The market will in time be awash with Alexia 2 or any other ho hum dynamic speaker. Magico has built a reputation for more advanced R&D, and so has YG but they are very expensive. Electrostatic technology is simple and 100 years old, so advances are likely to be minimal. This is why for accuracy/neutrality nothing beats a decently implemented electrostatic, especially at a much cheaper price than any dynamic that tries to emulate the stat for its resolution/low distortion. A nearly massless stat driver will have an inherent advantage over a more massive dynamic driver. A good analogy is that a 6 foot basketball player (the dynamic speaker) would have to have extraordinary jumping ability to compete against the average 7 foot player (the electrostatic).
|
klh007,
Great pickup. I pointed this out on a past post about the Tekton tweeters. I enthusiastically agree with you that the moving mass of 15 tweeter domes is less than that of the Neo diaphragm, so that the accuracy of the Tekton from 300-400 Hz is probably greater than the Neo. Depending on crossover slopes, the Neo dynamic driver may have corrupting influence up to 1000Hz. Thus, the great majority of the vocal fundamental range on the Neo is very likely to be inferior to the Tekton, although the upper harmonics of vocals would be handled by the electrostatic element of the Neo which would probably be superior to these higher frequencies from the Tekton. But again, I don't like the concept of the huge curved electrostatic panel which causes smearing of HF compared to that of the CLX. Even though the electrostatic principle has advantages, when poorly implemented as in the Neo, the Tekton design may actually be superior in the frequencies at which electrostatics are the best. So I wouldn't be surprised to hear owners of the Tektons say that they sound superior in most ways to several of these huge electrostatics. $3000 for the Tekton, compared to $85,000 for the elephant Neo. HA HA.
WC, are you listening? Stay away from the ML Neo. Don't waste time and money on interim speakers. Just get the CLX-REL and keep the Magico S5, to give you everything you want for every type of music. Down to 56 Hz, the CLX probably kills the Neo in everything except overblown lower quality midbass. |
WC,
I sympathize with your anger at that dealer who dumped on your good faith offers to do business. Just realize that these guys are selling mainly overpriced mediocrities. There is NO audio item that is an investment, because everything audio depreciates with time and becomes a horse and buggy with advances in technology. These guys are just trying make the most money selling their overpriced mediocrities while they can. Look, I can come up with $500K in a few days, but I know the junk out there and I have better things to do with that money. I have a patient with prostate cancer, and I referred him for easy SOTA laser ablation treatment that cost him $27K. Any SOTA procedure is NOT covered by insurance. The main covered treatments involve major surgery and various types of radiation, all of which are associated with common major side effects of incontinence, impotence and many others that are too disgusting to talk about here. He is happy, doing great and is free of side effects. That is $27K well spent, instead of on some audio crap, except for the few things like the CLX-REL which is real value. Why should you care if one dynamic speaker sounds better than another, because they are all demolished by the CLX for clarity, etc.? Unless someone offers to pay you for your reviews, funds your purchases, pays for your medical care and missed work from back injuries in lugging around speakers the size of funeral caskets, don't waste your time and money. Yeah, the Musical Fidelity Titan is powerful and not too expensive, but why bother--just another euphonic piece of mediocrity, according to reviews of it and other MF products. No, I have not heard it, and don't need to waste money/time and hurt my back just to prove the point.
Meanwhile, I have decided to keep the $2000 Mytek Brooklyn Amp which I have had on 60 day trial. It has slightly rolled off highs compared to my peerless Bryston 2.5B SST2, although the highs are more elegant. The rest of the range is truly superb, and better than my Bryston in a few ways, with decent 300 watts into 8,4,2 ohms. It is approximately as good as anything I have heard at home up to $10K. With small tweaks of my Rane EQ which thezaks found for only $90, the Mytek is truly excellent. If it were $5K, I wouldn't keep it, because I regard it as a cheap interim amp while I wait for the Merrill Elements to appear and I can fully study and evaluate them to see whether their cost can be justified. Also, John Atkinson in the Nov issue of Stereophile admits that the Mytek does a nice job of driving the $215,000 Tidal Audio Akira speaker, but then snidely asks who would want to drive an expensive speaker with such a cheap amp. Yeah, he is sucking up to big bucks manufacturers who advertise in the rag mag which pays his salary. |
About John Atkinson,
Yes, a fine fellow, as they say in Gilbert and Sullivan English operattas. His music background as a bass player means that most of his reviews emphasize bass qualities with much less analysis of mids and HF. Nothing wrong with that, as long as you know his point of view. The previous issue contained his glowing review of the expensive Constellation Centaur 2, and the issue before that contained someone else's enthusiastic review of the Mytek, which I totally agree with. I get the feeling Atkinson likes the Centaur, but didn't find it such a big blowaway of everything else, and leaves it to the reader to decide if it is worth the big bucks. I will tell everyone that probably nothing blows away the Mytek, but the Atkinson would not allow such a statement to appear in his mag, which caters to the big money manufacturer advertisers. |
kw6,
Yes, 2 years ago I auditioned the Belles SA-100 at home for a week, comparing to my Bryston 2.5B SST2, and my 1995 Belles OCM 200, which has the same power as the new SA-100. The SA-100 was mellow and rolled off in the highs compared to the OCM 200. I found this surprising, but perhaps Belles is trying to cater to today's audiophiles who favor mellow sound in contrast to the past when SS was more brilliant. The OCM is still sweet and mellow compared to many SS amps, but it is more neutral and revealing compared to many of today's amps. For example, the $23,000 Viola Concerto 100 watt stereo amp auditioned at home for a week was more mellow and less revealing than the OCM. This is one of the most glaring examples of high priced audio mediocrity I have ever seen, especially since it comes from the hand of a former Mark Levinson engineer. |
