techno_dude, thanks for sharing your comparative evaluation of the Shunyata XLR's. I think the best bang for your Shunyata buck is the Denali. As I said before, I felt it was worth $4000 retail, and I don't think any cable is worth that kind of money for the relatively subtle benefit compared to the BIG difference with the Denali.
|
WC, Merrill functions like many small companies with a direct sales model involving a 30 day free trial period, with no stupid "restocking" fee. The only real risk is whether 30 days is enough time to judge the broken in unit. Guido says that class D changes up to 1000 hours. If the amp is played continuously, 30 days will give you 700 hours. In my limited experience with the new Classe D200 and the Mytek Brooklyn amp, the character of the sound didn't change much in the first 100-200 hours. If the Elements are truly blow away outstanding, the character will tell you if they are worth the INVESTMENT (not for trying and flipping), even if ultimate break in is uncertain. Perhaps you are still in the try/flip stage and are not ready to get "married" to anything audio, although you are in a serious "relationship" with the Magico. At my age of 65, I wonder how long my good hearing will last, so if the Elements are that wonderful, this will be the last amp INVESTMENT I make. It better be Tony the Tiger GREAT, or else I don't spend the money.
Regarding electrostatics, it is important that an amp provide high power into extremely low impedances. SS amps do that better than tubes. As far as sound quality, I believe that certain stats have the most accuracy, and I want all upstream components to have the utmost accuracy in the service of information retrieval. There is certainly the risk that this approach will lead to more "warts" in the total sound, which I can tolerate if I am very happy with hearing the most info out of the music. I personally don't believe in combining complementary colorations such as warm tube preamps with clear SS amps, because this often leads to the realization that a lot is missing even if you think you have created balance. Don't expect coffee to cure a hangover from too much alcohol, just let time clear the alcohol.
|
techno_dude,
Honestly I don't understand the technology in the Denali, or the designer, Caelin Gabriel's reasoning that the miles of power line from the utilities are less important than the few feet immediately before the amp and other components plugged into the Denali. He claims that the Denali is NOT a typical power conditioner with capacitive/inductive filters, but it uses proprietary materials that "absorb" impurities. I don't understand this, but all I can say is that with my system and dirty power in NYC, the Denali makes a WHALE of a difference. For many years, I had been so frustrated that at different random, unpredictable times, my system sounded so veiled and amorphous like it had marshmallows in its mouth. After 1 minute, I decided it was a waste of time to listen to it. I had the Isotek Evo Sigmas conditioner which displayed the line voltage and distortion "measurements," but none of that correlated with the sound quality. I was intellectually frustrated as well. But the Denali has made the system sound great the vast majority of the time. I understand your hesitation because of the great Canadian AC and the other excellent things you have done with the outlets, cables, etc. The best thing to do is to try the Denali for 60 days no risk from Music Direct. I don't think break in is much of an issue, but 60 days of trial should be enough time to judge for yourself. I'm not sure the tower version is worth $1000 more than the horizontal version I have, although Shunyata claims that the horizontal version requires an isolation platform to get the best result. I just have the horizontal version on a plain thin wood table, and am very happy with the results.
|
dguitarnut,
Thanks for recounting your experiences. I agree with most of what you said, but still keep an open mind about new technologies and unknown brands. That's how progress is made, when an unknown someone has original ideas. I don't want to seem like a devout advocate of Merrill or anyone else. At the prices and resale uncertainties, they all require tough scrutiny and trial.
|
Jetter--talk about WHO (YOU) is craving attention with your negative and completely useless posts devoid of any analysis of audio gear. After dguitarnut criticized me, he turned around and gave interesting accounts of his experience, and I thanked him for that. Progress in audio is not about crapping on other people, but sharing informed knowledge and experience, none of which I have seen from you. Don't bother to post unless you have something worthwhile about equipment to contribute. As for the Element, I would email WC or anyone else about my findings. You don't deserve to be a beneficiary of my hard work that goes into my evaluations, unless you change your attitude. I don't care about what YOU think, so over and out to you!
|
dguitarnut,
There is some delicious humor and truth in your comment that this most popular thread has the greatest exposure of an unknown product. WC has created a journey to SOTA, which this product (Element) is likely to be. Actually we should give thanks to Guido for getting this product the attention it deserves. Star Trek was popular because it voyaged to the frontiers of the unknown. Today, William Shatner is as popular as ever, well deserved. Imagine if WC renamed this thread, "The Star Trek Amplifier Quest," he would become the next Shatner of audio!
