grey9hound, we would be interested in WHY you think the Tektron Double Impacts are so good. Don't just say they are "the best," or some other undefined value judgment. What are the sonic characteristics in tone, dynamics, etc. for music you evaluated? WC continues to elaborate on these qualities of different amps, speakers which I find informative. I am also looking for value, but I want to know what to consider, based on real criteria. If someone wanted me to evaluate a typical cheap component from Best Buy, unless he was my friend, I want a fee for my time probably wasted for the highly likely outcome that the component is mediocre. |
jetter--with your attitude, I don't give a fk what YOU think. Many people here have acknowledged my contributions. A few have emailed me privately in appreciation for my extensive musical background which informs my statements. |
charles1dad, agree with your observations of the sax player. You didn't mention that you also heard his spit and detailed action of the keys which are glossed over by a lot of equipment. Also, maybe he was playing in a smallish room, that magnifies the body and bass content of the instrument, compared to the larger studio for recording or concert hall. I find the most useful environment for judging live sound is outdoors with plenty of space, obviously. There are no absorbing materials such as wood or other confusing acoustical variables to contend with. You get the pure, unadulterated quality of the instrument itself. Just stand close enough as you did, so you will get the appropriate volume level. Harry Pearson believed that there is an ABSOLUTE SOUND so he called his magazine as such. I think I remember that he referred to it as the sound in the concert hall, but I go further by saying it is the sound in the quiet outdoors. |
almarg, thanks a million for your convincing technical explanation about why ARC amps sound as they do. In a related discussion, Bruno Putzeys of Mola Mola uses lots of feedback to reduce distortion to almost zero, and claims that it is an important reason for the accurate "nonsound" (colorless, my words) of his products. |
jetter--sorry if my choice of words made it appear that I think the Tektons are bad, so thanks for alerting me to this, and I will be as considerate as possible in the future. I would not make such a pronouncement, mainly since I have not heard them at all. I just ask that everyone here try to provide as much useful objective information as they can, within the limits of their time. I have not heard WC's particular model of the Magico either, but since WC provided much useful information about them and he has a long track record of consistently honest and careful listening, I trust and go by his observations. It would be great if everyone can aspire to his level of disclosure. This thread is great because many people do just that. |
guidocorona, agreed. Your posts have been very helpful to me. Thanks so much. |
grey9hound, yes, I have read a lot of the Tekton thread, but as WC says, reviews are tainted by politics and advertisers. That's what makes WC's comments so refreshing. So I would appreciate your personal observations with more observations.. Like you, I believe in value related to sound/dollar at any level. For example, I believe the still expensive Martin Logan CLX offers extraordinary value compared to the big Neo, although the proof of that would have to come from a careful A/B of both. Right now, I have about 40 hours on the Mytek Brooklyn Amp. The sound is excellent in comparison to many far more expensive amps I have tried, and it represents superb value at $2K retail. More observations to come. |
grey9hound,
Thanks for your further assessment of the Tektons. I read the reviews, and can say that your comments are the most useful, in part due to the honest tone set by WC on this thread. I agree with you that anyone considering dynamic speakers at any price should be mindful of the Tektons. I also endorse your ideas about room correction, even though I never tried the Lyngdorf. I will go a step further, and now reveal my most controversial idea yet, which will earn HOWLS of protest and derision by many sanctimonious purists here. Drumroll....
