WC, thanks for your helpful comment about the warmth of the Adcom. This fits with a few reviews of the 565 that say the highs are rolled off. Beware when someone describes something as smooth sounding--this usually means that highs are subdued. On the Theta, guidocorona has described how the Merrill class D amps had a long, long breakin period of perhaps 1000 hours, so I hope you give the Theta a good long time and report as you go along.
|
WC, years ago I was taken by the wall to wall soundstage of large Magnepans. But planar magnetics/ribbons have less resolution than the best electrostatics. Also, large transducers have time smear due to different arrival times from the top to your ears versus ear level, etc. When I compared the Maggie 20 to the 3, the 20 had more bass and power of course, but the highs were rolled off compared to the 3. Of course, the HF ribbons are excellent, but the tonal balance of the 20 was shifted toward lower frequencies.
|
WC--I concur with jafox that every speaker has its pros and cons. I have not heard either one, but suppose the Focal has more bass and the Magico has more accuracy/information retrieval. My taste would be the Magico, but your taste might be the Focal, because you love bass and loudness/large scale dynamics. You said recently that you wouldn't like Bob Marley without sufficient bass, but on the other hand, you value hearing all the words in a song clearly. So you might be bewitched by the clarity of the Magico so that bass QUANTITY becomes a lower priority. The Magico might have superlative bass QUALITY with more information retrieval in the bass, with still decent bass QUANTITY. You'll never know unless YOU try them both. As you always say, published reviews are less valuable than your own evaluations. Maybe the difference in resale between sealed speakers and open box is $1000 or so, but this is the price of your own R & D and the fun of this quest.
|
WC--good point about the tweeter height. Since you are tall, the Magico tweeter probably won't be too high. In any case, adjust your chair height to get the tweeter beaming at your ears. This is important to get the full power and information of the high frequencies. The lower the frequency, the less critical it is to have the axis of the drivers pointing to your ears, although Wilson and Focal angle all the drivers to beam the radiated sound to your ears. Later, if you want to consider the YG speakers, my local dealer is a wonderful gentleman, Bill Parrish of GTT Audio in his beautiful home in NJ. He has a smaller YG in a modestly sized room probably comparable to yours, and the flagship Sonja XV in a large room where all the big shot reviewers came and reported in the magazines 1-2 years ago. I heard the smaller YG and it is the most neutral dynamic (non-electrostatic) speaker I have heard. Years ago, I heard a large Magico model, but the tweeter sound was pinched and called attention to itself. By comparison, in the same large room, the tall Wisdom Audio nearly full range ribbons killed the Magico in every way, but they are expensive. Wisdom has the best ribbon technology that makes the Maggies appear like toys. These could be considered for your large dream room you want to build. Since the Focal is half the money of the Magico, you might be happy with this in your smaller room for now, while saving your money for your ultimate larger room and that large ultimate speaker like the Wisdom.
|
WC--for the sake of easier A/B speaker listening, leave the Magico on the casters and even get another set of casters for the Focal. Dealers wheel speakers in and out of rooms using casters. Sure, spikes are better, but the differences between the Magico on casters and the Focal on casters would be similar to the difference between the Magico and Focal on spikes. And the inherent difference between the 2 speakers should be much greater than whether you use casters, spikes or not. Just don't get hurt trying to be a purist tweaker. Too bad you got hurt for a while after lifting heavy amps.
|
WC--glad to hear you appreciate the clarity and truth-telling of the Magico, well summarized by your 10 points listed above. This correlates with the very low distortion figures obtained by several reviewers. But the maximum information retrieval of any speaker is obtained with toe-in so that the tweeters are aimed at your ears. For fine tuning, it can be debated whether the left tweeter should be aimed at the left ear or your nose (between the ears), same goes for the right tweeter. My ears have different hearing responses, so I may shift and rotate my head to better hear certain instruments in different locations in the soundstage. Many people will hear accurate sound and misinterpret it as edginess, when they are not used to accuracy/information retrieval. Live, unamplified high frequencies may be perceived as edginess, but it is characteristic of the real thing at close range. If you decrease the toe-in, you may decrease the so-called edginess, but then you will give up a lot of the truth telling from this speaker. For me, I value maximum information retrieval even at the price of some irregularity in the tone colors.
|
WC--I am glad to help and that you appreciate my advice. I think you have reached a milestone of love for the Magico so you can develop a serious relationship with it, instead of a restless urge to try something else so quickly. If some cuts sound edgy, that is the fault of the recording rather than the Magico which is a truth teller. I would guess that you love how most of your music sounds through it. And even if the cut sounds edgy, there is still a lot of information in that cut to like, so you still come out ahead by hearing more words, space, etc. Also, I recommend trying the Emotiva XPA 2 gen 3. I almost bought it last year after listening for almost the whole 30 day trial. The tubaholics hate it, but the accuracy group like me respects it. It was more honest and accurate than the Bryston 3B SST2, 4B SST2, any Pass, Classe. It was close to the Benchmark AHB2, Krell 2250e. Compared to my little Bryston 2.5B SST2, it was a little warmer and rounded, so I stick with my little Bryston for its ruthless truth telling. I am content to forego higher power if purity is sacrificed. For the nominal 4 ohm impedance of the Magico, the Emotiva will put out 550 Watts. Emotiva just came out with an even more powerful balanced differential amp. When the retail price is ridiculously low for the power and quality, it is a no-brainer to try either Emotiva for 30 days. You won't have a resale problem of losing money.