|
RIAA,
Thanks for comparing me to Shakespeare, but I have no literary gifts. I hope you have a lot more accuracy and caring concern in managing money for clients than you displayed in your "paraphrase" of my reviews. I HAVE put up money to own several Krell products over a few decades, and HAVE auditioned more recent ones for 60 day trials. You may not comprehend or admit the quality of my experience, but I am glad that others do.
|
WC, of course, no need for YOU to apologize. We all go through dry and hot spells of inspiration and just have to go where nature takes us. Even though we have different musical tastes, it is a tribute to your objectivity, honesty and sincerity that your comments are valued by all here.
|
dguitarnut,
I have no agenda since I am not in the audio business. I just share my knowledge and experience to any who may be interested, similar to the goals of WC even though we respect each other's different tastes. Guido does audio consulting professionally, but he is admired by all who interact with him. If he has any agenda, which I doubt, he has the respect to be entitled to it, since his mission is to inform and discuss edge-of-the-art stuff with a sophisticated, gentlemanly perspective. Techno_dude seems to be a music and equipment lover who just wants to share. I have not met either Guido or techno, but I say we three are NOT trying "to IMPOSE anything in this thread no matter what." Opinions are opinions, but you are DEAD WRONG to say what we discuss is "2nd rate gear that no one wants to hear about or cares about." To borrow from the correct logic of RIAA, you cannot say this gear is 2nd rate if you have not personally heard it. Then if "no one wants to hear about or cares about", how will they do the listening to prove that it is 2nd rate? And "if any of this stuff was revolutionary it would have made an impact already"--Guido has mentioned his preliminary listening experience with the Merrill Elements--few have yet heard it, so how could it make an "impact already?" Guido had the kindness to mention the Merrill's, so for you to accuse him of "plugging 2nd rate gear" shows a total lack of respect for his professional expertise and gentlemanly manner. You fumble on your ignorance and lack of logic and respect. Stick to your equipment comments, which are interesting.
|
RIAA, you are partially correct to say that since I have no personal auditioning experience with Dag, my comments about the Dag stuff have no merit. This is literally true, and I don't dispute that. But you would agree that designers have their own personal sound preferences and technical approaches, so it is generally true that there is a "house sound" of any particular designer, unless he has discovered something truly revolutionary that he radically rethinks his approach. Of course, there are at least subtle differences between 2 amps of any designer, but the basic house sound applies more often than not, subject to some differences. I have read reviews of Merrill's established products, but it appears that he has spent several years doing a major redesign with new generation devices, so we should keep an open mind about his new stuff which may or may not exhibit similar characteristics to his older stuff. He may still have his "house sound" but we won't know until we listen in our homes. Both of us could be partially correct. You might say there is no "house sound" and everything must be auditioned. I say that there is usually a degree of "house sound" in every product, and I agree that it should still be auditioned to be more informed. There is also the reality that nobody can audition everything, so reviews serve as a useful screening tool to find the few worthwhile products that should be auditioned, although there is the risk that something gets overlooked. That's life, unfortunately.
However, to accuse me of "spreading false/inaccurate information"...and being "totally reckless and irresponsible" is wrong on your part. When I have personally heard something I say so, and otherwise I have said "according to reviews" this is what the reviewer said. I won't waste my time doing the due diligence on my exact language in these posts to provide confirmatory evidence, because I am not a lawyer hired at $500/hr to do this. My general perspective is clear enough. This is not a legal forum or trial trying to determine who is guilty or innocent, etc. Get back to sharing your long, valuable experience with equipment, the audio industry, etc. Most of us find this more important.
|
|
ricred1,
I read on another thread that you like the ATI 523. This uses a Hypex 500 module. Could you elaborate further on the tonal characteristics/accuracy, etc.? Since WC prefers monos or stereos over multichannel versions, did you try the stereo 522? Any of the ATI's are attractive packages for sound quality and lighter weight based on my reading and talking to a dealer.
|
WC, a few months ago I spoke to an ATI tech about the difference in sound between the class AB signature and class D Ncore models. He said they were very close, with perhaps the class D sounding brighter. On the other hand, Kalman Rubinson in Stereophile said the ATI 524 class D sounded more mellow and likable to him than his Classe Sigma Monos, which is strange since I personally had the Classe D200 for a long trial period. The D200 is a similar design to the Sigma and sounded warm and reasonably detailed the way you have described Classe house sound. Such disparities in reviews shows why home listening for yourself is a must. It is hard to generalize about class D characteristics, since they vary from warm to sterile, depending on so many other factors in their implementation.
