WC,
+10 for your enthusiasm and helpful comments. Although I have been verbose, I try to concentrate all my thoughts into as few words as I can, but just want to clarify as best as I can, unlike those 5+ pages of effusive magazine reviews which include musings on the neighborhood, girlfriend, etc. They degenerate into comic books instead of taking a real stand, telling it like it is the way we do.
|
minorl,
I think we agree about priorities, although every effort makes a difference. First, optimized speaker placement. Sure, the Neo is more open with greater breathing room behind it. But I think that WC had used the ML Montis, 13A, 15A and CLX at the 1-2 foot distance, although in those days he might not have said so, and I don't remember his earliest pages. So he tried the Neo at this usual position. They were lacking with that tight position. So I think he found that the HF were less prominent in the Neo than from the other ML stats he tried. Then the treble boost in the Dag amazed him by the improvement. All those stats benefit from greater breathing room, although he may never have tried the other stats that way.
EQ won't cure everything. It won't make a sterile SS amp sound like a warm tube amp. But it can tailor the tonal balance to your liking, whether you are hearing deficient, or if you have trouble deciding between 2 amps where there is a mixed bag of good and bad things about each. Different EQ settings helped me appreciate the overall advantages of the Mytek compared to my Bryston. Honestly, many excellent amps are converging to have fairly close sound quality, but EQ carefully done can make a big difference. Maybe the Merrill Element amps will be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but I still anticipate using EQ, probably at different settings. And no speaker sounds quite like live music, so EQ can help you get closer to what you want.
|
bigddesign3,
Thanks for your comments about EQ in car audio systems. It seems like you found digital EQ to be a problem in the bass. What about your experience for EQ in HF? My ordianry stock car radios have benefitted enormously from simple treble boost, to get the dull sound to have much more life. But this leads to a more general discussion of analog vs digital electronics of which EQ is a part. I don't know why digital would have a problem in the bass, where LF presents much less a computational problem. CD's in the early 80's showed obvious digititis, raucous sounds mainly in HF By the 90's, converters were much better, so CD's became enjoyable. If today's digital is so great, why isn't the SOTA just using digital for preamps, power amps. Class D amps are not digital. I haven't heard about any audiophile electronics in the digital domain, so we are still living in an analog world. We could keep the chain pure digital, up to the power amp output which would require merely a DAC to then drive the speaker. 24 or more bits could provide nough resolution at very low volume levels. Why not?
Can anyone help answer these questions, particularly technical people like bill_k, minorl, ron17?
|
ron17, Thanks for your info on digital EQ. This requires further study, but at the moment with my non computer based old fashioned CD, DAC, EQ, amp system, I don't see how the Roon can be utilized. I am certainly interested in digital EQ. I met with Bill Parish at his home a few years ago when I was considering the Mola Mola Kaluga amps. He didn't know of a digital EQ for my purposes back then. Bill is a wonderful guy with great knowledge. The Mola Mola Kaluga is a great amp with my neutral tonal preference, so it is still under consideration. I agree that for EQ, attenuation is useful, although my overall use of EQ goes far beyond what many people are doing with room correction for limited freq in the lower freq. For example, I was able to make my Mytek amp sound more neutral (less sweet) by attenuating 200-600 Hz a little. I use my ears to suit my preferences, and would not care what microphones measured as some kind of "ideal" to be imposed on the system. Such software systems might create improvements in some ways, and I am not claiming that my adjustments are the theoretical correct way, they are just what I want to achieve musically to my standards/preferences. I am still interested in digital EQ to tailor the tonal balance to my needs, but the end result is still obtained by listening. Perhaps electronics involved in the digital process is superior to my Rane with its analog electronics, so I have an open mind. Unlike others, I like to boost HF above 10 Khz significantly to offer much more brilliance in recordings that are laid back (which is most of them), which has the effect of extending down to the midrange to a lesser degree. The midrange is affected in a reasonably subtle manner, always consistent with musicality, not a hifi disco type of distortion. I also realize that rock/pop/jazz recordings in general are hotter than classical recordings, which is why many people here who like rock, etc. are puzzled why I am really out on the fringe by boosting the HF the way I do. Many classical listeners sit far back in the concert hall and prefer the sound they are used to, which is laid back sound. But listeners to jazz are usually closer, and the music is more upfront and exciting, so they find EQ is not needed. For jazz, the mike is often right at the bell of the saxophone, much closer than for brass instruments in classical pieces. I am just one of those unusual classical listeners who listens at close distances in an attempt to get the close perspective of the performer when I am wearing my other hat. Also, do any of your acquaintances have digital preamps/amps that are truly superior to analog? Can you name the equipment that they have? If so, this is another reason not to spend too much money on today's dinosaur electronics. Progress often happens faster than most of us can stay solvent. (RIAA will recognize my paraphrase of an investment strategy to take reasonable losses in order to survive in the game.) |
WC,
Class D amps are already SOTA. The $16,500 retail for the Mola Mola Kaluga is a reasonable price for the SOTA quality. I almost bought them from Bill Parish, who said they sound more accurate than the much more pricey Soulution 700 series amps. We'll see if the class D ambitious offerings from Rowland and Merrill are worth the higher prices. Just note that they are all class D. And my Mytek is class D. At $2000, it beats most amps costing much more. It may have more sparkle than your Plinius, and be more neutral (less warm) in tonal flavor, while still having elegant, smooth HF. It is remarkable how you find the Plinius very powerful even at its modest power rating. You might be even more pleasantly surprised at the Mytek.