WC,
As grey9hound, thezaks say, don't assume that because something is cheap that it is no good for you. Most people here who enthusiastically make recommendations to you are to be considered your friends who mean well, unlike shady dealers who are out to take your money for crappy, overpriced hyped up mediocrity. As RIAA says, we don't really know the truth about anything unless it is auditioned, especially in our home reference system. When I discovered that the cheap Rane ME 60 as a line stage (not even using the EQ capability) was more transparent than the expensive Spectral DMC 10 gamma, I was delighted to discover something that is cheap and excellent, and also delighted to gloat that the emperor really has no clothes, or that the flashy girl with thick makeup and tight jeans really is ugly without makeup with a dumpy body in more modest clothes. As a twist, I LIKE the idea that a (probably) fine sounding speaker like the Tekton DI may be considered ugly. In a way, the owner of the Tekton can make a statement to his guests, saying that "it's the sound, stupid--LISTEN TO IT." When they do listen, the weird look and the concept of such a design that yields fine sound, can turn a physically weird object into a thing of inner beauty. |
WC,
I understand your point about good looking components, but that adds a lot to the price, so you get poorer sound for the dollar. That Viola amp I criticized was a $23,000 gorgeous jewel made of a sculptured solid block of silvery metal. The manufacturer was looking to fool the rich guy who cares mainly about looks. (But the Viola or Mac amps still are ugly compared to a work of real visual art like a great painting, antique furniture or sculpture.) The sound wasn't bad--it was good enough to fool the rich guy who cares more about his image than listening seriously and critically to music and sound. Then we have the fashionable socialite at the opera who sits in the elegant Grand Tier to be noticed and photographed. Never mind that the sound there is rolled off and dull compared to the first row. She doesn't care what it sounds like, as long as SHE can be SEEN.
|
mrdecibel,
Interesting comments about pro drivers. In general, pro gear offer better sound value per dollar than audiophile gear, because with pro, only the sound matters. I never claimed that the Rane as a line stage is SOTA. The real value of it is the very flexible EQ capability which is all-important. I was about to dump my new Mytek Brooklyn amp because the highs are not as extended as my Bryston, but a little tweak of the Rane made me happy with the highs and everything else on the Mytek which makes it preferable to my Bryston in nearly all ways. So I rejoice and keep the Mytek. What value for $2000! There is no guarantee that the much more costly Merrill Elements will beat the Mytek sufficiently to justify the cost, or even whether the Elements are ANY better at all. I won't know until I listen to a broken in Element. All of this is made possible by the Rane. Although it may not be as transparent as the Luminous, it is still very good, and the EQ function makes it a game changer and overrides everything else. Please experiment with the EQ in your Rane. There is the risk that baritones will sound more like tenors, etc., but you will be discerning enough to do it intelligently. Don't alter the midrange, but try tweaking from 8000 to 20,000 Hz. By boosting this range, you can turn a muddy distant sounding recording into a more upfront one, tremendously increasing the clarity without getting a gross disco sound.
Did you personally do the modification on the Rane, or what modifier did it for you?
|
techno_dude,
Thanks for relating your story about the expensive mediocre DAC. I have heard the Wilson Sasha, Sabrina and can say they are mediocre for the money, trounced by the CLX at similar prices for clarity, etc. Here we have a SOTA electrostatic at an affordable price, and then a mediocre Wilson which becomes an oversupplied drug on the market. Yes, the Alexia 2 may be superior to the other Wilson's, but it won't compete with any SoundLab or Martin Logan electrostatic in important criteria. At nearly $60,000, I wouldn't count on it being superior to the Tekton DI for $3000. The Magico S5 at $40K probably offers far superior clarity to the Alexia 2, so represents better value. If the Magico has better clarity than the Tekton DI, at least both are good choices at their price points. All this is my speculation of course, since I have not heard the Alexia 2, Magico S5 or the Tekton DI, but let the owners speak.
|
kw6,
Thanks for mentioning the Alsyvox ribbon speakers. I believe that the smallest model, the Tintoretto, is the best for clarity, focus and suitability for most rooms. The only advantage of the larger models is a little deeper bass extension, but the smallest one still is respectable at 25 Hz. It is still large enough to please those who like big sound fields. The efficiency is high at 93 dB, so dynamics should please most people. In the case of planers, smaller is usually better, although the Tintoretto is still pretty large. Many years ago, I compared the small Stax F81 to the F83, which was merely two stacked 81's. Of course, the F83 had more output, but it was far inferior to the F81 in clarity. Highs were rolled off, and the tonal balance was bass heavy by comparison. At that point I learned a valuable lesson that large panels exhibit time smear in midrange and higher frequencies because of multipath and time delay effects and therefore suffer in clarity. Smaller is better. If you get these ribbons, or just keep listening to your Magnepans, I strongly advise toe-in to get the midpoint of the sub-panels aimed at your nose. The narrowest HF ribbons have excellent dispersion, so it is most important that the body of the speaker containing the wide midrange panel is aimed at your nose. The wider the driver, the more directivity it has, which you can use to your advantage by aiming for your nose. This will make a BIG difference in clarity.