The absolute necessity of an equalizer. I have been using my $600 Rane ME60 equalizer for 23 years now for both recording and home listening. It is a stereo 32 band 1/3 octave from 20 to 20,000 Hz, with each of 32 bands adjustable from minus 12 to plus 12 dB. The newer model has a choice of 2 curves centered on any band and another adjustment of minus 6 to plus 6. It is old fashioned analog but widely adjustable as you can see. I started recording my orchestra without the EQ. The hall is a medical school small auditorium, and the stage a small boxy affair not designed to fit an orchestra, but just a lecturer and a few things. When the conductor noted that my recording sounded heavy and dead, I then tried the equalizer, cut the overblown bass and boosted the highs. All very tastefully done, not with the aid of instrumentation, just by ear. After that, everyone was astonished at the clarity and impact. Nobody accused me of sound manipulation or thought the sound was artificial. At home for playback of commercial recordings that are usually recorded to give a more distant perspective than the close one I prefer (although the commercial perspective is still much closer than a typical audiophile likes who goes for the midhall sound), I boost the highs which makes the more laid-back recorded perspective sound more like the exciting sound I hear from being on stage immersed in everything. This works because high freq are the ones most drastically lost due to distance, so I compensate. Also, when I play my violin, the sound under my ear is MUCH more detailed than most any listener hears from a distance. I can skillfully equalize most recordings of solo violin to sound like what I hear under my ear. Your sound preferences may differ from mine, but you can experiment with the equalizer to get the sound you like. If anyone says that all this is manipulating sound and making it arbitrary or artificial, I say you all are doing just that with flavoring your particular soup with different preamps, cables, cartridges, different tubes, caps, fuses, etc. Most manipulations of sound are by speaker designers who make their personal choice of colorations and tradeoffs that THEY like. The next biggest sinners are recording engineers with their arbitrary choices, especially with processed rock/pop music. For ultimate sonic thrills, sit with me on stage or hear an outdoor unamplified performance up real close. Aside from that, which is what we are all forced to do with our commercial recordings, adjust the playback with the equalizer to what you like. For those of you who respect my sincerity, I can assure you that small tweaks of the EQ sliders will make much more of a difference in the sound than the differences between many amplifiers. If I were a shady audio salesman, I can get the customer to like any particular amp best, depending on a subtle EQ adjustment, all tastefully done to make it not obvious. Without my Rane EQ, there is no amplifier at any price that will give me the musical satisfaction I would get with the EQ and many modest amps. I still appreciate the better accuracy of a better amp, but this still is using the amp WITH the EQ. Another benefit is that my Rane has a volume control which enables me to get rid of the preamp. At the time I got the Rane, I was using the Spectral DMC gamma preamp, but the Rane electronics set to flat (no EQ use) was more revealing and transparent than the Spectral, so I happily dumped the Spectral. Bypass tests showed that the Rane is very transparent. Go try to find a totally transparent line stage preamp, but the point is moot because I consider the EQ a necessity to get the sound you really want. The only sacrifice I make is that the Rane is not a control unit, so I have to unplug to get another source. For those who feel that a preamp is necessary to get better dynamics (although they will admit that transparency and information retrieval is sacrificed more than a little), that's OK, just insert the EQ either before or after the preamp. You'll still get the benefits I describe here.
|
klh007, thanks for your interesting observation about the tweeters of Tektons. I feel that dynamic tweeters are inherently superior to larger midrange and LF drivers, because they are smaller and more sensitive, lower mass, etc. BIGGER is often WORSE, as in size of drivers. So it is clear that much of the midrange is more accurately handled by the better tweeter, if you have enough tweeters to get the dynamics required. Dynamic tweeters can have electrostatic clarity, but forget about dynamic drivers for comparable midrange clarity. In this case, the several tweeters extend the electrostatic-like clarity into the midrange, so it is appropriate and interesting that you make an analogy with the ML hybrid stat. |
WC, excellent choice to get the BHK monos. The reviews describe them as accurate with a hint of sweetness due to a tube stage, which you will probably like in order to take the edge off the hot tweeter of the Magico for some recordings. For accuracy and information retrieval, I think the ultimate shootout will be the BHK/LuxM900u and possibly any Dag. See if you can get the original Rane ME60 equalizer which I think is more neutral/transparent than the later model. I can assure you that if there are small or even moderate tonal differences between any of these amp contenders, the differences will be swamped by small tweaks on the Rane. With RCA inputs, the maximum gain on the Rane is about 1 (0 dB), but with balanced inputs, the available gain is 4 (6 dB), much more than 6 dB on the newer model, so it will be fascinating for you to try the Rane, experience the wide flexibility in flavoring your recordings any way you like, from subtle to big differences. Set to flat, you will find that using the Rane as a line stage is very transparent. Eliminating your preamp will be a revelation for information retrieval. The Rane is sold in pro audio stores very cheaply, and it an outrage that this cheap pro audio unit is more transparent than a lot of audiophile electronics, which are marketed and sold at exorbitant prices to ignorant, gullible audiophiles with little musical background. I'll go further to say that using the Rane, you could get the Focal Sopra 3 to sound like the Magico, and vice versa. I know you sold the Focal, but you get my point. The differences with the Rane are that important and life-changing. The Rane will still reveal the tube nature of the Mac2301 and the refined SS nature of the other SS amps you are trying. If you really want fun, the Rane is it. Thanks to robc33, the Manley EQ is another option.