|
ricred1,
The fact that your ATI523 works well with the mighty Rowland 625 S2 in your whole HT suggests that the ATI may have similar tonal and resolution qualities to the Rowland. Maybe you can try just 2 channels and see how the ATI compares to the Rowland to get a more complete idea of the relative characteristics. That would be a fascinating thing to report here, in view of the vast price difference. |
minorl,
In general, I have found the Krell amps I have owned and auditioned at home to be neutral and nicely detailed. Specifically what were the relative tonal characteristics and levels of resolution between which Dags and which Krells? Very interesting.
|
RIAA,
I had the Benchmark AHB2 at home for a 60 day trial, used as stereo. I loved the sound quality, as it was very close to my Bryston 2.5B SST2. I didn't buy it, because it shut down at surprisingly low volume into my unusual load of 2 parallel stereo electrostatic speakers, which go down to 1 ohm with weird phase angles. I had thought the high power specs of the Benchmark would give me the required power, but the home trial showed otherwise. I asked Benchmark if I could strap them in mono to get much more power, but they said no, because the strapped monos would be even more intolerant of very low impedance loads. For most people with dynamic speakers of much higher efficiency and more comfortable loads than my electrostatics, either a single stereo or strapped mono Benchmark AHB2 would work very well, with fabulous accurate/neutral sound quality. For stereo/mono at retail $3k/6k, a great bargain.
Incidentally, my Bryston 2.5B SST2 sounded quite different from the 4B SST2 at home, despite company assertion that all the models of that design sound the same except for power. Another example of the importance of home audition in your own system.
|
WC, come to think of it, I believe that strapped mono Benchmark AHB2's at $6k retail would give you just about everything you value--good power, superb accuracy with no HF harshness, superb neutrality with a slight hint of warmth (at least compared to my Bryston 2.5B SST2), the lowest distortion and noise specs in the industry. This is truly a sleeper, but pretty popular among the informed cognoscenti. When you are ready, you could get a 60 day no risk trial through Music Direct, or a 30 day trial through the company direct, or if you got a great deal for used, I don't think you would have any trouble selling them because they are rarely seen on the used market since they are keepers to most people. Also, you could keep them as cheap references for a long time.
|
bill_k, yes, good technical points. Bryston and ATI told me the same thing. For ATI class d, the 54 series are strapped versions of the 52 series, so although they have more power into 8 ohms, the 54 series are not as comfortable into lower impedances. Thanks.
|
minorl,
Thanks for your honest description of the sound character of the Dag, which is consistent with a well-established NY dealer's observations. It seems that you have heard the Dag at shows or dealers, but not at home. Correct me if I am wrong. The best opportunity to audition current Krells at home risk free would be through Music Direct or Audio Advisor. The Music Room in Colorado always has used Krells for sale, with a 45 day free trial. The last big one was the top of the line Solo 575 monos for under $10K (retail $22K)--they were snatched up in only a few weeks after listing. I learned about Music Room from A-gon. Their buy direct prices are a little lower than the asking prices here on A-gon. They are classy people to deal with.
|
mrdecibel,
Thanks for mentioning the Luminous Audio Passive Preamp. I hope many here will try this or other passive preamps. Did you try any of the units from Music First? The MF was very transparent and I couldn't hear any difference in repeated bypass tests after an hour of trial at someone else's place. Most people will say that an active line stage with gain delivers more dynamics, but along with that comes electronic veiling of details and other distortions. But I find the Rane ME 60 EQ a must for tastefully tailoring sound to your preferences. As you know as a musician, all speakers, electronics and recordings suck in different ways, so the typical audiophile sanctimonious shunning of EQ is not a pragmatic approach to getting the most out of your music the way you want it. I agree that the Rane input level control knobs are crude, so I keep them untouched at maximum clockwise, where the gain is about unity for RCA and 6 dB for XLR. I use my decent volume control on the Benchmark Pre 1 DAC. You could try inserting your Rane between your Luminous preamp and the power amp. This way you use the excellent switching function and volume control of the Luminous. And whatever electronic artifacts are introduced by the Rane, they are less than probably all but very expensive line stages, and the benefits of EQ vastly outweigh any artifacts introduced. Ever notice how some 1940 vocal recordings can sound wonderful? That comes from skillful close miking and EQ. Mercury Living Presence recordings from the late 1950's sound immediate and exciting due to HF boost in EQ, which is obvious but the whole effect is great if you can forgive the manipulation. If you don't like the results, just EQ to undo the effect to your taste.