|
|
skootb,
I use a single Mytek Brooklyn amp in stereo. If I am happy driving my inefficient 75 dB electrostatic speakers with it, getting peaks of almost 100 dB, nobody with much more efficient speakers should be unhappy, assuming they are listening at sensible levels that avoid hearing damage. If the music is very loud on peaks, the amp shuts down for only a few seconds and then is fine after the peaks. No big deal. Using 2 of them would increase the cost to $4000, which may still be a good value, but I don't want to spend a lot of money now, until I evaluate the Merrill Elements. I can afford anything, but it better be a great value, or else I say, forget about it.
|
mrdecibel,
Thanks for your info. You may be satisfied with your system, and I trust your findings that the Luminous passive conduit is more transparent than the Rane without EQ, and it probably beats any megabuck line stage for clarity, etc. The Luminous or Music First units are "pound the table" recommendations for anyone here to consider. Just as they ought to be open-minded about this, I urge you to do the same for the Rane for its EQ feature. Believe me, a subtle adjustment of EQ yields bigger differences than two competing SOTA amp contenders, and this effect overwhelms the loss of transparency from going from the Luminous to the Rane as a line stage only. I really hate many European concert halls for their over-reverberance, in real life and on recordings, such as the Concertgebouw. I can take these muddy and distant sounding recordings and make them sound much more like the tightly clear Boston Symphony Hall in the first few rows, using the EQ tastefully. There is no other way to do this. If you still don't find this useful, I would be happy to buy your Rane. Is it the earlier one or the later one with the choice of 2 different curves (6 or 12 dB, etc.)?
|
klh007,
Yes, you are correct about the Alsyvox being planar magnetics, not ribbons, except maybe the ribbon tweeters, similar to Maggies. My friend in LI has the GT Audio speakers for the low teens without subwoofers. For almost all music, the subwoofers aren't needed, since the main speakers have great power down to 40 Hz. If the Alsyvox costs $100K, that is a real ripoff. The finest full range ribbon speakers I have heard are from Wisdom Audio at a MUCH lower price for still large models. The GT Audios sound great, especially when toed in the way I described. But electrostatics are still superior in resolution to any planar magnetic or ribbon, just as capacitor microphones are superior to ribbon mics. The electrostatic is just a huge capacitor. The ML is still best sounding speaker for resolution, etc., and is relatively modestly priced.
|
mikepaul,
No I don't have the ML CLX. I have not found anything to beat my 1980 Audiostatic 240. I only use a single panel for each channel, whose radiating area is 5.5 X 50 inches. I use a yardstick and aim each side at my nose. The support and other unused panel serve as a baffle so I can get more bass, but most people would find the bass deficient. The flat panel is a better concept than the curved one of ML, though the CLX has the narrowest panel for the mid and HF. My beloved old Audiostatic has probably lost some highs, but it still has better highs and midrange than any other commercial speaker out there. I enhance the highs with the fantastic Enigmacoustics super tweeter, but unfortunately that company appears to have folded. Together, the Audiostatic/Enigma combination is unmatched for clarity, although I admit that I have learned to hold my head in position to obtain ecstasy. It is a one listener ultimate experience. The CLX comes in second place, so it is the best commercially available speaker. Everything else is hopelessly veiled. The original Quad 57 stat has great midrange, probably the best ever designed, but lots of other limitations. The newer Quads are hopelessly veiled in comparison.
The latest Audiostatic design from Dutchman Ben Peters, is seen on his website for 3000 euros. I listened to the other models from the 1990's, which were not as good as my 240. I told him a few years ago that I am still very happy with my 240. But he didn't return my emails asking about his newest model. He is now old, so I am not sure if it really exists. Still, I probably will take a flyer and just order it. Not much financial risk. This man is my audio hero. I even considered traveling to him in Holland.
|
klh007,
Thanks for your clarification on the Alsyvox. So the complete planar magnetic design is then inferior to the top Maggies and the GT Audio. What a ripoff. My friend in LI who has the GT, posted under his ID, faxer, I recall, but if I am wrong, his business is Sound Insight, in Massapequa, NY. It is better than any Maggie, especially when toed in. It is tall and skinny, similar to the Wisdom Audio ribbon speakers. The GT and Wisdom are of comparable quality in sound, and both illustrate the superiority of design that I advocate.