|
maplegrovemusic,
I recall you saying that you use Exogal amps for your KingSound stats. Which model, and what are the sound characteristics? Lyngdorf makes digital amps, as well as room correction software? And you are correct that class D is not a digital amp. To avoid confusion, they should call it class X or something.
bigddesign3,
I had a Nuforce ref 9 SE years ago and loved the fast, incisive complete tonal range. Although the midrange was sometimes cold and sterile, I listened through it because of the exciting clarity. At other times it was warm. Crazy. But one day the Nuforce burned up a transformer in one of my stat speakers. Luckily, I had spare transformers from several samples of the same beloved Audiostatic I collected. I dumped the Nuforce because no matter how great the sound was, it was not worth literally killing the speaker. Despite the Ref status, it was made cheaply.
|
For starkly comic relief, I will state that I prefer plain no. 18 zip cord for speaker wire. Yes, I know that larger cable (lower gauge) should transmit more power, etc. But my listening tests over several decades have shown that lower gauge speaker cables give the sound more bass and psychoacoustically "subtract" HF due to the more prominent LF. It is a tonal balance effect, with my thin zip cord creating more brilliance. The bass is still there, but tight even if not as full. In short, bigger speaker wire creates big veils and obese sound. Then we have the filter designs like MIT and Transparent Audio, which I have found to create veiling. If you like that type of sound, OK. WC has found that the copper/silver of the WW Silver 8 has more HF than the pure silver Platinum. This seems paradoxical, because silver is the best electrical conductor. Maybe the Platinum is thicker, so that changes the tonal balance more to the lower freq, and the HF are less apparent. All this shows that the crazy theories of cable design are a lot of hot air in comparison to just doing listening and figuring out what kind of sound you want.
WC, try just using no. 18 or 16 zip cord, either single wire or biwire. You will find the Neo to have more HF. Although the bass will probably be less in quantity, it will probably be tighter. And your Dag sound character will move in the direction of the Plinius--more sparkle and clarity. You will be shocked at these findings. Spend a few pennies for zip cord, for the best bang for your penny! |
Mrdecibel, Do you use 12 gauge zip cord or another type of speaker wire? I never tried 12 gauge zip. Maybe it doesn’t exist. I do remember Monster Cable in the old days, to be merely fat zip cord, but can’t remember if I tried it. But thanks to klh007 for mentioning Mapleshade. My zip cord is only 4-6 feet long. His description is close to my observations with thin zip. 16 is close to 18 in sound. Even 16 is much thinner than most audiophile speaker wire, which cater to typical audiophile tastes. I should have said to WC, thin zip cord will give the most PING FOR THE PENNY. Ha Ha. |
klh007,
I just read the Mapleshade link, thanks. I am glad the author hears what I do, and also has more technical background than me to make products that deliver the maximum information. Which model have you used? Did you compare to high gauge zip cord? I just have 1 difference of opinion with him. Obviously I have not heard his line of wires, but as with many writers, I think they are on the wrong track by saying that treble needs to be tamed. Some people openly admit that they like laid back sound, but anyone with close up live experience would hear the ridiculous amount of veiling and rolloff in most systems compared to close live music. Any attempt to roll off HF will certainly result in "prettier" sound, but some information is subtracted even if you like the laid back sound and want to justify how it is just as detailed merely because you are love smitten. So there is a little paradox with his presentation. On the one hand, he rightly criticizes the fat veiled sound of most audiophile speaker wires, but then on the other hand he wants to tame the treble with the PLUS feature. My personal preference would be to try the Double Helix plain 8 feet pair at $365, although I am eager to hear about your findings.