|
Wow, I created an Emotiva firestorm. Maybe I can run for office. Seriously, I am not an audio snob who wants to impress the neighborhood with expensive, flashy audio jewelry. I just want great sound at a reasonable or even cheap price. Emotiva is the most accurate amp for the money, and close to SOTA when compared to the big boys. I am not a shill for the company, since I didn't even buy the amp. It is amazing to realize, that despite a quest to find a high powered amp up to $20K, my little Bryston 2.5 B SST2 beats them all for ruthless information retrieval. I will next try the 2.5 B cubed. The review of the 2.5 B cubed on 10audio says it is an exciting listen. That's coming from a tube lover. WC, I agree that the other more powerful Bryston amps are OK but mid-fi. If you are willing to live within the limitations of "mere" 100-105 dB peaks in your room, the little Bryston's 180 watts of transients into the 4 ohm Magico may please your head and heart, if not your balls. And if you occasionally clip on peaks, the Bryston just flashes red but you don't hear anything bad at all, and it won't shut down. Again, I am not a shill for Bryston either. I am a doctor/violinist who has no financial connections to the audio industry. And you can try for 30 days without risk from Audio Advisor.
|
Pwhinson, thanks for your ideas. We have in common the view that the purpose of fine audio is to please yourself primarily. I take this to the extreme because my Audiostatic 240 is highly directional so that the sweet spot is only an inch or so. Roger Sanders of Sanders Sound Systems takes this view because any deviation off axis will roll off the highs especially. For maximum info, only 1 listener can get the maximum experience. This is especially true for electrostatics, but even wider dispersion dynamic speakers display this characteristic, so toe-in is always best to get max info. The curved panel approach of Martin Logan and Soundlab will enlarge the sweet spot for more listeners, but then everyone gets the same inferior sound. Getting back to Bryston, which of the cubed amps did you hear in your own system? I spoke to Bryston tech support about my findings that the 2.5 B SST2 was far superior in detail and speed to the larger amps. Despite the official line that all the amps have the same design and sound the same, he admitted that the 2.5 may be better because of the shorter signal path. I have always found that larger amps suffer from the multiple sets of transistors required with the potential for mismatches in characteristics. This is analogous to the chorus effect--listen to the violin section play a melody and then when the concertmaster plays alone, there is more focus and detail. With a chorus of voices, the effect is the same. So I mostly listen to chamber and solo music where there is a single instrument playing each line. A lot of jazz is really chamber music.
|
WC--Thinking of SOTA for you, I just refreshed my memory of the Wisdom Audio line source planar magnetics. Much better in sound than anything of Magnepan, because of the superior build and magnet technology. The Sage L75 is tall and skinny, so it is room friendly, and priced comparably to your Magico. They don't weigh a lot, although you will find a dealer in Florida who can show you the flagship Wisdom series which are monsters. Enjoy your Magico, but before you go all out and spend $100K or more on Constellation amps or the bigger Magicos, give the Wisdom a listen. I think your Magico is the sweet spot and value of the whole line. Some time ago, I spoke to an engineer at Constellation when the Inspiration series came out. He said the circuitry is practically identical to the Centaur and higher lines, so there is no need to spend more than $11K retail for the Inspiration 200 watt stereo amp, 400 watts for your 4 ohm impedance Magico. Audio Advisor often has a sale on it for $9K or less, all with a no risk 30 day trial. Also, since you have liked Mark Levinson, their current top 534 and 536 amps at $20K and $30K can be considered. The Stereophile reviews of them indicate precision and speed yet with a smidgen of warmth that you like.
|
|
WC--take your time to appreciate the virtues of each speaker. There is no rush--you own them both. If you have come to appreciate the accuracy of the Magico versus the pleasantness of the Focal, it may take time for you to formulate your true values. My first audiophile speaker was the Maggie Tympani 1D way back in 1978. I used to bang away and play loudly, but I got bored and realized I wanted precision in the soundstage and maximum information to really hear the music, so I have been happy with my unique small electrostatics since about 1983. I listen at average levels of 60-70 dB with peaks in the 90's. When I try more powerful amps that are less revealing, I get bored with loudness per se if the clarity suffers. It's like a shouting match when what you really want is a soft, stimulating conversation with thoughtful people who speak clearly and don't mumble.
|
WC--the soft romantic tubey midrange, ballsy bass, rolled off highs of the McIntosh will turn your Magico in the direction of the Focal. Sure, more bass and power, but as the highs are reduced, so will the information retrieval be compromised. Pass is merely a better version of Mac. Nelson Pass said that he designs amps to please the audiophiles who like so called "musical" sound, not to offer accuracy. See the latest issue of Stereophile for the lovesick review of the Pass 200.8, with full admission that the highs are rolled off but he doesn't care. I think the Bryston 28B cubed to be your best idea. This will give you plenty of power, an excellent level of neutrality and accuracy, but with some amount of sweetness. I am looking forward to your assessment of the Bryston.