I have heard Roger Sanders hybrid stats. At shows they sounded lousy with veiling, rolled off highs, etc. Could have been the small dead room or the DSP not set up properly. I made a trip from NYC to Maryland to hear the top model in a private home. They sounded much better than at the shows, but still not quite as good as the ML CLX, and nowhere as good as my Audiostatic 240. You have to understand my perspective with the unique Audiostatic, which makes my comments about nearly all speakers at variance with the enthusiasm others have for whatever speakers are available today. But everyone should read Sanders' white paper (website Sanders Sound Systems) on why curved panels are not optimal. Originally, he designed curved panels but realized his mistake and switched to flat panels. To get the total purest sound, you just have to accept the need to sit in the sweet spot with the panels toed in to your nose, ears. I agree with his writings, and go further with my analysis of the multipath and dispersion effects that create HF smearing. I have not heard the smaller narrower model of Sanders, but I predict it will have more precision although less output than the larger wider model, for the reasons I have discussed.
Actually, THE best commercially available stats are from King Sound, in Hong Kong. But distribution and availability have been lousy. They are flat panels, with a wide panel for freq below 1200 Hz, and a 3 inch narrow panel for freq above that. The narrower the panel, the more dispersion, without any HF rolloff. I have heard the King and Prince models and can say that 2-3 people can enjoy the total sound. The original King model was great, better than the CLX, but not as good as my Audiostatic. There is a guy from Norwalk, Conn on USAudioMart selling these for less than $3000, a steal if you can accept the risk of no company backup. The next best thing is the KS 17 that maplegrovemusic mentioned. The only problem with the design is that it is very tall, so the height creates some vertical time smear from multipath effects. The narrow width is a plus, however. Recall that I found the tall Stat F83 (2 stacked F81's) to be inferior to the F81 in precision and HF balance.
So the best commercially available speaker is the ML CLX, because the mid/HF panel is narrow and the whole speaker is not tall. The design resembles the King stats, which are still better because of all the flat panels.
Apologizes to those who don't find all this relevant to their needs, but I hope others find it useful.
WC, I know my quest may not correspond to your present approach with resale considerations, but I just mention products that have real excellence and value by being cheap enough that financially you will come out ahead. You can just get the CLX-REL and be done with the speaker quest and save a lot of money.
|
skootb,
Yes, I recall the Mytek reviewer said that used as 2 monos, the sound is fuller. This is not my taste, but you can see what suits you. A single stereo offers good power, especially for even moderately efficient speakers. No need to blast your head and ears off. Two amps gets more expensive, and I prefer to save for the potentially SOTA Merrill Elements. Aside from more power, I believe that bridged monos of any amp are inferior for purity, because more circuitry is in the chain with opportunity for added distortion.
|
mrdecibel,
Yes, we agree that passive has a big advantage by avoiding line stage circuitry. With all the preamps I ever had (in those days most preamps were really complete, with phono stage and line stage in one unit), I would bypass the line stage, taking the phono stage output directly into the power amp. I would choose music where the volume was just right, since I also bypassed the volume control. In every case, there was such a remarkable increase in clarity, transparency that I thought I discovered America. But you admit the value of EQ in your recordings. Digital has proved that compression is not needed and is inappropriate. Personally, I keep the EQ settings for most recordings the same, so there's no trouble or extra work. A particularly muddy and distant sounding recording will require a different adjustment, but that isn't common. Besides, I remember all the recordings and adjustments, just as musicians remember the character of other musicians they have played with. If I ever forget, I can instantly make adjustments the way a violinist rapidly retunes between movements of a piece. Actually, the biggest reason I use EQ, is that all speakers have such large deviations from reality, combined with room problems. I have the rare nerve to believe that I can make a speaker sound very close to a real musical instrument or voice. As musicians we know the difference between a box stuffed with electronic parts/drivers and an instrument made of natural materials like wood, metal or a human voice of flesh. This YUGE difference is why if you want to do the ultimate, EQ is required. If possible, email me close-up pictures of your Rane if you still want to sell it. russlaud@gmail.com. |
whitecamaross--I am new to your thread, and thank you for your extensive honest reporting. My values are a little different, and I will sacrifice dynamics and bass power for absolute clarity/precision. I have vintage inefficient Audiostatic electrostatics in parallel with Enigmacoustics electrostatic super tweeters in parallel with a net impedance of about 1 ohm in the highs. My listening average dB level for classical music small ensembles to orchestra, with some audiophile jazz for testing, is in the 70's. I don't care about loud passages in the 90's if the clarity in the 70's is mediocre. Low level detail is really in the 20-40's range. My present amp is the Bryston 2.5 B SST2. I am one of few who can tell you that the 2.5B blows away the more popular 4B in clarity and neutrality of tonal balance at modest power levels, despite the official line of Bryston that all the amps in the series sound identical. I told one of them recently about my findings, and he admitted that the smaller 2.5 may sound better because of the shorter signal path. I have always felt that fewer transistors helps to avoid the potential errors from slightly unequal greater number of transistors.