|
thezaks,
Dave, I am glad you had positive experiences with your Rane EQ. In my view, it is essential for any type or quality of music or music system. It gives you the utmost in tailoring the sound to your tastes, as I have said. In my case it has eliminated the need for a preamp, with big benefits in eliminating the electronic veiling of preamps as well as the cost. When I want another source, I just unplug. Whatever slight distortions of the Rane ME 60 electronics are vastly outweighed by the utility of the EQ capability. I like the original model of the ME 60 better for its transparency, even though the EQ curves in the later model are more advanced. So what, because you can use the 30 band 1/3 octave adjustments to your taste anyway. For 5 channel HT, you could get 3 stereo Rane units, or get 1-2 units for the front L+R or L+center+R, respectively, and not bother with the 2 rear channels. Any way will give you so much benefit. I paid $600 retail for my unit 22 years ago. Reverb.com is a source for used pro equipment. Enjoy!
|
|
WC, I understand and respect your preference for flavoring your music the way you want. I do the same with my EQ, but I want an amp that is colorless and reveals the most info. The Boulder is an example of that, which I have never heard but take your word for it. I am also open to discovering another EQ whose electronics are as revealing as possible. That is not boring but instead is exciting if you love your music revealed in all its glory. I'm not sure your analogy of the plain boiled chicken is apt. If the music has the naturally delicious colors and mild or pungent spices, the accurate amp will reveal it all, so it won't be an unflavored chicken. What you might be doing is flavoring the music on top of what has been already flavored by the chef. Taste the chef's dish first, then add your own flavor if you think you can do better. In most cases, a great chef knows best. Experience the music the way the artist/engineers intended it, first.
|
mrdecibel, We agree on most points. I would say that your Luminous or any other high quality passive preamp such as Music First is a better conduit than the electronics of our Rane. I just want to emphasize the importance of EQ for music reproduction optimization. Done right, using your ears, EQ enhances the musical tightness of a group, etc. Studio engineers often do a great job, but any audiophile who disagrees with their choices can do the EQ for a particular recording, electronics or speaker that they could improve. Personally, I think speakers show the most deviations from natural instruments, so EQ is most important for that. EQ can be used for room correction, but the full flexible use of EQ goes way beyond room correction. I also don't like the peculiar inputs of the later Rane which require adapters. The sound of the later Rane electronics is more colored than the original I bought, so it is in my closet. Our little discussion of this topic is certainly directly relevant to this thread, because many people have spent big money changing amps, etc., when simple and judicious EQ would enable many more preferences than the differences between amps. It is about the net/total end result of all the components, not just individual things like amps, etc. |
WC, I think I've got a better food analogy that I hope you find useful. People do comparative wine tasting, but if this is done after adding sugar to each wine, they all taste like sugar, or the ability to discriminate is lessened. Another analogy would be the chef who is creating many types of flavorings from sweet to sour/bitter. I don't know much about culinary arts, but I would think he would start with a neutral sauce and then modify the flavor according to the concept of the dish. He doesn't start with a sweet sauce, because then the ability to modify it is limited. Back to music--we like a variety of tonalities, ranging from the sweet sound of a soft female singer to the trumpet which can sound soft and mellow but nasty and strident when blasted. It is best to start with a neutral sauce or system, and then see how much variety of tone colors you can get from different music. Guido may be right that the Boulder is a poor example of accuracy and neutrality. I have never heard it and certainly am not advocating it, but the goal should be to start with accurate, neutral, well balanced electronics. You already have such a speaker, the Magico. You have your best chances of long term success if all the components are that way, because then the variety of tonal qualities will be most appreciated. |
thezaks, Great find on the used Rane. Yes, I agree with the audiophile thinking is that less electronics is best, which is why I value the elimination of the preamp in my system. The EQ is a separate issue which I think is most useful. I look forward to hearing how it works out in your HT--you can eliminate the preamp. |
WC, I have not heard all the Wilsons or Magicos or Martin Logans, but I have heard examples of each. There is little doubt that for dynamic speakers, your Magico is hard to beat. Sure, its bass may be quantitatively less than other speakers like the Focal Sopra or several Wilsons, but its quality/accuracy is probably closer to the natural truth, according to your descriptions. Just appreciate its virtues and tolerate its deficiencies, although if I heard it I would probably say the accurate bass is one of its assets. I would be careful in trying to get more bass from amps that emphasize that, because there will likely be losses in midrange/HF accuracy and information retrieval from those amps. And more bass may be accompanied by looser, not tighter, bass.