|
WC--good for you at 85 dB. That is about 1 watt needed for the Magico in your room. The Focal's efficiency is about 2-3 dB higher, so that is one reason it is more effortless with any amplifier. But I still say that for absolute accuracy I have not found anything better than than my little Bryston 2.5 B SST2. This, or the 2.5 B cubed will give 180 watts/ch into the 4 ohms of your Magico, enough for at least 105 dB continuous. Watch out for hearing damage at any higher volume. Several hours of exposure to even 90 dB is enough to cause hearing damage. Surprisingly, when I tried the Classe D200 which puts out 400 watts into 4 ohms, despite getting higher volumes on big orchestral pieces, I wasn't satisfied because high frequency instruments like cymbals and brass (trumpets and trombones) didn't crackle and bite the way they do in real life. Listen to a truck, ambulance or fire engine honk their horns and hear the BLATTY BITE. That's what we need in our audio system to be realistic. You will get that better with the Bryston 2.5 B SST2 and most likely with the cubed new amp than anything I can think of. The Mola Mola Kaluga SOTA class D I have heard, and the neutrality is great, with plenty of power at 700 watts into 4 ohms, but as guidocorona has advised, class D can be unpredictable at less than 1000 hours, so I would try the little Bryston. Read the review of it on 10audio.
|
WC--I hope you read this is time before you take the Neolith plunge. You know that I love the electrostatic concept and that properly implemented it is superior (lack of coloration, best transient response, etc) to other driver technologies except possibly plasma. However, 35 years ago I learned that large electrostatic panels that are also curved are a big compromise. Back in 1982 I heard the Dayton Wright stat, a huge panel 4 feet square. It was so colored that it sounded like it mumbled with 25 marshmallows in the mouth. Most any decent moderate sized dynamic speaker sounded more truthful and less distorted. My 1st serious speaker was the huge Maggie Tympani 1D, a planar magnetic. Despite excellent highs, the midrange was bloated like a 500 lb person in the circus. Not lifelike, to say the least. I revolted against bigness, and my next speaker was the Rogers LS 3/5A minimonitor, which was very coherent and clear, superb. I also heard the Stax F83 stats side by side with the F81. The F83 was a stacked double F81. Certainly more dynamic than the F81, but the larger panel created time smear so it lost clarity when compared to the smaller F81. I believe the best speaker from Martin Logan is the reasonably priced CLX, which uses a narrow stat driver for freq over 360 Hz, and then a much larger stat driver down to 56. Of course, you would want to add a dynamic woofer. I heard the CLX years ago, and it was excellent. I haven't heard the Neolith, but I predict that the very large single driver for freq above 400 will create bloat and coloration. Even if I were a billionaire, I would predict I would prefer the CLX for accuracy. You should hear both but don't make a blind decision just because you can swing a good deal for the Neo. Meanwhile, I think your Magico is a superb implementation of SOTA dynamic drivers, with a sensible size so the instruments and singers are lifelike in tone and size. The Neo is a very compromised implementation of stat technology, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Magico is superior in all the important ways. Also, some time ago you were concerned that the Neo is too big for your room. It would have the same drawback as the Vivid Giya. Probably the finest electrostatic to consider would be models from King Sound, from Hong Kong. The King is a full range stat, with narrow tweeter panels and larger lower freq panels. It is superior because the panels are not curved, so there is no roll-off of the highs and the time smearing of curved designs like Martin Logan and Soundlab. The tweeter panel is about 3 inches wide so there is a reasonable large sweet spot so 2-3 people can enjoy all the information and detailed sound. Read the superb review by Doug Schneider. Unfortunately, the marketing sucks and dealers have dropped out. It would be worth a trip to Hong Kong to hear them if you can't find US distributors who can demo the line. A few months ago, a guy in Conn on USAudiomart was giving away the tall King model, which I have heard elsewhere and is superb, for less than $3K. Maybe there is no company reliable support, but who cares for that little money. Another option is the Eminent Technology planar magnetic, which is an excellent implementation of that technology with a modestly sized image presentation. It sounds great, for only $2500 retail. The midrange was SOTA, and the highs very good. Doug Schneider considered the Eminent his reference until he found the King Sound. Eminent is in Florida, and you can try it risk-free for 30 days, direct sale. And don't forget Wisdom Audio as I have mentioned before.