|
|
robc33, thanks for mentioning the Manley EQ. We ought to encourage everyone to get interested in EQ and see what products on the market to try. They can be used tastefully for tweaking, or used as major surgery to correct bigger problems. No need for expensive room correction software products--just use your ears with the far simpler and much more flexible EQ units. It takes time to tweak and listen, but the nice thing is that the learning curve is your own preferences, not trying to understand someone else's manual and frustrating software problems. This is so much fun, which should appeal to any audiophile who wants to tailor his sound in so many ways, big or small.
|
techno_dude, congratulations on your conversion to our EQ religion. But unlike religious wars, you can EQ any way you like, either subtle or in a major way. I agree that standard tone controls are very useful, although I think that professional grade EQ's like the Rane are much more flexible with so many more options. For example, if I want an even more analytic dry sound with maximum detail, I will cut the range of 200-800 Hz by about 2-3 dB and keep the highs unchanged, instead of boosting the highs more. If I wanted a more creamy midrange, I would do the opposite and boost the range of 200-800. There are so many possibilities according to your experimentation by ear. Cut 200-400 by 1 dB and cut 400-800 by 3 dB, etc. These settings are not set in stone. They will vary according to the music, particular amp, speaker, although I generally sit tight and don't change settings often since I am satisfied these days. The purists go crazy and even I don't know precisely what I am doing and am creating many overlapping curves because I am not using a spectrum analyzer, but who cares, as long as I am listening carefully and get the sound I want. Maybe I can't do a sex change operation and convert the SS amp into a tube amp, but how about creating a 55%male/45% female or 30% tube/70% SS type of sound? No problem, completely legal, and no audiophile social stigma attached to that! As RIAA says, who cares what other people think, as long as you satisfy yourself. Also, you don't have to pester the speaker designer to change the crossovers or the balance of the drivers. Just EQ the whole thing for yourself. Tremendous empowerment is yours. Yeah, man!! |
mikepaul, interesting question about audiophile happiness. Even though I have done a lot of work on the system, I now sit back and listen and am happy with what I have worked for. But I have been to lots of live concerts in the past few years and I am unhappy with a lot of what I hear LIVE. I want to get the seat in the middle of the first row, and am not happy with the duller sound from further back if I can't get my choice seat. If I am able to buy a ticket in the 10th row, I look for closer seats and scramble closer in the last few seconds until the lights are out. Even in that best seat in the first row, I still finds lots of things to criticize from an audio point of view. I am actually happier listening at home, although I admit that my sound is still not quite natural like the real thing. So at the concert, I accept the faulty sound and just enjoy the music itself. There is an obvious parallel to your relationship with your mate. She is not perfect, but hopefully she possesses a combination of attributes that make you happy. I also enjoy music in the car, and listening to music on youtube in crummy sound. The great legendary musicians in 1930 sound are more enjoyable than many of today's young musicians in SOTA sound. |
grey9hound,
Thanks for informing me about your digital/internet EQ. How much does all that cost? Whatever it costs, it is worth it and is likely a much more productive investment than $50,000 or so in amps. I am still in the dark ages with my cheapo Rane ME60, but it works so well and is almost infinitely adjustable by hand. The Rane electronics is so good that being analog all the way as a preamp with its EQ is great. The simplification mentioned by techno_dude is also a good way to go, if he is really good at fine tuning his tone controls. My present setup is the CD transport going into the Benchmark DAC1, then analog output of the Benchmark into the Rane EQ with its crude dual mono volume controls all the way up, then into my amp. Volume is adjustable via the Benchmark DAC. As an aside, I am worried about the coming 5G. I don't want wifi at home, and am studying which meters to buy to assess my bedroom, which probably must be shielded from EMF pollution.