The Martin Logan 15a or the CLX may give you more midrange accuracy and naturalness, although they will probably have flaws in other areas in which the Magico excels.
|
thezaks, Yes, the Rane can be used to tailor bass, but also everything else with much more flexibility than trying different amps. That said, it is mainly used to alter tonal balance to your liking. EQ can yield more quantity of bass, but it won't tighten it. My electrostatics have a bass boost in the interface transformer which I don't like, because the bass is loose. I cut the deep bass, which has an approximate effect of tightening it, but it is really a reduction in the bass bloat, which is not the same or as truthful as getting more accurate, taut bass, the true goal. To get true deep and accurate bass, there is nothing like power and control from big transformers, caps and power supplies, but the Rane helps a little for this. Dave, I encourage you to try a few Ranes in your HT. As you say, little risk. The quality of its electronics may not equal mrdecibel's Luminous, but it is probably very competitive with that of your active preamp (it killed my Spectral DMC10 gamma of 35 years ago). Just by substituting the Ranes for your HT preamp in the flat setting (no EQ), you may come out ahead in accuracy. Then using the EQ to tailor your system according to program material and your taste should provide tremendous benefit. |
WC, I gather from your descriptions that "wow" means more dynamic and more bass. That's what Wilsons and plenty of other dynamic speakers are about. But the Magico and ML electrostats are about accuracy and honest naturalness. This is true when using any amplifier to drive these or similar types of speaker. Accuracy/naturalness are not immediately obvious to the casual visitor, so there is less "wow." I recall that it took you some time to appreciate the Magico, as you were transitioning away from the "wow" type of speaker. The more advanced driver and cabinet R&D of the Magico compared to these other dynamic speakers is consistent with the sonic results.
|
thezaks,
OK, you're right--I didn't understand the hdmi/processing functions. Therefore, the preamp/processor is essential for HT, but an active preamp is NOT essential in a regular stereo. Assuming the stereo speakers are reasonably efficient and the power amp has enough gain, an active preamp can be replaced with an excellent passive preamp such as the Luminous (thanks to mrdecibel for mentioning this) or the Music First. One of the Music First models has a +6 dB switch if more gain is needed. But I didn't hear any loss of transparency with the +6 dB switch in a bypass test. Either the Luminous or Music First will be more transparent than any active preamp. If coloration is sought, an active preamp will be preferred. You know my view on that.
I believe everyone, including WC should try the Rane for the many benefits. For getting more bass, the Rane has some benefit, but for the goal of getting very deep AND tighter bass with more power, the Rane won't replace a better power amp that will deliver these qualities. For most room correction purposes which usually involve reducing bass resonances at certain room mode frequencies, the Rane would be very useful at a far lower cost than room correction software. I don't know the software products, but using your ears with the Rane is really the best way to go. You should be adjusting your system based on your perceptions, not blinding relying on objective measurements. Measurements can give a useful starting point, but they should not be used to override perceptions. Your system should please yourself according to your perceptions.
For best results in everything, get the best power amp AND the Rane or another quality EQ, for stereo.
|
stringreen, Did you hear the Merrill Veritas at home, or in what system? What amp did you compare it to? Thanks for your observations. My Mytek Brooklyn amp, an inexpensive class D at $2k, is neutral with slight warmth, detailed with no SS artifacts. It is competitive with amps costing many times more. |
wym2,
All speakers have trade-offs, none does everything well. I heard the YUGE Sound Lab Ultimate in my friend's average sized room, and it was awful--bloated, etc. This speaker is only suitable for very large rooms. The much smaller but still fairly large Sound Lab A3 sounded great in another friend's similar average sized room. To get big bass out of an electrostatic, they need lots of panel area. Then the midrange gets bloated, except in a YUGE room. For WC's average size room, I believe the best approach would be the Martin Logan CLX for midrange/HF purity and focus, and a dynamic woofer for bass. The ML Neolith is an attempt to have it all, but I have already discussed why I believe the CLX is a better approach, as well as being much cheaper.
|
|
jlaz,
Thanks for your observations on Boulder. If the 2060 is warmer than the 1060, is the 1060 even more detailed and revealing, even though many might describe it as sterile? Maybe like the clearest possible black and white picture, which I would prefer to a blurry color picture? Isn't Boulder out of business? Where do you get them serviced? Would a competent local tech be able to service them?
|
WC,
There is nothing as natural and truthful as a well-designed electrostatic such as ML CLX, possibly the best of breed. The larger Magico models will probably have more of the bass you want, but that doesn't mean they are superior to your medium size S2 for midrange/HF accuracy. The flagship series are super expensive, but they are still dynamic speakers which won't compete with the ML CLX in what electrostatics inherently do best, which is the all important midrange. Years ago I heard a large Magico, just ho hum compared to the Wisdom Audio ribbons in the same room. Even the ML Neolith would be much cheaper than the flagship Magicos (I am not even referring to the ridiculous big horn which approaches $1 million). As much as I think the CLX would beat the Neolith for mid/HF performance, even the Neo would probably beat the big Magico for performance and value. I suggest keeping your budget relatively modest at this point, saving up for the probably ultimate commercially available speaker, the ML CLX. You could use your decent BAT amp. Just put the biggest sum of money into the best speaker you can get, such as the CLX which isn't all that expensive, plus the best woofer that is compatible.