|
WC--I forgot to add that retail prices for the King are only in the teens, so very little risk. And light too, unlike the 500 lb Neo. Ready for the circus, Logan? The pity is that often successful companies with relatively mediocre products make it due to marketing, whereas truly superior sleepers like King Sound and Eminent Technology that are relatively cheap just fade away. |
jafox--to better understand my reasoning, I will tell you my musical background. I started playing the violin in school in 1962, and by 1970 I was playing on a virtuoso, near professional level. I have played in several semi-professional orchestras, string quartets, piano trios, etc. I made my solo debut playing the Mendelssohn violin concerto with orchestra in 1993 at the age of 40. My last solo was in the Lalo Symphonie Espagnole in 2010. This is a virtuoso, dynamic piece with much percussion and brass dynamics. Standing while playing solo immersed in the orchestra with all instruments blaring at me at close range is an experience that I wish audiophiles could have. I have made recordings of many concerts with close microphone placement just above the head of the conductor. The conductor has the best position in the house, and my recordings show that. Most commercial recordings have mics higher and a bit further back, but the truth of what is on most of these recordings is MUCH MORE DETAILED than what the concertgoer even in the first few rows hears. So when some audiophile reviewer says that he loves the sound from a system which sounds like it is in row J (10), he is totally misinformed about what is really on the recording. The recording is closer than the 1st row. Such a listener/reviewer is entitled to like row 10 sound, but it is not HIGH FIDELITY to the recording. I would often arrive in the rehearsal hall late, so I heard the sound from various rows, and it was as dull as dishwater compared to when I took my seat playing in the orchestra. The technical pieces written by the staff at Martin Logan and Soundlab show that they do not come close to understanding and experiencing what I have explained in this post. Their speakers are dull and rolled off compared to the King Sound stats which use flat panels and dedicated narrow tweeter panels that project ALL of the highs to the listener in the sweet spot. Soundlab's panels would sound even more detailed if they straightened out the panels. Manufacturers and most listeners treat listening as a social experience wherein the goal is to get many listeners to enjoy the sound. But that means that each listener hears an inferior, compromised sound. King Sound has managed to have a reasonable sweet spot for 2-3 people but maintaining the most information retrieval. Next, "analytical" is a word with a negative connotation. We just want truth and the real details of instruments and voices. Anyone who loves their music should want to hear everything the composer and artists have put into it. That doesn't mean analyzing the sound like an audiophile or a sound engineer--it just means enjoying as much as possible about this beautiful creation. And finally, WC has discovered that 85 dB is a satisfying level to listen to his music. This parallels the real levels in natural settings. I was walking around in a residential suburban area the other evening, enjoying the surrounding world of many birds in the distance at levels of 20-30 dB, lawn sprinklers at 15-20 dB. I was startled by a close sounding crow at levels of about 50 dB. A loud singer performing in your living room would put out 85 dB, maybe 100 dB on fortissimo screaming peaks. So lower powered amps which tend to have lowest distortion are appropriate. If anyone has to blast speakers to get 100 or more dB before they hear all the detail, they are either hearing impaired or they have mediocre speakers with colorations that smear detail, mediocre moving magnet cartridges or super expensive Koetsu and similar cartridges that are deliberately designed to roll off and submerge details. So it is significant that the Magico is a very honest, revealing speaker that satisfies WC with natural sound at 85 dB. WC--visit maplegrovemusic to hear his King models. Maplegrove--email me with your contact info at russlaud@gmail.com. I am in NY, where are you?
|
WC--I owe you a debt of gratitude for helping me be cautious on the ATI Signature amps which are highly rated. We may have somewhat different musical tastes, but I value your accurate assessment of the objective characteristics of sound, whether one likes it or not. You said at low levels, the ATI are nothing out of the ordinary. That saved me lots of back-breaking labor and hassle. So I feel I want to repay you with my caution on the Neos. Most of my pianist friends have large grand pianos in their modest living rooms with only 8 foot ceilings. Over 20 years ago, my friend bought a baby grand Steinway B piano which is 6.5 feet long. In his small apartment, it overloaded his room and sounded like an elephant in a bikini trying to dance in the small space. For that small room he would be better off with a smaller upright Steinway piano with excellent tone quality but a better match to his room. That larger piano would sound great in a small concert hall with a 40 foot ceiling. The flagship Steinway D grand is 9 feet long and is suited only to a very large concert hall with 100 foot ceiling. So I feel that the Neo would not provide 70% of its potential in your room, and would actually provide as low as 10% or even negative, if there is a speaker/room imbalance, like the elephant in the bikini. But the CLX which still creates a very large soundfield, would definitely better suit your room. Of course, you know that I believe that above 56 Hz, it is more accurate than the Neo. From 56 to 400 Hz, the CLX is giving you electrostatic quality which is more accurate than the 11" dynamic woofer of the Neo in that range. Right now, your Magico matches your room perfectly and you really love it. It would be a tragedy if you go through all the back breaking labor to get the Neos in there, give up the Magico and your other great stuff, and regret your change. Put another way, the Neo compared to the CLX would be like the Focal compared to the Magico--fuller, but not as accurate, with the Neo being out of balance with your present room. What Martin Logan said about the lack of sidewall interaction is true, but this misses the point that the Neo is far better suited to huge rooms with 20 foot ceilings, etc. Even then, the CLX would create a large soundfield with more accuracy, although probably with less power in the bass. By the way, how did the CLX compare to the Magico in terms of accuracy, information retrieval? |
respected_ent, Thanks for the Steinway info. While it is thrilling to hear your 2 accomplished daughters play, and you can certainly be proud of them, I would caution that comparing piano recordings to the sound of the piano in your room is a difficult exercise. Unless your room is the size of the recording studio or live concert hall of the recording, the tonal balance will be radically different, even if you have the perfect audio system. The fact that you say the sound is loud suggests to me that your room is much smaller than the studio or concert hall. In that smaller room, the piano will be bass heavy compared to the recording in the larger space. Solo piano recordings are usually made with the microphones very close, even under the lid. The typical concertgoer has no idea of the differences between the seat in the hall and the sound heard by the close mics. The best you can do is to hear your daughters play on the stage at the school recital hall. Stand on stage reasonably close to the piano at a few different distances, so you can hear the microphone sound. The large stage will let the piano breathe, and then you can make a better evaluation of your audio system.