|
WC,
Although I agree that the Neo deserves the best, I believe that the Dag 400 is a backward move. It might be better than the power amp section of the Dag integrated, but not to the extent that the Plinius is. The Dag 400 will have more power obviously, but it will probably have similar house sound as the integrated, whereas the Plinius really impressed you with its sparkle and clarity. I doubt that the Dag 400 will have that sparkle. I understand your desire for more power, so I recommend the newest Emotiva DR reference at 550W into 8, 800 into 4. It doesn't double into half the load the way Dag does, but it will have more power than the Plinius. I heard the XPA 2 gen 3 for a 30 day trial, and it was powerful, accurate and even a little sweet. It rates 300W into 8, 550 into 4, 800 into 2 (although recently they have not revealed the 2 ohm figures). My guess is that either Emotiva would be even more sparkly than the Plinius, as many listeners have still described the Plinius as warm. Grey9hound described Emotiva XPA gen 2 as bright when pushed, although thezaks said that the gen 3 is different from the gen 2. But since your Neo is somewhat rolled off in HF compared to the 15A and certainly compared to your Magico, I believe you will really like the Neo/Emotiva, and still find the Neo/Dag 400 somewhat rolled off. Emotiva DR retails for $1600, XPA 2 gen 3 for $1000 with that no-risk 30 day trial from the company. After you buy and sell the Dag 400 you will take a loss greater than that. Since your money is limited, I can see you selling the Dag integrated to get the 400. But then you would be losing the valuable tone control of the integrated. I can see the Dag integrated with the +4 treble boost being more sparkly than the ARC Ref 10 with the Dag 400, and the Ref 10 plus Plinius beats even the Dag integrated. I can see the Ref 10 plus either Emotiva beating anything you will try, for sparkle and most other qualities. Why don't you at least hold off on the Dag 400 until you try the Block which is coming very soon. I will hold back my comments on the Block until you listen to it.
RIAA, I agree that the Mac preamp is probably the weak link for techno_dude, although the Lux preamp with its tone controls coupled to the M900u is likely dynamite in most ways. If techno's finances are tight, then I would get the Rane EQ to plug into the Lux M900u. There will be 6 dB gain in the balanced outputs of the Rane, probably enough gain as strictly a line stage, and a much more flexible EQ than the Lux preamp tone controls. If EQ is not used, then the Luminous passive preamp is the way to go for highest transparency, but there is no gain with the Luminous and techno appreciates the benefit of EQ, so I think the Rane ME 60 is the best option for him.
|
|
dguitarnut,
The Rane is never the twain to be forgotten, as I "splain" it. |
WC,
Just as I suspected about the Block. If your initial listening impressions are confirmed tomorrow, full and rounded mids means that HF are psychoacoustically rolled off as the midrange takes prominence. Probably similar in character to ARC tube amps that are powerful. The roundness might synergize with the Magico for your tastes, but the Neo needs some brightness/brilliance coming from the electronics, so either of the Emotivas or any of the Pliniuses would create better synergy with the Neo. Thanks to ron17 for recommending the other Plinius amps, although they are still much more expensive than the top Emotivas. On the road to your recovery from the "audio moneyitis" illness, the Emotivas could be the final destination and the best cure for that illness.
|
techno_dude,
Ignore those personal criticisms, and just get the great high value stuff I suggested above. We agree that an audio system should have exciting sound. In addition, either no.18 plain zip cord or the thin wires of Mapleshade would create more excitement. I will probably try the Double Helix 8 foot pair at $365. You could get a nice price for your Mac preamp and come out way ahead on the road to exciting sound. Try an Emotiva, and you will probably report how fantastic it is. Let's see how it competes against your Lux M900u. It will probably be a good fight. I would go for the XPA 2 gen 3 at only $1000 retail, since that's the one I heard at home for 30 days and almost bought. It has plenty of power. You don't need to chase the higher powered DR reference, since there is the risk that the higher power amp might sacrifice clarity at reasonable volume levels.
|
Mrdecibel,
Now you are being nasty, as you were with techno_dude. Number 1, any consultant should be mindful of a client's finances in recommending items. Financial advisors often steer clients into investments they have a personal business relationship with, so they are not necessarily acting in the client's interest. In high end audio, the equipment is largely overpriced with mediocre performance for the money. We agree on that. Although I was never a professional audio consultant, I do a better job pointing out high performance values than most people here. Second, I wonder how much experience you have in classical music, which is my area of expertise. Although I was never a professional musician, my knowledge and experience in listening is second to none. How dare you criticize that? Your comments about my use of the Rane to get an amp to sound like another illustrates your ignorance of how EQ can be flexibly used for many goals. As for subjective whims and preferences, anyone is entitled to that. But all within the context of a semblance to the real thing. That is the philosophical difference between the listening of the general public mid/low fi where whims rule, and the high end audiophile who is trying to get a system to sound like the real thing. Yes, we are all trying to please ourselves individually, but pleasure should be in the context of reverence for the real thing. My listening is not confined to prestigious concert halls, and sometimes the most informative listening takes place in unusual circumstances, like hearing a performer on the subway platform when there is no noise from trains running. You can hear the different sounds as you walk from far away to near. The sound is so pure and clear, that anyone who then advocates for laid back rolled off and veiled sound is just living in a dream world. That is not God speaking, that is just from an honest man who points out the obvious truth to anyone willing to be an honest listener.