I am writing today because of my excitement over your discovery of the Adcom. As it brakes in, please report on the tonal balance of it. Is it crisp, or is it a warmer flavor? My tastes are in the minority--most people like warmer sound, but I am a violinist and I show everyone I meet that the truth at close range is very scratchy and the opposite of warm. I do need more power than my little Bryston, and I hope you can report on which amps are most ruthlessly revealing, especially in mids and highs. Many thanks.
|
grey9hound,
Yes, why would we be interested in things we cannot afford? A few people here can afford anything, but prudently refuse to spend the big money on mediocre performance, which is the case with many of these items where image and glitz is the thing. I know we feel frustrated that WC doesn't consider high value cheap things like Tekton DI, Rane EQ, Mytek/Emotiva amps, Lyngdorf, Luminous passive, etc. Still, he is a nice guy who generously shares his experiences with us. It's like reading an entertaining novel with fictional characters. But better, because some of us know these characters as they pop out of the page.
|
WC,
Good luck, and I hope your back gets better. But you can most likely top the Ref 10 for neutrality and clarity for under $1k with the Luminous passive. One day you will realize that neutrality and clarity are most important. You want a variety of flavors in your music, but starting with wine sweetened with sugar is not the way to do it. I just hope you don't incur financial strain before you learn this. If you still want sugary wine, there are many much cheaper ways to get this. It is really hard to get neutrality and clarity. Pricy fine wines are not sweet. But many wine connoisseurs have chosen cheap wines as preferable to expensive ones, in blind taste tests. There's a BIG lesson there, totally applicable to audio.
|
|
maplegrovemusic,
To keep WC's speaker quest alive after the Neolith, invite him to hear your KS 17's, which are probably better, and MUCH cheaper.
|
WC,
I just had a look at the pictures of maplegrovemusic's KS 17 on A-gon offers. In the background to the left is the original King Sound King model, 6 feet tall and about 28 inches wide. I heard this in NJ at a dealer and GUARANTEE that it is better in every way except maybe deepest bass extension than everything you are considering or have ever heard. The KS 17 is taller and narrower, a more recent design. It probably has comparable performance to the original King. It may actually perform better in your room since the KS 17 is narrower than the King. I don't know maplegrovemusic--I am just trying to be helpful. Unbeatable deal at $9500 asking price, even if the speaker develops a problem later. |
bigddesign3,
Thanks for your interesting comments on CD. Totally agree. As for vinyl, many years ago I had a well functioning relatively cheap Denon 305 cartridge on the Alphason HRS titanium tonearm on Goldmund Studio TT. Listening to the same recordings on LP and CD, the LP was MUCH more open with HF extension. I did this A/B on much more modest TT with modest cartridges and preamps, and the LP still walloped the CD. Today's CD's and digital recording technologies are much better, and I find CD's good enough to use as material to do extensive A/B tests. With cartridges, you never know from one day to another how the sound may vary vastly, so it is much harder to do meaningful A/B tests. Too many tests will wear out the cartridge. Today my Denon cartridge is so old that now the setup is inferior to the CD, so I need a new cartridge. For my tastes of clarity and brilliance, the Rega Apheta 2 at less than $2000 looks like a great performer at a good value, unlike stupidly expensive things like the top Koetsu or Lyra Atlas. Also, consider stupidly expensive TT like Mike Fremer's Continuum Caliburn. I cornered Fremer at a NY show years ago, and he admitted that the cartridge is the most important and cost effective part of the vinyl setup. For my tastes, a great package might be the the Rega 10 TT with Apheta 2 cartridge, discounted as a package by Music Direct for about $6500, but I will probably save money and just get the cartridge for my own TT/arm. Another problem is that nobody will let you return a cartridge for refund if it doesn't work out. Rightly so, because one slip of the finger will destroy a cartridge. I would never buy a $10,000 cartridge for that reason.
|
techno_dude,
Although we agree on most things, I would say that the Neolith or 15A would still be superior to any dynamic speaker for mid/HF clarity. You are probably right about bass, though.
|
kw6,
Glad you appreciate my comments and tastes. What is your system?
|
WC,
I would love to see your video of the arrival of the speakers. Include yourself smiling and standing next to the big crates and showing your muscles lifting them. Another piece of evidence suggesting that the speakers are the biggest ever, the Neolith. I doubt you are going for the still bigger Magico horn system! I have a friend who had all his systems in a photo album from his early days. Since I have no children, I found this more interesting than the usual albums of the family, etc. Let us know how to access or search for your video on youtube. Do you have any previous videos/pictures that are still on youtube? We consider you family.
|
Could be Pass XA600 monos, maybe Constellation monos. Gryphon monos.
|
w1000i,
Thanks for mentioning the new Chord Etude. The British like to rate their amps at 4 ohms. This is 150 watts, so at 8 ohms it probably rates 75 watts or so. Bridging will allow 300 watts, but bridging is only comfortable into higher impedances. Forget about using bridged amps into low impedance electrostatics, unless you use high 90 dB efficiency hybrid stats and don’t blast the music. For dynamic speakers it may be OK. In the past, I heard the Chord 1050 stereo model against the higher power versions, and liked the superior articulation and detail from the lower power amp. The Etude may be promising in this aspect. In general, bridging does give more power and fuller sound, but articulation is sacrificed. For example, the Mytek Brooklyn amp reviewer in Stereophile compared a single stereo to 2 bridged monos. He liked the fuller sound of the monos, but noted that the single stereo had the better articulation at the expense of fullness. I found my Bryston 2.5B SST2 to be superior in articulation/detail to the supposedly same design of the more powerful 4B SST2. Unfortunately, WC won’t consider anything unless it is big, expensive, and prestigious. There is so much other great stuff, and thanks to you for bringing the Etude to our attention.