|
WC--I do hope you learn the important lesson that bigness is not necessarily better. Your TV analogy may not be relevant to speakers. I related my experiences with big speakers. When I switched to the little Rogers LS 3/5A, I was shocked that this humble dynamic speaker could be superior in clarity and tonal balance to the big Maggie with its fancy ribbon, planar technology. That BIG Dayton Wright stat absolutely sucked! Before you take the plunge, why don't you visit a Martin Logan dealer and A/B the CLX with the Neo? See for yourself before getting rid of your Magico and other goodies. I am pretty sure you will find the CLX to be superior to the Neo in many if not most ways, especially in the qualities you appreciate in the Magico, and likely better than the Magico, since the CLX is a more intelligent application of the stat technology. But no guarantees, because the Magico may present a more focused image that you may prefer to even the CLX, let alone the Neo. You don't want that lithe 100 lb singer you like on the Magico to sound like a 400 lb female gorilla on the Neo or a 200 lb on the CLX. The Neo just includes a big woofer system to match the big stat panel. Trust me, "less is more" in this case.
|
respected_ent, Just guessing that you are in NYC because you have been to Steinway Hall on 57th St down the block from Carnegie? If you are within driving distance of me in NYC/NJ maybe you would enjoy hearing me play violin sonatas with either of your daughters. I agree that we want a high fidelity sound signature in audio systems, even if the scale (no pun) is different. Quality is more important than quantity. Contact me at russlaud@gmail.com. I like your ID--I am a respected internist. I have a wonderful CD that tests hearing thresholds in gradations of 1 dB from 20 to 20,000 Hz, more complete than conventional audiology.
|
|
techno_dude and WC,
Exactly. Also, the general principle is that high frequencies have short wavelengths of 1 inch or so, so the best tweeter is small. The challenge is to get enough power handling from that nice small driver. A large vertical line source can be thought of as a lineup of many small tweeters. Although this is promoted by such speaker companies as providing a uniform wave launch, this creates a mess of multiple rolloffs of highs which is worst at the floor and the top of the speaker. I know this from my study of the response of microphones from plots of frequency vs degrees off axis, and this is equally true of drivers. The large area drivers are that much worse, ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE CURVED, since they now add horizontal dispersion effects which cause more rolloffs in the highs. My experience dealing with stats since 1980 have taught me these truths. That's why the huge 4 foot square Dayton Wright stat was one of the worst speakers I have ever heard, especially in the highs. For lower frequencies, this is less critical, but the tonal balance of any large panel stat will be skewed toward the lower frequencies, compared to a smaller panel stat. It is not relevant that anyone might hate highs and like mellow sound, but the issue is distortion in the highs that together with reduced highs, causes smearing of detail and ultimately less information and enjoyment from recordings.
|
techno_dude,
I don't follow your statement that electrostatics involve more electronics than multi driver dynamics. The latter often has an elaborate crossover network, although admittedly the stat needs a transformer mainly to step-up the small wall voltage to the 1000's of volts to run the panels. Some stats like the original Beveridge of 1980 used tube amps directly coupled to the panel. Even if the crossover in the dynamic speaker is minimalist, that factor is far outweighed by the superiority of the electrostatic driver which is nearly massless and is controlled more precisely by the electric field. The cheapest Martin Logan at around $2k has lower midrange coloration than any dynamic speaker I have heard, at moderate SPL of 85 dB, which is natural SPL for most instruments and singers. Perhaps a $100K highly engineered dynamic can have comparable low levels of coloration to a modestly priced smaller stat.
Mrdecibel and science cop,
I agree that horn speakers are superior to non horn dynamic speakers for loud dynamics and less distortion. This is due to the high efficiency of horn coupling to air, which enables a small driver in the throat to have a small excursion for the same volume level. It is easier to design small drivers for low distortion if they don't need to push much air by themselves. Small dynamic tweeters can be SOTA, but larger midrange drivers are vastly inferior to electrostatic midrange drivers in freedom from coloration. At lower SPL, a small stat will have less coloration than the horn. The horn has the advantage at loud SPL. But any attempt to make a large stat like the Neo to get loud SPL will create higher coloration and time smearing from the multi pathway effects from the large panel, especially in the highs. To understand this, realize that it is an integral calculus problem for the large panel like the Neo. Take a point facing the wall at the highest outer part of the speaker. This is way above ear level and aimed far away from it due to the curvature, so the highs are rolled off big time. Now take a point on the panel at ear level and directed at the ear. There will be no rolloff and all the information will be revealed from that point. Summing these 2 point sources creates a heterogenous sound, and all the points in-between will create a big mess. So I can understand why a reasonably sized dynamic speaker can be more accurate than a huge electrostatic.