Several people here appreciate and enjoy my posts, even if you no longer do. I am not here to please you. Get used to that, although when you make sense, I will give you credit.
|
spinaker01 and 4425,
If you can’t see the value of my posts, that is your loss. If you mock my recommendations of cheap stuff like zip cord, Emotiva, Rane, that just shows your closed mind. One day, WC will realize that a lot of high end audio is about overpriced, underperforming stuff. His experience of Plinius beating Dag is a welcome beginning. I am sympathetic to the demands of his family life with the financial constraints, so my suggestions of alternative equipment is very relevant here, and I know he values my input.
Drivel? CERTAINLY NOT! Show some RESPECT! Rodney Dangerfield was wise.
|
ricred1,
You're generally right about these things. "Overpriced" is a relative term which implies that there is some much cheaper item that performs as well or better than the expensive one, according to whatever criteria you use. Of course, there is no absolute number for what overpriced means. To Bill Gates, $500 million for a house that has similar features to his $50 million (a guess) home is overpriced. The fact that he can afford $500 million is not the point. Even he discriminates value for his money. There are too many charities and other great things he could think of, so even he doesn't have enough money for all the good things he could imagine doing with his money. As for me, I start getting critical of an amp costing over $10,000. I think my Mytek at $2000 has great value for the sound, but probably not at $10,000 where there are competitors, although I have heard a few of them that don't offer the level of performance of the Mytek. Regardless of money, technology is advancing so that I think it is not prudent to buy the flagship of anything. For example, I am eagerly awaiting the Merrill Elements. The flagship 118 at $36K is not the same value as the $22K model 116, which still has high power and probably 99% of the performance. The $9-12K model 114 will be lower power which may be a drawback for some, but if it has 98% of the performance in quality as the flagship, that is great value. Other designers will be using the GaN devices, so there will be competition, creating more value for everyone.
|
dep14,
Excellent posts about how your priorities determine the best speaker for you. If I listened to more rock than classical, I would totally agree that my choices would match yours. That is not God speaking, but just an acknowledgement that you make logical sense in both your priorities and knowledge of sound.
|
+10 for kahlenz's post and also the acknowledgement of that by ron17.
|
RIAA,
You are generally ignorant of, and refuse to acknowledge, the reality of general house sound. For example, a mellow tube amp will not make any speaker sound brighter and faster than a fast Boulder amp driving that same speaker. That applies no matter whether the speaker is a warm Sonus Faber or my fast, articulate electrostatic. Why don't YOU put up the money and see whether the Plinius has more sparkle than the Dag for different speakers, or whether it is not true for another speaker, instead of making your own pontificating accusations.
Yes, compatibility has to always be taken into account for final assessment, but the previous paragraph is generally true. Stop your emotional criticisms of personal character. Compared to you, my analyses are in-depth and objective, without inappropriate personal attacks which only serve to take away from the validity of whatever is said.
|
mikepaul,
If the Elements at over $10K are significantly superior to my $2K Mytek, I will happily spend the money. I can certainly afford the $38K flagship Element 118, but if the $12K model 114 is 98% as good, which is implied by the statements of the designer, Merrill W., I will go for the 114. I suspect that Bill Gates spends his money prudently, with relative value of all his life activities in mind and in perspective, probably more prudently than the typical audiophile.
|
|
OK, my book here is now ending, except I will occasionally offer a brief thanks to anyone presenting interesting info in a dignified manner. I apologize if I have offended anyone disagreeing with me, but even in those cases valid points were made. I have learned from all of you, and I wish everyone well on their own personal audio journeys. For anyone who wishes to communicate with me, I welcome your emails, russlaud at gmail. I won't post anywhere else. Thanks and good luck. |
lemonhaze,
Thanks for your last post. I take your valid points to heart. Your posts were interesting, and I have learned from all of you. I shall remember your apt term, and apologize again for being an insultant at times. Nobody is going to audio heaven--we are all just trying to seek meaning and pleasure in our musical and audio pursuits. Peace.
|
WC,
Just curious. Since you just said you like sizzle, how does the Plinius rate against the Block for sizzle and sparkle? I get the impression from you that Block assets are fullness, roundness, dynamics, especially for bass/midrange. Maybe Plinius is more oriented for sizzle/sparkle?
|
bill_k,
I didn’t know that about how class A amps dissipate more power when idling vs playing. What are the technical reasons, and why the opposite is true of Class AB? Thanks.
|
WC,
Thanks for your comments about the Plinius vs Block. It appears that the superior overall resolution of the Block outweighs its comparatively less sparkle in HF. Then the Lux preamp with its tone controls to boost the HF sparkle may give you great synergy with the Block. (I found the same synergy with my Mytek amp. It didn't have the same HF sparkle as my Bryston, but in lower freq it had advantages. I just boosted the HF using my EQ so now the Mytek beats the Bryston in everything). Of course, that assumes that without the tone controls, the Lux is as good as the Ref 10 for overall resolution.