|
jlaz,
Thanks. Have you heard the Boulder 850 monos? Boulder says they use technology trickled down from the 1000 and 2000 series. The Music Room has the 850 monos for $6500 (original retail $11k). Nice 45 day trial, and each mono only weighs 30 lbs. These amps have been sitting at The Music Room for some time, so it seems that resale may be an issue.
bill_k, Thanks for correcting me. Somewhere I read that Boulder was briefly out of business. They might have been bought with a nice cash infusion to get back on their feet.
|
grey9hound,
Thanks for refreshing our memories about the Lyngdorf room correction. I'll study it, but for now I think you are correct. Probably this would work for large dynamic speakers whose drivers are still much narrower than YUGE 3 foot wide curved electrostatic panels like the biggest Sound Labs or Neolith. These create lots of mutlipath effects with sonically confusing wave launches, as I have explained in my posts. Large dynamic drivers still create more focused sound, even if the nature of the electrostatic principle is lower distortion, but it has to be done with a proper panel concept. I don't see anything that can correct for these problems of big panels in small rooms, even though I am sure the Lyngdorf would help some aspects of the sound such as tonal balance.
|
jlaz,
Thanks. I can't tell if you actually A/B'd the 850 against the 1060 or 2060, but it would be simple to move your father in law's 850 to your place for a brief listen. That would be more interesting than the Mac/Boulder comparison, since I would expect the 850 to be far superior to the Mac in resolution, etc. I am not clear on what you mean by saying the 800 series is half of a 1000, or the 1000 is half of a 2000. The same circuits but just half power from half the number of transistors? If that is true, then the sound quality at most volume levels should be identical, although my small Bryston 2.5B SST2 is far superior in resolution to the larger 4B SST2.
I use no preamp, since I use the Rane ME 60 equalizer as a volume control, as I have explained before.
|
jlaz,
Thanks. I can't tell if you actually A/B'd the 850 against the 1060 or 2060, but it would be simple to move your father in law's 850 to your place for a brief listen. That would be more interesting than the Mac/Boulder comparison, since I would expect the 850 to be far superior to the Mac in resolution, etc. I am not clear on what you mean by saying the 800 series is half of a 1000, or the 1000 is half of a 2000. The same circuits but just half power from half the number of transistors? If that is true, then the sound quality at most volume levels should be identical, although my small Bryston 2.5B SST2 is far superior in resolution to the larger 4B SST2.
I use no preamp, since I use the Rane ME 60 equalizer as a volume control, as I have explained before.
|
grey9hound,
Of course, audition is a must to really know the truth, but have you personally heard the effect on large panel speakers (electrostatics or Maggies) in small rooms? These large panels have deficient bass anyway, so room correction yields less benefit than when applied to large dynamic speakers with much more bass. The problem with large panels is lousy imaging and bloating effects, in all except huge rooms.
|
jlaz, thanks for your clarification. |
jafox,
Your post is interesting, but doesn't answer the question I posed to grey9hound about whether large panel speakers will do well in a small room with the Lyngdorf. Your 18x23 room is fairly large, so it would accommodate most SoundLabs without room correction, although there is the possibility that room correction might help. I find that a good distance of over 6 feet to the back wall is very effective with my Audiostatic 240's, so room correction electronics might pose a disadvantage. Which SL do you have? No, I have personally heard the A3 and Ultimate several times at my friends' homes, as well as at dealers' places. As electrostatics, they certainly beat dynamics for the reasons we both agree on. But I hear the ML CLX as being just about the best of breed in its focus and detail, for the reasons I have said, except it is clearly deficient in bass. The large SL's are probably comparable to the stat panel of the ML Neolith in their range. I have not heard the Neolith, and would guess that the large SL has the advantage in bass coherence and detail with the rest of the range.
|
WC, right. For dynamic speakers, stay with your present Magico for a good long time. For a move toward more purity/resolution, the ML CLX plus woofer would give the best performance, on an absolute basis and value per big dollar spent.