WC,
To summarize the above, bigness is NOT BETTER, if the goal is pure, least distorted sound. You will get bored with bigness if you realize that clarity suffers.
|
WC, wow you have TWO full time jobs and you still post frequently all day long and do lots of listening. I am thankful for all your audio efforts here but wonder how you do it? What is your profession or field? In my office as a doctor I don't do anything else except take a brisk walk outside when I have no patients. You are a master juggler of endeavors, unlike me.
|
WC, based on specs alone, the Pass 200.8 is not as powerful as the Mac 601. Glad to hear that the Mac with the Magico gives you great satisfaction. But like the Mac, Pass in general rolls off the highs, and gives a fluid presentation that enables people to tolerate higher volumes. So the Pass will give you plenty of power and probably will give you more precision than the Mac. For even more precision, that's where the Brystons may bring the best out of the Magico, and give even more power, although there is the risk that with more HF content, you might not like the higher volumes with the Brystons. Still, James Tanner at Bryston said that the 28B cubed has the sweetest highs of the line. I heard the 4B cubed at home and found the highs to be somewhat sweet, although not as much as the Classe D200, consistent with your observations about Bryston and Classe.
|
jafant,
Call Audio Advisor about the Brystons. The 4B cubed is on sale for only $4K--can't beat that with a no risk 30 day trial. Even cheaper than the 3B cubed sale at $4400, although a review said that the 3B cubed is a little more precise and a little less warm than the 4B cubed. For detail, my 2.5 B SST2 was MUCH better than the 4B SST2, and a little better than the new 4B cubed. Soon I will try the 2.5B cubed, which got a great review in 10audio. |
WC, mainly agree with your strategy, except I wouldn't trade the Mac 601 for the large Brystons. The 601 has served you well, and there is a risk you might not like the highs of the Brystons although you would like the precision. That's why the Audio Advisor trial at huge discounts available now would be the best way to go. You are also correct about the difficulty involved with buying expensive speakers. I would rather first spend a little money traveling to a few dealers to hear them in various sized rooms. You can stay in a motel overnight and sleep on your observations, and return the next day to see that they are verified. I used to go to London, England to Sotheby's and Christie's violin auctions, try the expensive instruments for a few days, compare notes with other violinists, listen to them play the instrument that I just played under my ear, and then several days later attend the auction for serious bidding. I also went to a famous London dealer, played 2 instruments in his showroom, then took the instruments to the hotel room and cafeteria. My preference changed depending on the room characteristics. He had connections to get me into a concert hall for a trial, but I had learned a lot from my own hotel home trials, and politely declined. The moral of the story is that if you do the work involved in listening for free at retail spaces or even better in friend's places, you will save a lot of heartache from taking losses. Even if you think you are snagging great deals, ultimately you may take great losses.
|
WC, I am glad you appreciate the inherent superiority of the midrange from a well-executed stat like the CLX, compared to the near SOTA implementation of dynamic speaker technology in the Magico. To be unbiased, I can say that the Magico may be superior in the highs to either the CLX and certainly the Neo, and superior in the clarity in the bass compared to the Neo. The Neo will be superior to the CLX in the dynamics and huge soundstage, but that is about it. The electrostatic bass of the CLX from 56 Hz up will be superior in clarity to that of the dynamic Neo in the midbass, although of course the bigness of the Neo will give more quantity, but not quality. Re-read all my posts here. I can see already that you may recognize the limitations of the Neo compared to the CLX and the Magico, and you already have an exit plan for the Neo. It will take a long time to move that elephant, and you will take a financial beating. To satisfy your curiosity, just travel to a few ML dealers so you can hear the Neo in various sized rooms--that way you don't have to take a beating physically and financially. A great option would be to keep the Magico and get the comparatively modest priced CLX, to own both. That way you can enjoy the benefits of each, live with them for a good period of time, which would demonstrate the best implementations of dynamic and stat technology, and save plenty of money so you can again play with amps, etc. I knew a few famous old violinists who owned several great old Italian violins, and many bows. They each had something to offer, and there was no one best. One bow was more suited to playing delicate Mozart, and another was best for dynamic Brahms. |
WC, I'll add that the CLX is cleverly divided into 2 dedicated stat panels for each frequency range. Brilliant design! Above 360 Hz, the panel is actually the narrowest at 8.6" in line with the cheaper models. The 15A is 15" wide, the 13A 13" wide. So you found the CLX superior in midrange clarity because the higher frequencies (above 360) come from a narrower panel than the 15A or 13A, with less time smearing than the fatter panel. The highs in the CLX will be even more obviously clearer than the highs of the Neo for the same reason. The other advantage of the CLX is that only the CLX does lower frequencies with a larger stat panel instead of a less accurate dynamic driver as in the lower models and the Neo. So with the CLX you get a nearly full range stat, unlike the elephant hybrid of the Neo. Maybe you think you need to add a woofer to the CLX, but in music much of the satisfaction from bass is actually accurate transmission of overtones. For example, the lowest note on the string bass, E, is at a fundamental of 40 Hz. The CLX will put out only a low amount at 40, but it will give full response at the first overtone at 80 Hz. Trust me, the CLX will more accurately reproduce 80 than the Neo, because of the superiority of the electrostatic CLX driver to the dynamic Neo driver, of course within power limitations. Your ear/brain will get more accurate bass overall because of the better accuracy in the mid bass.
