailed with great transients and also some warmth. The Rega is supposed to be very detailed but perhaps sterile to some. Is this what you found, or were there other sonic qualities that you preferred in the Bricasti? The Rega RP10 is similar to the RP8, so the dominant factor is the Apheta 2 cartridge. Perhaps you didn’t like the cartridge. If you still have the RP8, trying another compatible cartridge might be the easiest thing to do, such as the ones you mentioned. Can you compare the Bricasti to other DAC’s you have heard, maybe the Ayre QX-5 Twenty? Thanks so much.
|
fsmithjack,
Thanks for your feedback. Whatever TT/arm you get, the cartridge is the most important item, although obviously the rest of the TT system supports the cartridge and is important. I had this discussion with someone on this thread many months ago. He felt the table was the most important, and I agreed that in some cases he was correct. For example, I had the highly touted SOTA Sapphire. Transferring my arm and cartridge from the Linn Sondek to the SOTA produced a heavy, leaden sound. I went back to the Linn to get fresh air again. Linn got famous in the 1970's by showing that the table is most important. I suspect that the skeletal Rega table/arm, combined with the clinical sound of the Apheta turned you off. The Apheta may not have been broken in enough, or aligned properly or loaded into the phono stage properly. The Rega is attractively priced, and I bet that a more mellow cartridge would please you with it. If you still don't like it, you still have the cartridge which could be used for another TT/arm. Hopefully you can find dealers who can do good demos for you with the same cartridge on different TT/arms. Don't buy anything because it looks good or you like the design. Your own listening is critically important. There is much more difference between different phono systems than between different digital systems. Also, the Sutherland from reviews is clinical, so maybe the whole setup was an overdose of clinical sound. Perhaps you like mellow?
|
ron17,
We are splitting hairs. I didn't really criticize you for saying "almost tube-like" because in the end I accept the customary meaning of "tube-like." It is almost a language convention where we know that a green light means go and a red light means stop. It still is informative to know that from WC descriptions, the ref 10 is more "tube-like" than the ref 6, even though they are both tube products from the same company. Then I used the word "mellow" to try to learn what fsmithjack likes and to figure out why he hated the Rega/Sutherland phono system. "Mellow" is a description of sound flavor, rather than referring to a type of equipment, whether tube or SS. I think everyone would agree about what "mellow" means, but owners of the Lampi Pacific with KR300B tubes might say their Pacific is very precise and not "tube-like" as far as the conventional meaning of that expression goes. I still want to know whether that Lampi is still "tube-like" compared to top SS DAC's, so the way "tube-like" is commonly understood, it is still a useful term after all.
|
spinaker01,
It appears you don't accept how relevant my comments are to WC's quest. He has found them useful, especially my advice to move the Neolith speakers further away from the wall. Many other examples. He also elaborates his own descriptions in response to my questions and observations, so many people get more value from his own further thoughts.
|
bigddesign3,
Yes, I also enjoyed that review of the Lampi Pacific that was posted by grey9hound last week. It got me interested in the idea that some tube equipment can be very precise and not "tube-like" (common understanding of most tube equipment). If you have heard the Lampi Pacific with the KR300B tubes, do you find it as precise as top SS dac's, or is it still a little "tube-like"?
|
WC,
You are an honorable gentleman. I try to keep my posts as short as possible, but often you and others raise thought-provoking issues that stoke my enthusiasm. All the productive comments on so many levels of experience make your thread the leading commentary that it is. You set an enthusiastic tone that keeps us going--thanks for everything. |
WC,
I am not sure what you mean by "I love tubes with solid state preamps." The sound of any DAC is a combination of its preamp stage and the DAC chip or proprietary dac module. If I am correct to say that the dac in the Lampi Pacific is not the Sabre 9018 which is hot according to greyhound, then the Pacific sounds precise due to its preamp stage. Is its preamp stage still a little tubey? Getting the Ayre Twenty preamp would be informative.