|
WC,
The Momentum is a good choice for all around neutral/powerful sound. The tonal balance is probably similar to your BAT, so let's see what all that money buys you. Be honest, as usual.
|
WC,
In a few years, your 2 year old will have better hearing than anybody you know and will be able to describe what he/she hears. Get the $2000 Mytek Brooklyn Amp which I promise is comparable in clarity/neutrality to anything you are considering, except possibly the Rowland 925, Lux 900u. Let your child A/B the Mytek and/or your BAT against most any big buck amp, and say "Daddy, I need money for my higher education, piano lessons because I have talent, etc. You can save a lot of money and still have great sound." So I suggest concentrating on your quest for SOTA amps, instead of getting side tracked with inferior products merely for your curiosity. Don't get mesmerized by big names, prestige. Most important, realize that SOTA or very close to it doesn't correlate with big money. If you ever win the lottery, the flagship Magico horn will KILL the Wilson WAMM at comparable prices. Aside from electrostatics and ribbons, horns have the lowest distortion and are superior to anything for dynamics. Magico has the wisdom to know this. Then you can consider low power amps which have purer sound than high power amps. If you found a horn speaker "shouty" it was probably an inferior example, poorly set up, etc. I found the Avantgarde Trio horn speaker very natural and lifelike at a NY show years ago, even in a small room! Not TOO expensive, compared to what you are considering. |
|
lemonhaze,
You make valid points about how important everything in the phono chain is. I am nearly as old as Mike Fremer and my extensive experience is consistent with his. I had a Linn table with Alphason arm with my Denon 305 cartridge. Nothing that expensive but great performance. I then transferred the arm/cartridge to a SOTA (that's the brand name) table. Then the sound became heavy, like lead, mushy and slow. The Denon 305 was a fast, dry cartridge that was big in HF excitement and light in the bass. So the sound was dominated by the SOTA table with its soft wooden plinth that made the sound heavy. I recovered the exciting sound by going back to the Linn. When I got the Goldmund Studio TT, its sound with the same arm/cartridge was more focused, but not as changed as when trying other cartridges. Both Linn and Goldman are excellent tables, so at that level the cartridge takes on more importance. I think Fremer was admitting that his $200,000 TT/arm didn't produce a life changing improvement like getting his choice cartridge. In a later review, he praised the $6500 Rega 10 TT/arm plus $5000 Aphelion cartridge for its fast brilliant sound. I might prefer the $2000 Apheta 2 cartridge. Of course, the compliance of the cartridge has to be matched to the mass of the arm. Think of the cartridge as a transducer like a speaker, which is more critical a factor than the electronics. The best arm/TT may be considered like the invisible fingers of God spinning the TT and holding the cartridge in place. The arm/TT is merely supportive of the cartridge which really produces the sound.
By the way, to accuse me of just regurgitating old statements, is to not understand my musical expertise, both as an accomplished musician and experienced audiophile. Please show the proper respect, thank you.
|
WC,
I agree that the Momentum Integrated probably sounds better with more accuracy that the ARC Ref 10 plus Progression Monos. The main reason is that the ARC is still tubey and sweetens the sound a bit even though you like that. Dag is SS all the way with some but less, tendency to sweetness, according to some people. Another factor is the general concept of integrated amps enabling you to eliminate interconnects which color the sound. The best approach would be to get the passive Luminous for under $1000 or so, and plug into the power amp. If the power amp has gain over 30 dB, the passive preamp would give as much volume as you would need for lots of music. The Dags tend to have lower gain of 26 dB, so for some music you can still enjoy the pure sound of the Luminous, according to the experience of mrdecibel. He and I agree that there is no active preamp that approaches the clarity of a passive. One of the models of Music First passive preamps has a switch for an extra 6 dB of gain. I don't know how they do it, but I didn't hear any difference with or without the switches' 6 dB of gain.
By the way, your journey is not a one way street without freedom of U-turns. It is all a moving target. One day you will decide that you love the Avantgarde Trio horn speaker, and then you will want a low power amp with the purest sound, for example. Only upon death is there no U-turn. Keep your health, lose weight so that final event is FAR away. Best wishes.