|
RIAA,
Good interesting points you make. I am always interested in what people in the trenches think, but I believe it is more meaningful to say what sonic characteristics the people are referring to, rather than to say that X beats Y. What does "beats" mean? Recently, in Audio Advisor, someone commented on the new Bryston 2.5B cubed he happily bought. He likes warmish sound, and found this Bryston to be warmer than both the Mytek Brooklyn Amp that I own and like and the NAD M22 that I also heard. Since my taste is the opposite, he and I would disagree about whether this Bryston "beats" these other amps, but I value his honest detailed description of his findings because it has saved me from making another mistake of trying that Bryston.
|
mrdecibel,
Without being pushy again, I was just itching to help WC decide on the next SS preamp to try with the Block amp. I know he loves the Lux preamp and amp because of their synergy, and I thought the tone controls on the Lux might synergize with the Block also, by giving the HF sparkle that the Block may lack compared to the Plinius. He might not want a stand alone EQ unit, but he definitely noted how the tone controls of the Dag integrated made a big difference for his enjoyment of the Neo. So the tone controls of the Lux preamp might be useful as well for him, but only if the basic circuit of the Lux preamp is as transparent as the ARC Ref 10.
Refer to a recent excellent post by 4425 on the subject of why tone controls are so important, from his 40 year experience, also his new post just above.
|
I would be careful not to try to explain the superb bass of the Block/Neo on just 1 criterion--damping factor. High damping factor is found in any design with lots of negative feedback. Many cheap, crummy amps have high damping factor which may give power/tightness, but what about resolution? High current capability is also good, but we don't understand all the factors why an amp will have great resolution and power. Yet the Block seems to have superb resolution and overall sound quality throughout the entire freq range, and probably excellent bass definition at low levels as well as high levels. Although WC values high power and dynamics, he seems to single out these aspects for bass, whereas other listeners might value the Block for its full freq range excellence at all volume levels. Also, many owners of other stats who are satisfied with somewhat lower volume levels find that many amps work well. This is probably true for the few other owners of Neos, but we haven't heard from them. But if you want to make many stats have full dynamics like many conventional dynamic or even horn speakers, very few amps will qualify.
|
mrdecibel,
You are in a nice position to appreciate the inherent lower distortion of low power amps, because of the high efficiency of your horns. We know about the high power performance of the Block, but how would it fare against high quality lower power amps for soft music, or for any music from horns? You could bring your light Nuforce amps to WC, although they are still fairly high power. Maybe you have top quality lower power amps also to bring. Just listen to the Neo on soft music so all the amps can be on a level playing field. Don't expect WC to lug his big Blocks to your place, but you could easily drive to him with your amps. Don't forget to bring your Luminous to show WC the virtues of ultimate transparency for not so loud music that doesn't require any gain for the relatively inefficient Neo. Being in Florida, you are lucky to enjoy the trip in nice weather. Just some suggestions for a nice experience listening with him.
|
WC,
It is interesting how you describe tasting each Hz in the bass. It is very difficult to hear distinctions in bass notes even live. The lowest note on the piano is A at 27.5 Hz. Very few pianos are adjusted well enough to properly hear the distinct tone at 27.5 Hz. With the average piano, the lowest notes are like a thud. But 4 octaves higher, at 440 Hz, is the A which all musicians use for tuning their instruments. This is very easy to hear, which is one reason why the midrange is the most important attribute of all music. Of course, all freq are important, so how is the resolution of the Block in midrange/HF? If the HF sparkle is not as much as the Plinius, is the HF resolution of the Block better to compensate for this? |
|
gammonit_2000,
The Bryston 7B SST2 is a reasonable choice for the price used. But be careful--it should be auditioned at home to make sure it is what you want. I heard the 4B SST2 at home, and it was much darker (warmer, but words are imprecise) and rolled off in HF compared to my wonderful 2.5B SST2. My first amp was the 4B in 1978. Great HF/bass but opaque mids. More recently, I heard the 3B SST--it was very dark and opaque in mids/HF. Don't listen to the company who says that all amps in the same series sound the same, except for the power difference. Like you, I want transparent and neutral. My new $2K Mytek Brooklyn Amp fits the bill while I await the new Merrill Elements. The Element 114 at $9-12K should have extraordinary value for the SOTA neutral/transparent sound if the listening verifies the reviews. We don't know how much power it will have. If you really want lots of power, the Element 116 has 300W into 8, 600 into 4, 1200 into 2. At $22k, it is worth saving for, assuming the sound truly is what people are saying. I hope you can be as patient as I am, because I will be getting either the 114 or 116 and will spill the beans here about what I think, probably in early or mid 2019.