|
WC,
You can nitpick about the volume control and RCA/XLR connections of the Ayre preamp, but the bottom line is the sound. By reputation, it should provide the speed of SS plus some smoothness and maybe some warmth you like. So it may be just what you are looking for in tonal quality and resolution. Let's see how the Ayre competes with the Lampi preamp in sound flavor.
|
WC,
You found the Esoteric DAC (which model, I forgot?) to be very detailed and non forgiving. Similar to the Lampi Pacific with stock KR300B tubes? Or do you find the Lampi somewhat more forgiving and slightly tube-like compared to the Esoteric?
|
WC,
Thanks for your further elaboration on the Esoteric vs Lampi. For those who want detail and tolerate the revealed flaws of poor recordings, the Esoteric looks like a best buy. Anyone have other DAC contenders for detail at sane prices?
|
|
I got the price wrong on the Esoteric k1. Evidently it was the Grandioso player that WC had, at $31K. How do the cheaper Esoteric models compare to the Grandioso k1? What is the relative importance of a CD/SACD transport vs DAC? Is it a compromise to use your cheaper CD transport with the flagship Esoteric DAC at $20K, or better to get the Grandioso k1? These issues are analogous to turntables, tonearms and cartridges. In my experience with cartridges, it is the most important factor, analogous to the DAC, the transducer. Turntables are still important, analogous to the CD/SACD transport.
|
guido,
Thanks. It's complicated keeping straight the Esoteric model numbers. At home, since you appear to have used the X-01 as a complete CD player and also as a transport (correct me if I misunderstood), what were the sonic comparisons between the X-01 as a DAC and your Rowland Aeris DAC?
|
guido,
Many thanks. I have a Krell 64x oversampling dac from maybe 25+ years ago. Krell did their own proprietary design, not using any stock chip. The power supply weighs 20 lbs, similar for the other box containing the circuit. Even though the design is old, it may still have near SOTA sound, since it competes very well with my Benchmark DAC1 unit. So your comparison of the Aeris to the X-01 may still be useful, thanks.
|
WC,
I had several of the Nordost Frey 2 series. Initially I was impressed with the precision of the RCA and XLR interconnects. After 100's of hours, they became mushy. Just be careful about these expensive Nordosts. No assurance that the most expensive will give you the sound you want. A lot of cable technical talk is snake oil.
|
WC,
It appears that Odin power cords are doing more than just transferring power effectively, which could be obtained cheaply by using a huge 4 gauge cable. As you say, it is a COMPONENT which reveals more information with clarity. I have always said that when you have more clarity, satisfaction can be obtained at lower volumes, which you have found. If you don't want to spend $100K for 4 Odins, you might obtain much the same clarity by eliminating euphonic components like the ref 10. Someone said that unity gain on the ref 10 is at a volume setting of 60. Listen to a piece where 60 on the volume control is satisfying, then remove the ref 10 and hear the same piece at the same volume, but with enhanced clarity, probably a similar outcome as using an Odin. Then if you need more volume, you can look for accurate preamps.
|
WC,
You are on the right track with Nordost if your finances permit it. As long as you enjoy the music and appreciate the enhanced clarity, there is no downside. But let's assume that at worst, the Odin is acting like a treble booster without affecting the lower freq. If you are still satisfied with the music at even somewhat higher volumes, then all is well. Just don't blast the music because this is not natural. Live unamplified music is rarely unpleasant at loud levels. But amplified rock is unnatural due to the inferior electronics and speakers used. You found this out when you took your wife to a club recently. Use unamplified jazz recordings, and investigate the classical pieces that almarg, guido and I recommended.