|
WC, good for you that you continue to appreciate the Magico. It deserves to be tried with different amps and then lived with for a long time. But you raised an interesting point about taking time to getting used to a speaker again. This doesn't happen with live umamplified music--it is the truth which we accept right away, although the listener far away in the 20th row should realize that he is missing most of the information that the listener in the first row is getting. It you need time to get used to a speaker again, that implies that it is colored and you are really rationalizing about the virtues of that coloration. I think you and I both agree that the CLX is the least colored of most any speaker commercially available. But I think it would be worthwhile to live with the Magico for a long time to truly appreciate its virtues as one of the least colored dynamic speakers available. If you then decide in 2019 or so that you want to try the CLX again, then you will appreciate the CLX even more for its truth. In my case, if I go away for several days and come back to listen to my Audiostatic 240's again, they are immediately appreciated as old friends because they are the least colored of any speaker I have heard in my lifetime.
|
WC, look forward to hearing how the Magico responds to the powerful Pass. But be careful--the Magico is inherently a precious jewel, not a sledgehammer. Accept it for what it is. Sure you can make the Magico bang like a rocker with a powerful amp, but you may lose its charm, especially since you realize that listening at 85 dB is the most natural where most of your listening will use only 1 watt. You then might even consider Pass's First Watt low power amps. I've never heard them, but they are noted for tonal purity.
|
|
WC, thinking about your observations about bass from the Magico using low power amps. I have the wonderful audio-CD from Digital Recordings in Canada that tests hearing thresholds in 1 dB gradations from 20 to 20 KHz. From about 500 Hz to 7000Hz, a young person with good hearing has a threshold of 0 dB, which correlates with the fact that 85 dB is a satisfactory level of loudness for a lot of the music. But at 60 Hz, the threshold is up to 40 dB, at 40 Hz it is 60 dB, at 20 Hz it is 80 dB. So to barely hear the music, at 20 Hz you need levels of 100 dB, or 140 dB for a moderate amount of sledgehammer slam. At 40 Hz, you need 80 and 120 dB. At 60 Hz, you need 60 and 100 dB. The relatively small drivers of your Magico are probably not comfortable at these high SPL's even if you feed them very high power, but you will see if these high power amps satisfy you. Just be prepared to love the Magico for accuracy for the vast majority of music even if the sledgehammer aspect is not quite there. If you want sledgehammer effects also, then you could add 15" subwoofers just for a few musical pieces, and turn them off for most of the music to get the highest clarity and least interference. Also, the Pass 200.8 is not all that powerful, so it would be interesting to try the much cheaper Bryston 28B cubed or even the 7B cubed to save money. Audio Advisor currently has big discounts on both Brystons, with the advantage of a no risk trial. |
WC, I would stay away from the expensive and heavy Block Audio, based only on a review from SoundRebel. When both reviewers describe shorter decays, that is another way of saying rolled off highs, lack of spatial resolution, loss of ambient information, etc. The tonal signature is bass heavy, which leads to loss of clarity higher up in the freq range. Also, I would never buy anything super expensive from an overseas manufacturer. Shipping costs for repairs of this beast will be expensive, and resale value absolutely terrible. You are far better off sticking with your Mac 601's or any powerful Pass like the 200.8 or even the top 600.8. Any of these will probably have better sound than Block. (Don't trust most audio professionals who are just looking for people with lots of money to spend. An audio dealer and a violin dealer each asked me if I have any rich doctor friends.) Even the ML Neolith is a better value proposition than Block Audio. At least the Neo is a unique product, unlike Block Audio. For relative amp bargains, you can try the big Brystons no risk from Audio Advisor, which will probably give the best combination of every sonic attribute. Imagine, the 28B cubed, 2000 watts each into 4 ohms of your Magico for $12K/pair new, no risk! Even the 7B cubed, 900 watts each into 4 ohms for about $7K or so on sale. |
WC, to clarify, I didn't imply that the Neo is a great value, just that Block Audio is a worse proposition. Right now, it looks like you are doing great with the Magico plus the Mac 601 and probably better with the coming Pass. Too bad Audio Advisor no longer has the 28B cubed at that bargain price, but the 7B cubed is still available "factory refreshed" which is basically new for $8K/pr. Let's see how the Pass 200.8 goes for a month of use, and then you might consider the 7B or 28B for a month comparison with the Pass. For whatever reviews are worth, the latest Stereophile review of the Pass noted that bass was looser compared to the D'Agostino Progression Monos, and that the Progressions could better differentiate mid and high frequency information on violins and such. He loved the gorgeous midrange of the Pass, and was sold on that aspect above all other qualities. The big Brystons will probably improve on the strong aspects of the Progressions. The refined highs of the cubed series will probably please you, as you noted in your earlier comments about the 4B cubed, so I predict that the big Brystons will be preferred by you in nearly all aspects of sound. You know I am not in the business, so this is my honest guess.