|
WC,
Reviews state that the MF Titan is warmish. I know you are curious about the powerful Boulder. Although you found it sterile on your other speakers, with the warmer Neo it might be good synergy. If you want high power, full range neutrality and control, I would guess the SAE 2 HP would also be a top contender. At $16K retail without meters, there is little risk in case you want to sell it. Of course, you have heard the ATI multichannel amps which are downscale budget versions of the SAE. I know you found the HF fatiguing, but that was true only at high volumes. Let's assume an amp is totally revealing and accurate to live sound. At natural volumes, the amp and the live sound are exciting and not fatiguing, but at unnaturally high volumes, both the amp and the live sound are fatiguing. I think you and I crave excitement, which such an amp would reveal at natural volumes, with no need to blast it to get the excitement. I had the Classe D200--despite blasting it, I couldn't get the excitement on cymbal crashes because the amp was too warm in overall character. Tell us how all these great amps do on cymbal crashes. According to James Boyk, cymbals are wide ranging with output to 200 Khz.
|
WC,
I'll add the Mola Mola Kaluga at $16.5K as a powerhouse top class D. In my system, it was very neutral, extended in HF with smoothness. At the time I didn't want to spend the money, but after following your journey, I am graduating into the next money level although not in your top class.
|
Hello Guido--thanks for your exciting post about the new Rowland 535. If the HF of the 535 is as open/resolved as the 925, and the 535 is coherent, that suggests that the rest of the freq range is comparably open/resolved as the 925. In any case, for sound quality you think $46K would be a fair price for the 535, but at $12K/pr it is a best buy. Probably a single stereo 535 for $6K will be about as good within its still large power range, and that makes it incredible as a SOTA contender for that money, a best best buy. I hope you can arrange an extended audition with break in for the Merrill Element 114, which will be priced about $9-12K. Merrill says the 114 is very close in sound quality to the 118/116. It may not have as much power as the Rowland 535, but that would be a great shootout for 2 great SOTA contenders at a reasonable price which everyone should be interested in. Merrill may not want to tie up the expensive 118/116 for such an extended audition, but he might be agreeable to lending the 114 for that, or at least let you try a fully broken in 114 to compare to the 535 for a week or so. From your comments, it seems like Rowland has a somewhat rich but not euphonic sound. My experience with the Mola Mola Kaluga at home is that it is a cool/neutral but still smooth sound. Boston Symphony Hall has a cooler sound than Carnegie Hall, in part because Boston SH has no carpeting or plush seats like Carnegie which softens the sound there. Boston SH is like Mola Mola, and perhaps Rowland is like Carnegie. Correct me if I am wrong. Also, it seems like the 535 is not class D, just light due to the switched mode power supply. I am looking forward to your comments on the 535 used in stereo. Thanks so much. |
Mrdecibel,
No, your posts are always informative. I always enjoy reading someone's strongly held views backed up by knowledge and experience, rather than wishy-washy BS from the tainted media. Keep contributing here. Many will appreciate it, even if not everyone. |
WC, how do I view your pictures? Merry Christmas. I like your merry sentiments.
ron17, Bill Parish is such a gentleman. Did you listen to the Mola Mola Kaluga amps in his home or yours? What is your reference amp? Guido is enthusiastic about the Rowland 535. At $6K it seems a best buy for a SOTA contender. WC may also be interested, since it probably has good resale value, although for my purposes if it is such a value, I would keep it. |
ron17,
Bill Parish has a beautiful home in a nice semi-rural area of NJ. Several rooms with different size YG speakers. The huge room has the flagship Sonja XV. I didn't hear it because I didn't want to impose on him. A few years ago, a dozen or more hot shot reviewers came to hear the big one and wrote it up. Many people work from home, but imagine having all your goodies at your workplace. I couldn't get any work done between client visits. I saw people coming in from a distance, although I don't know about from LA. You would have fun making the trip. At the time, Bill liked the Audionet better than the Mola Mola Kaluga which sounded a little cool for him, but he thought the MM had the highest accuracy. |
Also, Bill Parish at GTT Audio had the Kii Audio speakers in the basement. These contain several Mola Mola type amplifiers, kinda like the ultimate powered speaker, with sophisticated DSP, including a few EQ curves. All you need is a digital source. Very nice sounding package for $15K including stands, although I thought a small YG speaker was more revealing and natural. He washed an LP for me on his expensive ultrasonic cleaning machine. A very nice touch, better than fortune cookies at a Chinese restaurant. No, I am not his sales assistant--am just showing what a class act he is. |
Guido--excellent question about break in of the Kii system. It didn't occur to me to ask Bill Parish about that at the time, which was long before we started communicating. Bill had the Kii in the nicely finished basement with concrete walls. But one of the YG speakers upstairs was clearly more transparent and natural. I know you have found a large difference in the sound of class D amps from beginning to about 700-1000 hours, but the difference between the YG and the Kii was a qualitatively vast difference like the kind usually experienced between any 2 speakers, so my impression is that this was not a break in type of difference. Still, I cannot be sure, since break in of the Kii would involve the drivers as well as the several internal Hypex Ncore amps inside the speaker, although break in of any speaker involves the drivers and the electronic crossover network. The Kii is still an interesting concept of how much bass dynamics and extension can be coaxed from such a small speaker.