|
WC, wonderful to get a good taste of reality for a small (gulp?) fortune. Try the Rane ME60 for a few hundred bucks, or the suggestions of robc33 and grey9hound for other EQ systems. If you love tubes, the Manley tube EQ mentioned by robc33 may be the best way to go. You might be able to do without the ARC preamp, and wind up with fully flexible sound that will do EVERYTHING you like EVEN BETTER. I am very confident about all this.
|
mayoradamwest,
Great to hear that your experience confirms mine. What instrument do you play? Where do you live? My favorite orchestra recordings are the close miked and EQ'ed high frequency boosts of Mercury Living Presence. Brilliant and exciting, mimicking what we hear when we play in the orchestra. I also love the Turnabout/Vox recordings from 1967 of the Rachmaninoff Symphonic Dances (this was promoted in the audio salons when I got started in 1978) and the Copland popular pieces--Rodeo, Fanfare for the Common Man. These are upfront sounding recordings with wonderful presence and impact. (I can't stand the sound of most other recordings of the Symphonic Dances--you can hear the echoes and distant murky ambience which kills the life out of those performances.) I was inspired by these recordings, and developed my recording technique to mirror the excitement of these recordings. I place the pair of directional cardioid Neumann KM 184 microphones right over the conductor's head, angled about 100-110 degrees with microphone diaphragms about 12 inches apart in a modified Blumlein technique. When he heard the playback over headphones right after a concert, he said that it was just like the live sound he heard as he conducted. I'll say it was "better" because I boosted the highs to make it more exciting because the live sound on that cramped stage is boxy.
charles1dad, listen to the saxophone solos in the first movement of the Rachmaninoff in that Turnabout recording (Donald Johanos conducting the Dallas Symphony). It is close miked and immediate. On my system, it is very live and realistic. A similarly immediate recording of brass is the "For Duke" audiophile recording by M & K. |
grey9hound, thanks. Someday I'll do all this.
|
mayoradamwest, thanks for relating your experience. Just wondering--how does the sound of your trumpet under your ear compare to the sound heard 5 feet away with the bell projected at him? I suspect that listener gets much more energy with piercing high frequencies than you are hearing. Correct me if I am wrong. My guess is that the trumpet is highly directional with most of the energy right on axis and a big drop off axis, probably a bigger difference than my directional cardioid mics where most of the drop-off is only in the high freq. By contrast, my violin projects with fairly large dispersion, and the sound under my ear is MUCH louder and MUCH more detailed than any listener perceives. As far as listening in the audience, once I made the mistake of sitting close and far left. Much of the first violin section had their backs to me which smothered the sound, rolling off the highs especially. So if I cannot get my choice seat slightly to the left of center in the first row in line with the soloist, I would rather sit slightly to the right of center so all the first violinists project their sound at me, but not too far right, otherwise the cellos are dominating.