|
WC,
My experience with the Shunyata Sigma HC PC (not the new NR series) matches yours. I settled with the cheap Shunyata Venom HC, which was a little clearer than the Sigma. But I did not think that either Shunyata gave me the blow away feeling that you have with the Nordost Odin PC. The obvious next thing to do would be to try the Block monos with Odins. One would think that high power amps would benefit the most from a PC, but the benefit to the DAC is harder to understand, because it is not an issue of power delivery. Perhaps the Odin is doing a revolutionary type of filtering noise, which doesn't subtract HF the way the Shunyata Sigma does. Even if Keithr is partially correct about how Nordost may change tonal balance, I say that if you enjoy the clarity of the music, go with it. |
audiolabyrinth,
Thanks for your list of expensive cables, but what sonic characteristics make them preferable to you? To your ears, how does the Odin sound broken?
|
The popular Cable Company lending library has lots of stuff, although maybe not many of the top level products discussed here. So far, this thread's members offer the best prospects for WC. Still, I don't know why dealers can't have in stock at least 1 sample of every cable from the company they represent. Cables are durable, and it actually makes more sense to buy used than new. Burned in gives stable sound, not the uncertainty of a new one. And even Odin is cheaper than many Wilson speakers, so a dealer can be happy charging a little rent for a portable cable, whereas he couldn't rent out a heavy speaker. Light electronics are loaned all the time. Is a Nordost dealer worried that unlike WC, most of his customers will think its price/performance ratio is not good?
|
For all those who bash me personally, WC doesn't want your negative personal attacks which can draw attention from the moderators, risking shutdown of this valuable thread. Many people have different listening observations and preferences from me, which is fine if they don't engage in personal attacks and tasteless jokes at my expense. The record shows that I don't initiate personal attacks, but just state my findings from personal observations, or sometimes note that a review said such and such. By contrast, the negative personal comments are initiated by people who disagree with me, and then compounded by the cackles that "that was hilarious." As WC advises, restrict your comments to honest findings about equipment.
|
|
WC,
All you need is one more Odin power cord to do some interesting trials. Then you could try 2 on the Block monos to see how the Odins improve on the stock or other power cords you now have on the Blocks. While you await the 2nd power cord, you could use the one you have on 1 channel of the Block and the other cord on the other channel. Listen to a mono recording and hear the difference between the two channels. Then try the Odins on other components to see where they have the greatest benefit. There are fewer variables with the Odin speaker cables, so that is an easy test. I recall Nordost advising that the power cord is the most important cable to try first to get the biggest benefit.
|
WC,
You are right that those inferior electronics at the show don't allow the Neo to sound its best. Another big factor is setup of the Neo in the room. When you first put them in your room, you were underwhelmed. Then you experimented with toe-in, and most important, got 5-6 feet behind them which made a big difference. But even with a great setup, which takes more time than exhibitors can do, any stat has a sweet spot. Listeners way off axis are not getting the quality of the guy in the sweet spot. Even those listeners in the middle (left/right) but in different rows are getting different sounds because the angle of toe-in varies with distance. The most valid comment is from the guy in the single sweet spot, with everyone else's opinion to be taken less seriously.
|
gtaphite,
I agree that context is important, but there can still be generalizations about equipment that are still valid. For obvious examples, a ref 10 tube preamp will have totally different character than a Boulder. A dealer whose customer wants the kind of sound liked by WC would not recommend the Boulder, regardless of the speaker. The dealer's experience would not treat each system as a totally blank slate where anything can be tried at random. There has to be some process of narrowing down the likely choices to come close to the desired sound. The list of good choices is made from the known general characteristics of the component in many diverse systems. Then, the context of the total sound can better define the best choice. I think this is what you mean by "context."
|
Agree with WC, jafox, bigddesign3 about how stats are not optimally demoed at shows. I stopped going to shows years ago. The only value was to meet designers. However, my first foray into the high end was right after I got my first job as a doctor in 1977. I wanted the Maggie Tympani 1D, but needed to get a new car. I got the speakers, but compromised with a big receiver and used my old AR turntable with a mediocre MM Shure M91ED cartridge. This was good enough to thrill me with the superiority of the Maggie to my old Advent speakers. Of course, later I upgraded the other components and could better appreciate them with the Maggies already in the system. Following what bigddesign3 notes, ML is targeting the midfi market at Best Buy stores. I encourage novices to go there and see how the cheaper ML stats even poorly set up, kill everything else in the store. They can then enter our high end world. At the same time, the sophisticated audiophile knows that there are dedicated dealers who do a better job, where he can get better advice. But as WC noted, there are few or no dealers who demo the Neo. This is a major deficiency, because it cannot be assumed that the Neo is just another ML speaker. Ideally, a dealer should demo both top ML speakers--the Neo and CLX Art. The Neo is for the guy who wants much of everything who has a big enough room, and the CLX is for someone who wants the highest accuracy who is willing to compromise on big dynamics.