|
mitch2,
I have read your previous comments on other threads about the sound of Mola Mola Kaluga amps, quoting from the Mono and Stereo article. I believe the Audiodrom review tells it like it is. That is, the MMK is accurate, but many audiophiles prefer euphonics. Words like "alive", "glow" are in reality emotional descriptions of these euphonically oriented audiophiles, which is fine for them. As usual, reviews must be read with the psychology and preferences of the author in mind. They can be useful with these things in mind. Also, I never heard the Theta Prometheus, but Bill Parish said it was much warmer than the MMK. The Theta Dreadnaught has the same technology as the Prometheus, and WC long ago wrote about it. In my view, the best prospects for best buy accurate amps are the Rowland 535, Merrill Element 114 (yet to be released), and MMK. Guido says that Rowland has a neutral, revealing, smooth sound with good harmonic info, so for your tastes it may be the best prospect, since you didn't like the MMK. I am in the process of finding Rowland dealers so I can audition the 535, a great value at $6K.
|
|
WC,
Although I have not heard either ARC ref 6 or 10, from your description the fast precise character of the ref 6 means that it is more accurate. Smooth and relaxed means rolled off and euphonic even if you like it. Years ago I heard the ARC SP 6B preamp which was fast and accurate, although probably inferior to current ARC products. When I got Roger Modjeski's tubes for my Theta preamp, it lost a little sweetness but got transformed into an exciting, accurate unit with sparkle. Remember, you like sparkle. It seems like ARC makes the finest, accurate tube products that retain some typical tube sound. ARC is refined, never in your face like some sterile SS stuff. Now that you have the Neo which is on the relaxed side, you might enjoy the synergy with the ref 6. That's why you sold the Esoteric which made the overall sound too relaxed and diffuse. |
WC,
Good. Long ago, I came to value clarity above everything else, including soundstage. In the old days of using a tubey sounding Dyna ST70 modified by Van Alstine, images were big, rounded and spacious, but the Krell KSA 50 class A SS amp won me over with its clarity, although the soundstage was more focused and not as 3D. I realized that larger than life spaciousness is a euphonic artifact. When I visited various European cities and heard solo street musicians, I was struck by the immediacy and clarity, not by any soundstage. What good is a soundstage if the individual musicians are relatively fuzzy in the space? Accurate electronics will maximize the clarity while still differentiating the natural spatial locations of musicians on that stage. That stage has its proper dimensions but if the stage sounds like a football stadium or the ocean, that is not true to life the way the recording was made.
|
gammonit_2000,
That's about how the Bryston 4B SST2 sounded when I had it at home.
|
WC,
I encourage you to consider the 240 lb power house Boulder 2060 stereo amp listed on the website of The Music Room. Updated, factory refurbished for $18K. Reviews suggest neutrality and great clarity but without spiky HF harshness, etc. I recall you heard this in the past with other speakers, but remember the warmish Neo could use some tightening up with neutral electronics. You have a 45 day risk free guarantee, with the only risk being return shipping with insurance, probably several hundred bucks. The price of most things there drops about 1% for every week it is not sold.
|
WC,
OK, I respect your feelings about Boulder. I think you want life and sparkle, but with enough sweetness. Ayre is a top contender for those qualities. I heard the monos with Maggies at a store years ago. The Music Room has the VX-5 Twenty stereo amp, 3 years old for less than $6K, 175W into 8, 350 into 4, probably near doubling into 2. This may not give you enough power for your desires, but for finesse and delicacy, it probably is at least as good as your Plinius. You have very little to lose with their 45 day free trial. It would give a good indication of their top monos which are a lot of money. Still, I think the best prospect for $6K new is the Rowland 535, 250W into 8, 500 into 4. Guido says it is very nearly as good as the 925, just not quite as much power. The sound is neutral, but with good harmonic info which means it is not sterile. The 535 still can give 30 amps peak. For 1 ohm, that is 900W. Excellent prospect, because you already know the 925. No doubt the MF Titan will give power and sweetness, but you will judge how detailed it is.