I love the recordings of Maurice Andre for his mellow legato trumpet sound, although I never heard him live. Although not quite high fidelity, I love the sound of the NBC Symphony under Toscanini. The crisp horn sound of the Berv brothers is exciting. Also, the recording technique is close and projecting. After 1950, the sound of those recordings is truly exciting. I have never heard anything more exciting than their Verdi Overture to La Forza del Destino from 1952. I also love the nasty crack of the brass section at the opening of the turbulent section of the William Tell Overture and the forceful but controlled impact of the tympani. Everyone knows the final section with the piercing trumpet calls and impactful tympani. HOT DAMN! I hate most other recordings of this piece where the brass and tympani are mellowed out and smothered in stupid ambience so the impact is dulled.
With violinists, I learned that the rich, sensitive sound of the great masters was created with NARROW vibrato, paradoxical as it seems. Watch the videos of Mischa Elman who had the richest sound of all, but his vibrato was so narrow that if you were to watch his video with sound muted, you could not predict the characteristics of his sound. Most of today's young violin soloists have a wider vibrato which actually creates a harsher, cruder sound. I particularly hate the sound of Anne Sophie Mutter, whose gross vibrato makes her sound like a truck driver. As with overpriced, overhyped audio equipment, big name musicians often sound mediocre to the truly informed connoisseurs, and better musicians without media hype are often struggling to make a living, just like many great smaller audio companies.
|
charles1dad, the general performance level is very high these days because of all the competition in a field where everyone loves to make music. An average Juilliard student puts on a good performance. Even a good amateur like me is capable of pleasing most audience members. There's a cute girl named Tiffany Poon who plays piano on youtube. I like her sensitive performances of some pieces more than Vladimir Horowitz. Despite all her clever videos which attract lots of viewers and several patrons, she is not making it, despite her extraordinary record of competition wins. So she is going to enter Yale to get a masters degree. She doesn't need any more education--she plays better technically and musically than many of her teachers. But she needs to play the politics and marketing game more--that's what it will take to get the recognition and the career that she deserves. I think Anne Sophie Mutter is a decent but ordinary soloist, but she has played the game well, using her womanly charms, first with Herbert von Karajan and lately with Andre Previn whom she divorced.
|
About threads. Charles1dad is very thoughtful, and mayoradamwest is the revered musician of this thread. WC has created a wonderful community here. Charles has made so many contributions and everything related to music is welcome here. Whatever Charles wants to discuss is welcome here. Mikepaul has asked probing questions about coping with the medical illness called Audiophilia Nervosa. Even WC is beginning to think that his present happiness with his system will endure, and he not have the wandering eye that much in the future. So this thread has psychological ramifications. It's not just about the equipment. Let's keep this happy community going. I think WC approves. Besides, the last day or so has been intermission fun while we all eagerly await WC's assessment of the BHK and Pass. Then WC will be the star of the show again.
|
|
Charles1dad, you're right about Monk, Davis, etc, but how about all the undiscovered great musicians that you never heard because they didn't have the other personal qualities needed for managers to promote them. Also, in athletics, there are very objective criteria of talent which can be measured, like speed, strength, agility, etc. However in music, all the competitors have excellent technique, and their interpretations and personal images vary so much, that it really becomes a game of politics of subjective opinion about who will be successful in making a career. Equally brilliant lawyers on both sides of a case have trouble convincing the judge and jury to accept their arguments, so that it becomes arbitrary who wins the case. Such is the situation with judging musicians. AND DO YOU THREAD ISOLATIONISTS SEE THE RELEVANCE OF THESE ARBITRARY CRITERIA TO AUDIO EQUIPMENT?
|
WC, regarding your question about more vocals on the right side--a slight difference in speaker position between L and R may be a factor. Tweeters, especially the fine ones in the Magico must be angled equally, and are most sensitive to this effect because of the smaller wavelengths of the highs. Personally, as long as one speaker is not obviously overdominant, precise localized imaging is not as important to me as tone, frequency extension, inner detail, clarity, etc. Many people at live concerts note that natural instrument placement is nowhere as precise as stereo system imaging.
|
WC, other possible reasons for differences in right/left balance could be aging tubes in your Ref 10 preamp, R/L differences from other components in the chain. Try unplugging and reversing R/L in each different component to try to diagnose this. In any case, this imaging anomaly seems to be a minor annoyance in that other qualities such as the tubes give you so much pleasure.