|
|
snafujg,
Aren't the Emotiva products great? I almost bought the newer XPA 3rd generation amp. (I haven't heard the newest more powerful Reference.) It was powerful, although strangely it shut down at the levels needed to drive my inefficient 75 dB electrostatics with impedance of 1 ohm in the highs. Tonally it was close to my great Bryston 2.5B SST2 for its detail and neutrality, although slightly warmer. There are no SS artifacts. People who say the Emotiva is harsh are just addicted to warm/lush sounds. The Emotiva is just quite neutral and satisfying. For your hotly recorded rock/alternative music, I think you would love it. It is amazing how Emotiva amps can sound near SOTA for so little money. This is a sad commentary on many uber expensive amps out there, some of which I have personally tried at home and which are ripoffs. As you know, you can try Emotiva risk free for 30 days. According to Emotiva forums, the XPA series has a different sound than the XPR.
|
grey9hound,
As I recall, you like rock/pop/jazz music. This tends to be played at louder levels than I listen for classical music. I understand your preference for laid back sound, because your music heard close up at live levels tends to be "harsh", excuse the expression. But what you might describe as harsh, others describe and crave the raw, raspy excitement of it. You would hear the same things as others, but describe it as harsh and prefer it toned down. As your preference, that is OK for your taste. As you know, my perspective is that of a musician/participant, so what I hear in classical music as a close-up performer is much more detailed than any concertgoer hears. If you sat with me at my music stand, you might describe the sound as harsh, but I describe it as exciting. A few professional musicians here, such as mayoradamwest and mrdecibel have corroborated my findings. In fact, sometimes professionals insist on special barriers to prevent hearing damage when percussion and brass instruments blast off behind them. I have seen a few patients in their 20's with documented hearing damage from playing in rock bands a few years earlier. I am thankful classical music can be enjoyed at much lower volumes. My exciting sound at 90-95 dB peaks is safe, but not at much higher volumes.
|
grey9hound,
While taking a walk today, I heard the raucous sound of honking horns from American cars (Japanese cars honk politely like the "beep beep" of Road Runner the cartoon character). At about 80-85 dB, the honks are not ripping your ears off, but it is clear that their tone is raucous and would be unpleasant at louder levels. The tone of brass horns like the trumpet, trombone, sax, French horn, tuba has similarities to the honking car/truck horn. This is real life. Your statement that a laid back sound allows you to play louder without being harsh is certainly true, but it is not relevant to the quest for high fidelity to the lifelike qualities of real sound, in both correct volumes and accurate tonality. Real, live music is sweet and soothing much of the time, but there are raspy moments here and there which punctuate the sweet sound and make it interesting, providing variety and dynamic range. You could also consider the tonal spectrum from sweet to raucous as having a "dynamic" range of sorts.
|
grey9hound,
I think we basically agree on most points discussed. It is also telling that your last paragraph admits that upfront systems sound like the 1st row. Exactly my perspective! I don't know if you go to classical music concerts, but people have found most of the music from the 1st row to have SPL of 35-85 dB, occasionally down to 20 dB and up to 95 dB, and rarely only in certain big pieces up to 105 dB peaks on percussion. Sustained loud brass instruments only reach 90-95 dB. Live unamplified music has clarity at these levels, which are much lower than many audiophile amplified systems where they feel a need to make it louder to get the missing clarity at true live levels or to just rock out in "hifi" style. I find with neutral amps with extended HF, I am happy listening with the clarity at the modest levels of live classical music, but with laid back rolled off HF amps I am not happy unless I push the volume to higher unnatural levels. But at that point, I still don't get the clarity, and actually find the unnaturally loud levels HARSH. How about that!
|
grey9hound,
On a related subject, people have written about how Maggies don't sing unless cranked up to loud levels. (WC has noted the same thing about the ATI 6005 amp.) This is an admission that at low/modest levels, the clarity is not up to snuff. That means the speaker has problems with resolution, etc. A good system must have absolute clarity at all volume levels, which is certainly true of live, unamplified music. It can be true of amplified music as well, assuming that we are seeking a totally transparent, accurate amp, the so-called straight wire with gain.
|
grey9hound,
Yes, I understand how the Lyngdorf could tame the boominess of your Tektonics in a small room. I think this works because the speaker uses different drivers for well-defined frequency ranges and the imaging is probably tight so there is a relatively coherent image. But a huge stat panel like the Neolith is like having many full range drivers spread out over a large area with so much duplication and radiating in many directions that the image is diffuse and confused. Put another way, if you take a mini monitor pair which gives a tight image, and then use 30 pairs of mini monitors stacked horizontally and vertically, you will get a diffuse lousy image with poor clarity. So, even though electrostatic transducers are superior to dynamic ones in many ways, when implemented poorly as in huge curved patterns, such a big stat can be inferior to a good dynamic in many ways. In my early days, using the Maggie Tympani 1D, I loved the big panel sound, but grew tired of the diffuse imaging which wrecked the clarity. My next speaker was the little Rogers 3/5A mini monitor, which was so superior in overall clarity to that Maggie. I believe the Lyngdorf works to correct boomy bass in dynamic speakers, but its ability to correct the errors of large panel imaging is limited.