|
mrdecibel,
What were the problems with the stock Klipsch La Scala, and what modifcations did you make? What are your other favorite horn systems? Have they made any advances over the LaScala? That AG trio I heard in a small room at a NY show seemed uncolored with superb HF extension. The music was low in volume with voices and light instrumentation. The superior quality of the system was obvious even at the low volume. The 100 dB or more efficiency of horns enables use of a passive preamp for all types of music, a big advantage, although I still enjoy the ability to dispense with an additional line stage with my much less efficient speakers. |
bigddesign3,
There is no doubt that Krell/Dag amps have excellent power supplies, simply revealed by the specs that power output doubles into each half reduction of impedances down to 1 ohm. Mathematically, this is equivalent to the current capability doubling at the same rate. Very few other manufacturers live up to this standard. Listening I have done reveals the power. The only question is whether you like the chosen tonal balance and what is the level of resolution which is much harder to quantify, and that's why listening to it and anything else must be the ultimate deciding factor before purchase. |
WC,
I agree that Chord electronics take a longer time to sell than Dag, which is good old USA. Anything from overseas is higher risk. It better be a bargain to justify the risk. And yes, I think you made a good decision to get the Momentum Integrated, which will give you the essential Dag sound. If you find that it is a big improvement over your great BAT, you can go further with Dag. But remember, the ultimate goal is to see if the Rowland 925 can be beaten. It is in a similar price league to top Dags. When you heard the 925, you liked sweet, fatter sounding sound and speakers, but now with the Magico S5 and I suspect a higher Magico model soon, it is possible your tastes have changed a little, and that the Dag might have a more neutral sound than the Rowland. Will the Dag beat the 925 for resolution/clarity? Also, you can go to shows to hear things like the Avantgarde Trio horns, to see whether they should be considered. No need to take a totally blind approach just because you find great deals and hoped-for ease of resale. I just have a hunch that these horns might be the best speaker choice for you, because their clarity is unmatched except for choice electrostatics, and the power/dynamics far exceeds any other dynamic speaker. |
Going by 86 dB efficiency, the Wilson Yvette fits that. Electrostatics unlikely, because they do best at least 3 feet from the front wall. I have heard the smaller YG speakers--superb for dynamic speakers. I don't know the specs on YG, but they will seriously compete against Magico. YG is revealing but smooth.
|
4425, totally correct.
WC, it was a smaller Sonja 2 series of the YG that I heard, probably the 2.2. They are 88 dB efficient, so my guess is still the Wilson Yvette. But that Sonja YG was just about the most natural dynamic speaker I have heard. No hifi-ish character. It did well in a medium sized room at GTT Audio in NJ. Bill Parrish, the owner, had a dozen or more leading reviewers at his place to hear the flagship Sonja XV. It was written up a few years ago.
|
WC,
I am sure you will enjoy some aspects of whatever speaker is coming. The problem is that your reference sound has changed so much. You declared the Rowland 925 the best, on which speaker? It would have been informative to hear the 925 and whatever amps are coming on the Magico. I could just advise getting the best speaker system, the CLX+REL, and then seeing which amp you like best. It is more efficient and cost-effective to do that, but I know you enjoy the journey. It just makes it harder to truly learn the character of each amp when you are changing speakers and you cannot afford to keep all the amp contenders around while you are changing speakers. Still, it is great that you have the BAT as reference. The BAT+Ref 10 is good enough to A/B with the Gryphon and Momentum integrateds, even though the Ref 10 imparts a slight sweetening effect according to your descriptions of it. You can get the very cheap Luminous passive that mrdecibel raves about, and then BAT+Luminous should be a true reference for neutrality/clarity, at least for some of your music that you appreciate at moderate volumes. Then you can see for yourself whether the Momentum integrated is worth the money.
|
WC,
Based on the specs, Eggleston is it. I heard it in Brooklyn at a small studio of a young mastering engineer who had worked with Bob Ludwig. It was smooth and good for a dynamic speaker. The former YG flagship Sonja 1.3 looks interesting. Its bigness appeals to you, yet the smaller top modules would keep the mids/HF focused--nice design. The spec of 88 dB puts it out of the running, but John Atkinson measured about 85 dB, so it is still a possibility. The Neolith is not in the running, because it is over 90 dB and you would not be placing it so close to the front wall.
|
Not the Nola with its 91 dB efficiency rating.
|
|
techno_dude,
As I recall, you just wanted to swap your Lux 900u with WC's Gryphon just to try the Gryphon and simplify your system, getting rid of expensive interconnects, etc. This doesn't mean you thought any less of the Lux as your favorite amp.
|
By now, WC has probably listened to the Momentum Integrated on his old Sonus Faber speaker, unless he's been busy with work. His silence is deafening, since he is usually excited to report early impressions when he likes the sound. WC, you are in training to become a host of an awards ceremony who builds up suspense over who the winner is, HA HA.
|
techno_dude,
Thanks for your passion. As Abe Lincoln said, "with malice toward none," I like RIAA's passion, but he simply needs to have more respect for others. No need for calling attention to typo and grammar errors or correct English usage. We all make these mistakes. Then his knowledge and experience can be enjoyed more. Dignified discussions about contrary opinions are always fruitful. Guidocorona is really good at that.
|
WC,
Yes, Dag has good sound and great appearance. However, my guess is that you want the best possible sound for the money, which is usually seen with modest looking black box types. All this SOTA stuff tends to be very expensive, and it pays to prioritize sound vs looks. You got a previous model of the BAT for a bargain, and I look forward to hearing whether you think the Dag gives you more sound to justify the huge amount of money. And the BAT still looks good, just not the Hope Diamond of Dag, HA HA. And I'm sure even the Dag doesn't compare to your wife in looks. Buy her a few thousands worth of fine outfits, and you will admit that beauty is more appreciated on her than on the floor stuff.
|
mrdecibel,
OK, I am interested in your Rane. Send me closeup pictures, etc.
|
techno_dude,
I love my Shunyata Venom HC power cords. I prefer them to the Sigma HC which had a more laid back sound. The new NR series is intriguing. Have you compared the $300 Venom HC to any of the NR series? I still encourage you to try the Denali, which I think makes MUCH more difference than any power cord. Right now, I am in the doghouse at Music Direct because of more returns than completed purchases, even though my sales were substantial and they probably sold a lot of my returns as demos. They want to impose a 20% restocking fee on future purchases if returned. Then I might as well look on the used market. WC's business model makes sense, although he is a high roller.