|
browndt, agree that all the factors you mentioned make a difference. I am interested in your observations about furniture which I haven't yet explored. What audio furniture do you recommend, and what were the sonic characteristics? For example, in the old days, some writers recommended light furniture for the Linn Sondek turntable. |
WC, the BAT SS and tube amps have similar tonal balance, according to some people I have spoken to at Music Direct. The BAT tube amps may be more prized than the SS. There is some bias because I believe BAT owns or has a major financial interest in Music Direct. Music Direct frequently offers major discounts on BAT, and the 60 day no risk policy is attractive. I have bought a few items from them, but because I have returned more, they give me a minor penalty of having to reimburse them for round trip shipping for any item returned. I don't abuse their policy because I only try likely contenders, but like you, I am very particular. Not so bad, and far preferable to losing much more money even if you get a good deal elsewhere and still take a loss when selling privately.
|
While we are eagerly awaiting WC's observations on the next amps and as disappointed as he about the delays, I thought many people of all sonic stripes would be interested in my long history with SS and tubed electronics. My interest in hifi was ignited in 1965 when my father built his own large enclosures for the big Altec Voice of the Theater horn drivers, driven by his own custom made low power tube amp. Drop dead gorgeous, powerful, musical and natural. In 1978, my first serious system included SS Rappaport preamp and Bryston 4B, the original amp Impressive in dynamics and detail, but the midrange was wrong. Voices had a coloration that made them sound like clarinets or oboes. I then got a Dynaco PAS 3 tube preamp which was greatly improved by Frank van Alstine who said it mimicked the ARC SP 3a. I also got a Dyna Stereo 70 tube amp which was modified by van Alstine who said it mimicked the ARC D76a. I was so happy with the musicality and the realism. Later, I got the first Theta tube preamp. It was so much more detailed and open than my Dyna-Alstine tube preamp, but the sound was less sweet. I started to believe that accuracy is associated with dryer, less sweet sound. I then spoke to Roger Majeski of RAM tube works, who was selling various grades of tubes according to his distortion measurements. I got the top grade with the best specs, the most expensive and select. Now the Theta preamp sounded even dryer, less sweet, but far more detailed. This confirmed my belief that accuracy is associated with these qualities. Later, about 1990 I got the SS Spectral DMC10 gamma preamp, which was even better than the Theta in all those ways, but was still musical and not tonally crazy like those earlier SS products. By this time, SS was coming of age and becoming refined, yet truthful and accurate. I then considered the most accurate tube amp by ARC and compared it to the SS Krell KSA 50 driving the original ML stats. No contest--even in the store, the ARC was murky and veiled compared to the Krell. So all you tubaholics, I get it and hear you and agree in many ways, and if you like relatively laid-back sound, tubes are king. For me who wants detail and high freq extension to the max, SS is the way to go. But I agree with techno_dude that the Lux M900u may be a contender for the best of all tube and SS qualities. |
WC, my mistake. I thought the BAT 655se were tubes. Their tube amps are of low power so they probably are of no interest to you. But the SS BAT amps are probably the sound type you are seeking. Perhaps BAT is a newer, better version of McIntosh which makes both SS and tube. You might try Rogue Audio tube amps, some of which may be dynamic and powerful enough for you. Reviews suggest Rogue is a cheaper and even better alternative than ARC. Meanwhile the BHK should be a superb contender for you. Probably similar in character to the Lux M900u. That'll be the real shootout.