WC, the preceding paragraph illustrates why I think you would be taking a BIG risk going for the Neoliths. You already have experience with the CLX and love it. The midrange and HF come from a narrow panel which gives it focus and clarity, and the larger midbass panel gives it the spaciousness you would like. Just add the appropriate woofer which would give you everything you want. The brand of woofer would require more research, but a dynamic woofer would be right. Instead of making the elephantine Neolith, ML should have just designed a dynamic woofer to add to the CLX. The CLX bass panel goes down to 56Hz, so the woofer would be used and optimized for only a small range, unlike the hybrid models like the 15a where the woofer is used up to about 200-300 Hz where the purity of the electrostatic transducer is bastardized by the dynamic woofer getting into the lower midrange. Trust me on this. If you are still hesitant, you could live happily ever after with your present Magico.
|
WC, great advice from techno_dude and bigddesign3 above. Don't waste your money and time with the Focal, Dynaudio, Wilson. I have not heard all the models, but I have heard a few of each. As dynamic speakers, they are likely inferior to your Magico for detail/resolution and overall great sound in a nice relatively small package. Getting a bigger Magico will be counterproductive for your relatively small room, although Lyngdorf room correction may do wonders. However, Magico has designed your model S5 to be optimized for smaller rooms, so I don't see the point of getting a bigger Magico only to "correct" it with the Lyngdorf. And the bigger Magicos are way too expensive and still would not compete in resolution to the CLX or even the Neolith. To get better resolution, the best move would be the CLX with the REL woofer--thanks to bigddesign3. Even then, your Magico would be worth keeping as an alternate system for rocking out. She may not be perfect, but how would you feel dumping her? Save your money for speakers rather than amps. This way you have the best electrostatic and the best dynamic speakers for what each does well. When you get those big expensive mono amps in Nov, ask yourself how much of an improvement you get relative to your good BAT, and then contemplate how much greater benefit you will get by adding the CLX-REL system for much less money. Then you can keep the Magico as an alternate.
I will try one of the Merrill Elements soon. It seems like the 116 is the most popular, providing nearly all of the benefit of the 118 for "only" $22K rather than $36K. Search A-gon under Merrill Element to read the glowing review of the 116 from a professional musician, a Professor of Percussion. WOW. I've seen enough reviews to pique my interest. Now it remains to audition a unit that has enough time on it, as Guido has advised. Maybe wait to find out about the 114, which will probably be much less than $20K, and likely a great value.
WC, you have a long, happy audio life awaiting you. It is prudent to be patient to see what technology brings in the future. This is obviously true with computers and phones. Don't blow a lot of money now. Spend relatively modestly for great sound per dollar.
|
grey9hound, I am awaiting your comment about using the Lyngdorf with big panel speakers. If you have no experience with that, you don't know either. Lacking that experience, I can only speculate on theoretical grounds why it works for dynamic speakers but maybe not for large panels whose footprint is much larger. Of course, you are right that the Lyngdorf corrects the room, not the speakers. But it is more or less a semantic discussion, because the room and speaker work as a team.
|
Amen, mr_bill, about the CLX. Well said. |
WC,
To sort out a lot of the well meaning advice above, there is nothing wrong with walking into a dealer for Wilson, Dynaudio, Focal and getting a brief listen with your own music. I agree that it is morally wrong to waste too much of the dealer's time when you are looking for better deals elsewhere. But you will find after just 5 minutes of listening that these dynamic speakers will or most likely won't, have the accuracy and other qualities that you have come to appreciate in your Magico S5. I have personally heard enough mediocrity from several models of these other speakers to make that statement. You have reached a level and spent plenty of money to realize that the next speaker should be the ML CLX, 15a, 13a in that order. You can still keep your Magico for the reasons I have said. The 5 minute test should be enough to demonstrate all this and satisfy your curiosity, and then you can walk out and shake hands without taking any financial risk and suffering the heartache of getting your money back. In related matters, I can judge the sound of a violin within seconds of playing it, and the quality of a violinist within seconds of hearing him play. No need to worry about the BIG BUCKS involved in buying and selling violins.
|