|
WC,
Regarding soundstage, the objective is to reproduce the soundstage as presented on the recording, whether narrow/shallow or wide/deep, according to the concepts of the musicians, the actual physical dimensions of the stage or recording studio, the processing technique of the recording engineers, etc. As such, if an accurate amp such as Rowland 535 or 925 gives the most revealing information such as tone quality, freq extension, etc, then it also gives the most accurate spatial info presented on the recording. It is NOT ideal to artificially boost the dimensions of the soundstage, even if you want to make the recording studio sound like a football field or ocean. That is just plain euphonic distortion, as I experienced it during my early days of rolled off/bloated tube amps. So if you want accurate soundstage, go for the Rowland and similar accurate amps, but yes, if you want 3D sound that wraps behind your head, look elsewhere, and go for any euphonic electronics. So I think that the ARC Ref 6 is preferable to the Ref 10 for accuracy AND truthful soundstage, according to your descriptions. It also has some tubelike qualities which you like, compared to some sterile SS pieces. And if the ref 6 gets too biting only at loud levels, that tells you that you are playing that music too loud, just as if your favorite singer sounds gorgeous LIVE at the right level, but harsh if too loud by screaming her voice and artificially amped up too much. Don't think that because the Ref 10 is more expensive, then it must be "better", and of course don't think that a ref 11 is the holy grail. I know you are starting to realize that more money doesn't necessarily buy more happiness in equipment.
Also, the soundstage is properly and mostly re-created by the speaker and its interaction with the listening room. The physical design of the Neo creates that large space. Equally important, the style of the recording as I mentioned above. But the job of the electronics is to passively transmit the truth of what is on the recording, while being powerful enough to drive the speaker effortlessly.
|
shannere,
Great question. I should have explained better. It is really an objective mathematical/physics discussion. Of course, I wasn't at the recording session. Manipulation of frequency response with EQ will also affect perception of the soundstage. A simple math/physics explanation is that the small wavelengths of HF are absorbed more by intervening air than lower freq. For example, excessive HF boosting will greatly decrease depth in the soundstage with a more forward presentation. Rolling off HF will create a more distant perspective, which can also be described as a heightened sense of depth. In WC's description of the rounded aspect of the ref 10, that is consistent with his observation of the greater depth perceived compared to the more HF oriented precise character of the ref 6. So mathematically, there is a direct correlation of tonal balance with sound staging. I am just saying that if an amp is accurate in tonal parameters to what the engineer encoded on the recording, then that amp will also be accurate in portrayal of the soundstage that is on the recording, whatever it is even if the listener weren't there.
|
ricred1,
Agree about the supreme importance of the room. Actually, the speaker can be considered a marriage of the speaker and the room. Each is useless without the other adjusted for compatibility. Many people have large pianos in small rooms, which sound terrible because of the mismatch. What works best is a small piano in a small room, and a large piano in a large concert hall. The same applies to audio reproduction.
|
shannere,
I agree. I have my preferences for maximizing enjoyment of my music, and this certainly applies to others. I love upfront clarity and excitement. Two popular audiophile recordings are Jazz at the Pawnshop, and Rachmaninoff Symphonic Dances with the Dallas Symphony conducted by Donald Johanos. Jazz was made at a small club in Stockholm which I visited. The atmosphere is cozy and intimate with a small stage. All the instruments are brilliantly clear and upfront. I can't imagine anyone going to a jazz club that isn't excited about that style of sound. The Rachmaninoff recording was made in a small auditorium with a shallow stage and close simple miking. The back row of brass instruments is direct sound that is just as thrillingly exciting as the front solo violin. Minimal depth of field, but everything presented with great clarity. I learned the piece through this recording. Subsequently, I heard other recordings made with more emphasis on auditorium sound with a laid back perspective. The reverberance detracts from the clarity, and the overall effect is boring and murky by comparison.
Also, I look for recordings of all types of music that are upfront. As long as the sound is exciting, I can expand my appreciation of all types of music. As you say, it is all about appreciation of the music. Every artist works hard to express his/her craft, and I feel that trying to obtain maximum clarity enables me to appreciate the most content on that recording, which helps my admiration and respect for the artist. There are flaws in the performances even with editing and such, but I forgive the flaws in return for more perception and appreciation of the wonderful artistry. |
shannere,
You are correct that sweetness is correlated with a different set of harmonics. If you deliberately EQ a sound to have quantitatively more HF, that will cause it to sound less sweet. The reverse is also true--EQ it to reduce HF, and the sound becomes more sweet. All fine amps have flat extended freq response, and we don't know all the theoretical circuit design factors that explain psychoacoustically why we may perceive one amp to have more HF than another. By the way, many fine old Italian violins are sweet and mellowed out with loss of HF. By contrast, a typical modern violin is harsher with more HF, but the HF are full of unnatural distortions which are not true harmonics (integer multiples of the fundamental). The scratching of the bow on the string has very high freq components beyond human hearing, and even the scratching sounds in the 10-20Khz range are part of the total sound of the instrument, but they contribute to the less sweet aspect of the sound. If the bow has too much sticky rosin, the sound is scratchy and less sweet, but if the rosin is used up, the tone is too smooth with loss of HF--it is pleasant and relatively sweet, but the listener finds that the projection (loudness) is lessened, largely due to relative loss of HF.
|