|
ricred1, thanks for your comparison of the Rowland 625 to the BHK. How would you characterize the mids/highs of the Rowland--warm, or neutral, or cold/dry? |
WC, as a few people said, try different tubes in the BHK before you finish with it. On p 63 of your thread, I described how Roger Majeski's best tubes with the lowest noise transformed the tonal character of my Theta tube preamp to more neutral, less sweet, more extended highs. He is still in business at RAM tube works, or tubeaudiostore.com. Call him and discuss your needs, or ask anyone with tube experience on this thread where they get their tubes. I also find it enlightening that you find the Mac2301 so superior. I have an open mind to any technology that produces the lowest distortion and the sound I want. I remember you said that the 601 reduced the highs on the Magico a bit, but since you heard more highs from the 2301, do you find that the 2301 has better highs than anything else you have heard? Perhaps the "pop" you describe from the 2301 relates to more transient response in the highs, or does the "pop" apply to all instruments from bass to treble? That 2301 is certainly a keeper, and may be the best tube amp out there for so many criteria. The 2301 also deserves experimentation with the best tubes. It may involve moderate cost and maintenance, but as you said about the Magicos, it is worth it. |
Thanks to everyone who enlightened me on the true character of the Rogue. I had stated that my knowledge of the Rogue only came from reviews, so I am thankful for the real reports from users with personal experience. |
|
Guidocorona,
Thanks for your honest assessment of the Rowlands. I have enjoyed reading your reviews and comments the past few years. As for the M925 which uses the NC1200 like the Merrill Veritas and Mola Mola Kaluga, I wonder if you have heard the Mola Mola amp and can comment on the relative tonal qualities and resolution of these 3 products using that NC1200. I had thought the Mola Mola uses the best implementation of the NC1200 since Bruno Putzeys is the designer of the NC1200 and wanted to make his own Mola Mola stand out. It is the most expensive unit, except for the Rowland 925 which is much more costly. Sometimes words like neutral, warm, cool, dry, dark have ambiguous meanings to different people, but if you compare products using whatever words you want, things take on a closer meaning, especially with reference to different pieces of music, as you have eloquently done in your reviews. As for the warm word, I don't refer to it as pertaining to emphasis on lower frequencies, since I have heard amps that are diminished in these lower frequencies, but they have sweetness and harmonic richness in the midrange which I characterize as warm. As I have said, take a walk outside and listen to the sounds of nature--the wide open space of the wind, birds, and the harder sounds of crickets, hammers/saws, car and truck honking horns. Then listen to street musicians and singers outdoors uncorrupted by the acoustics of soft auditorium materials like wood and chair fabrics. These natural sounds are not harmonically rich, they just ARE as they ARE, produced by the friction of rubbing or struck surfaces or air turbulence, just like musical instruments. For example, Boston Symphony Hall has no carpeting or fabric on the chairs, and the sound is cooler, less harmonically rich than Carnegie Hall with its plush chairs and carpeting. That's what I have heard in both halls. |
WC, thanks for your initial comments on the BAT amp. What is the tonal balance--mellow, neutral, extended in highs/bass, sweet or neutral or cool in the midrange, etc.? I thought you were going to try the BAT 655se. I am most looking forward to your listening with the Lux M900u--it should be a treat with your Magicos.
|
WC, how do compare the BAT600se to the BHK300? Maybe the BAT is an even better bang for the buck, and even better on an absolute basis? Also, we were referring to tube rolling for the BHK, although doing so for the Mac2301 and the Ref10 and the BAT Rex opens up so many more possibilities. Try Roger Majeski's tube service. He also has made Music Reference tube amps for years.
|
jafant, I don't know much about BAT except what I read. My guess is that the 655se is an update to the 600se. The 2008 Absolute Sound review of the 600se says it has a hint of loss of highs. Has roysq personally heard them and agrees with that assessment? WC may need more time to verify this also. Music Direct owns BAT, so their opinion is probably biased. I get the impression that the sales staff at Music Direct is too busy with diverse orders that they don't sit down and listen much, the way old fashioned dealers do. Certainly the opinions of WC, roysq and others here with personal experience carry more weight with me. |
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, 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.
|
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.
|
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!!
|
|
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.
|
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.
|
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. |
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. |
geoffkait, thanks for your post, more authoritatively supporting my position. |