|
minorl,
Right. My last show, in NY 2-3 years ago, included a Sanders Sound Systems electrostatic hybrid. It was in a small narrow room with not much space behind the speaker. As a result, it sounded rolled off and lifeless, far inferior to an excellent setup at a private home. I considered buying it based on the private demo, but would have rejected it after 2 seconds of listening at that show. Whoever set the system up at that show doesn't know much about optimizing the sound of dipoles in general. Then there is the price of the room. A famous manufacturer like Wilson can afford to get the best room which has the proper space to demonstrate his speaker, but a tiny guy like Sanders who sells direct because he can't afford a dealer network, is handicapped. No excuse for ML which can afford a good room, but just needs informed setup.
|
WC,
Now that you have discovered the top echelon of brands like Block and Odin, you can safely sell the lesser Dag and Gryphon in order to put the money into more Odin. Even though Dag 400 and Gryphon monos would be interesting to try, they would probably show a similar house sound to their other models you know, so I say to go for the best which you know. Probably the best bang for the buck for your tastes is double Rowland 535's, as guido has described.
|
thezaks,
Power line noise is a major source of frustration, which can turn a great amp into mush. My Shunyata Denali has helped a lot, but there is still variability in the sound--usually clearer in the mid AM when people have gone to work and there are fewer appliances being used in my building. RF is medically dangerous and so is "dirty electricity" which is high freq of 3 Khz to 10 Mhz riding on the 60 Hz AC line. I am presently experimenting with Greenwave filters which dramatically reduce the dirty electricity according to the company and confirmed by my measurements. You can read about the medical dangers of RF and dirty electricity on lessEMF.com, radiationrefuge.com. There are interesting videos of Geovital.
|
ron17,
Yes, dimmer switches create RF and dirty electricity. Watch the short videos on lessEMF.com. Incandescent light bulbs are the best, CFL's the worst, and LED's acceptable. They use the Stetzerizer meters. I bought the competitor to the Stetzerizer, the Greenwave filters and meters. What is disappointing is that the Shunyata Denali conditioner doesn't appear to reduce the dirty electricity voltage in the region of measurement 3 Khz to 10 Mhz.
|
thezaks,
Which RF testing equipment did you get, and what numbers did you measure? I got the esi24 meter from lessEMF, which measures low freq electric fields, magnetic fields, and RF at 2.4 Ghz. I have measured all rooms in several homes, and it appears that RF is the major problem. Several people have reported to me that they were getting better sleep when they found rooms and sleeping head positions with lower RF readings. I typically have measured RF to be 100-2000 microwatts/sq meter. Maybe you are lucky to be living in a secluded area so your readings are better. International safety recommendations for optimal health are for 10 or less. I am still experimenting to see if audio quality is improved by mitigating dirty electricity and RF.
|
eziggy,
Yes, I totally agree with you about the clarity vs. depth issue, all the examples you gave. To me, the fundamental feature of music, in a single word, is clarity. Music is a language, and we all realize that with language, clarity is everything. I enjoy taking a walk and being startled by the unexpected sound of any instrument or voice. Where it comes from (depth, etc.) is much less important than its basic sound in all its clarity and impact. In recordings of various instruments on the real soundstage of the studio or concert stage, there is the natural depth of the recording, but in a euphonic system with less clarity, the depth is exaggerated, images are enlarged but with that halo of fuzziness I talked about with the analogy of the woman in the overcoat.
|