|
techno_dude,
Thanks for your Shunyata NR feedback. The Denali really is unique--it is NOT a conventional filter with inductors, caps. Just proprietary materials that somehow absorb noise without affecting the audio range. The resulting sound is sharper, clearer, more focused. Like the Venom HC magnified many times. By the way, my 40 year experience has shown that more focused, accurate sound is associated with smaller, narrowed images. Many people enjoy fatter imaging, but this is not accurate. My first experience of this was when I switched from a Van Alstine modified Dyna Stereo 70 tube amp to an excellent SS JVC 7050 Super A amp. The Dyna had fatter sound that I misinterpreted as more dynamic and lifelike, but the JVC was clearly more revealing. The fatter sound is like chicken fat surrounding the meat. The chicken fat represents distortion around the pure meat. The Denali's focused sound actually narrows the image. But the effect is balanced over all the frequencies, so it doesn't create a spitty, wiry sound. It is just more accurate and natural, period. I really think you will enjoy it.
|
WC, I got confused because you said recently that your new speakers have efficiency of 86-87 dB, but the Neo is 91 dB or so. Doesn't matter. The sound is what counts.
|
mrdecibel, I am glad you are enjoying the Rane in another system. Your gain, my loss. I love my Rane, but I just wanted to hear what you have done to it to improve it. We agree that merely as a line stage, the Rane is excellent. Take the opportunity to experiment with it using the EQ to tailor the 2nd system to anything musically enjoyable. You will agree that the line stage is great, second only to your Luminous and perhaps some very pricey active line stages, but using the EQ intelligently is a game changer, with only a little bit of effort. The music is worth it. That's why we musicians train for years to polish our craft.
|
WC,
Welcome to the electrostatic lovers community. But don't engage in comparisons based on money. For purity/clarity in mids/HF, the Neo will be superior to ANY dynamic/horn design at ANY price. So will even the cheapest hybrid stat of the ML line at a few thousand bucks. Most stat owners here will agree with me that dynamic drivers are hopelessly colored by comparison. I have heard enough Wilsons and other dynamics over the years to know this. Stat technology is old and cheap, and even expensive dynamic driver/box designs can't compete, simply because the dominant factor of nearly massless stat drivers outclasses more massive dynamic drivers. The best dynamic technology, horns, still won't compete with the purity of stat drivers. It is good that the Neos are so massive that they will be a pain to sell unless you absolutely hate them, which is doubtful. Don't even consider dynamic speakers at this point. So let me help you get the most out of the Neo, which is here to stay for a long time, a good thing.
Most important, they need about 6 feet in front of your front wall. With only 1-2 feet, they will sound OK, but much more congested and less spacious and revealing. Next, toe-in is critical for getting the absolute most info in HF. Much experimentation will be necessary. Put them on a few dollies with casters, or a lazy Susan type of platform. My friend with his huge SoundLab A1's and then U1's had a string on each R/L corner of each speaker so he could easily rotate the toe-in from his listening chair. Say you place the centers of each panel 7 feet apart. Start with a toe-in of 15 degrees so you sit 14 feet away to get the midpoint of the panel facing your head. Since your room is 24 feet long, there will be 4 feet behind you to the back wall. You might like this large 14 foot listening distance which could give the best integration of all frequencies and focus so that you don't get the feeling you are up too close kissing the elephant. The other extreme, with toe-in of 30 degrees for each speaker, creating an equilateral triangle of 60 degrees, you would be sitting 7 feet away, with 11 feet behind you. This might be too close, and yielding a more bass dominant tonal balance. Perhaps your chosen distance of 8.5 feet might be your best preference. Some days and for some music, you might prefer different distances with toe-ins.
If you are not yet ready to become an electrostatic purist with the CLX which uses the stat panel down to 56 Hz, the Neo gives you the stat purity from above 1000 Hz (the dynamic woofers will contribute some response up to that), plus the dynamics you like which will be more than the CLX. And the revealing Momentum Integrated gives you 200 watts into 8 ohms, 400 into 4, 800 into 2, probably 1600 into 1, maybe 3200 into 0.5. Fabulous power potential with pure sound. You could be in heaven for many years with just what you have.
I still caution you to not fall for the "more money makes better" idea. This may generally be correct, but the gambling table becomes a crime scene when too much money is involved. Merrill is doing more advanced technology than the common big names, so the $36K Element 118 might kill any Dag. I will probably try the $22K Element 116, which is still very powerful and may have 95% of the purity of the 118. I am still awaiting the 114 mono, which will probably be in the teens. This still might be a giant killer. Even for common technology, I favor Krell sound over the Pass that I have heard. From your description and published reviews of Dag, I think Dag offers better value than Pass. Dag is really trying to produce the best clarity and power, whereas Pass admits that his priority is to give the typical audiophile the euphonic sound he wants. It is NOT about who spends the most money.
I want to hear how your BAT+ Ref 10 compares to the Momentum. |