|
jafant, I am not knowledgeable about whether the Bryston 4B, 7B, 28B cubed use different circuit topologies, but the official line is that all the amps are the same except for power. My experience is that they all sound different. Many reviews point this out. I have only heard the 4B cubed, but I have heard the 2.5B SST2 and 4B SST2 in my system. At the same moderate volume where the 2.5B SST2 is comfortable, the 4B SST2 was much darker and veiled. When I related this to one of the Bryston techs, he said that the 2.5 has shorter signal paths which may explain differences in tonal characteristics. I also feel that fewer transistors will theoretically produce purer sound than many pairs, due to the likelihood of subtle mismatches. I really want to find a highest quality high power amp, but if I am playing delicate or modest volumes and that higher power amp sounds veiled, I refuse to tolerate mediocrity. So for now I would rather enjoy the purity of my little 2.5 for 95% of my music and forget about the loud stuff if it makes me unhappy. I will try the 2.5 B cubed rather than the 4B cubed for this reason. I still enjoy all music casually from the car radio and youtube where I am concentrating on the music rather than the audio quality. I enjoy the old violin masters like Fritz Kreisler, Mischa Elman, Jacques Thibaud on youtube with lousy sound quality, more than today's relatively mediocre young violinists with audiophile quality sound.
|
WC, I appreciate your honest assessment of the Bryston 4B cubed just above, compared to the Luxman 900u. I had the impression from your old posts that the Lux was on the warm and smooth side, but maybe I was wrong and you now say that the Lux is very neutral and very revealing and extended in the highs. Correct? If that is the case, then the real shootout will be between the Lux and the D'agostino. I met Dan over 30 years ago, bought his Audiostatics for a friend. He was indifferent to the delicate nuances of that speaker, drove it hard and rejected it solely because of the lack of bass dynamics. His sound preference is for big bass dominance. My prediction is that the Lux will win on detail, transparency although the Progressions will be more dynamic. I know you like strapped Lux monos, but I am guessing that the single stereo Lux will be the amp that best enhances the revealing nature of the Magico at a semi-reasonable price. And 2 Lux amps cost similar to the D'ag, so it is likely that 1 or even 2 Lux amps is the way to go.
|
dancekeri,
In one respect, Nelson Pass is to solid state the way William Johnson was to tubes, in that their famous names are associated with the respective technologies. However, in terms of sound characteristics, this analogy is flawed. Pass goes for sweet midrange sound with rolled off highs and soft bass, in contrast to much solid state. Johnson (Audio Research) went for extended highs and maximum clarity, in contrast to much tube electronics, which are more akin to Pass solid state. In fact, some time ago, WC noted that the Audio Research GS150 had extended highs and detail with overall sound comparable to the Krell 402e. Johnson should be remembered for designs that showed that tubes can demonstrate accuracy and truth in regards to information retrieval, unlike much of tube electronics with their fat, tubby distortion with burial of real information.
|
techno_dude, your trade would probably benefit WC. If your goal is merely to simplify your system and get some money for the Mac preamp, power chord and interconnects, that is fine for you, although I think WC would get the benefit in terms of the best sound, although I have not heard either the Gryphon or the Lux. I did have the Lux M600A at home for a month and was impressed by it. Did you personally compare the M900u to the M600A for sound quality at the lower power levels of the M600A?
|
WC, it might be difficult for you to make assessments because there have been major upgrades to your setup, like moving targets. First, get your reference sound from the 20A outlets, Magicos, Mac 601. Since the purity of your sound with other speakers was best with the Lux M900u, it is unfortunate that you got rid of the Simaudio which you say is 2nd best in terms of purity/detail. The Pass will not be as powerful as the Mac 601 as I and others have opined. Will the Pass be as pure/detailed as the Simaudio? Probably not, but you will have the best guess, but won't have the opportunity of an A/B, only just go on your memory. D'ag is very expensive for what it is, a lot of money and weight going for audio jewelry and heavy casework, and I am not sure the M400 will merit $15K upgrade from the M300. When I visited a dealer in NY a few years ago, one salesman said the Momentum sound was dark and fat, but far inferior to Spectral in detail, accuracy, etc. Even the Parasound JC1 was respectable by comparison to the Momentum according to him, although I did not personally do the A/B since I didn't want to spend the money. Meanwhile, if you want to get an idea of the D'ag sound, you might consider the more industrial looking Master Classic 2 stereo available on A-gon for "only" 7 or $8K. Don't blow a lot of money on hyper expensive D'ag, especially since the resale value isn't so good. I still say 1 or 2 Lux M900u will probably give you more of what you want compared to anything else, at a reasonable price. The accuracy of the Lux combined with the accuracy of Magico, very tempting. |
WC, I would add that overall perspective should be a guide. The most important attribute of reproduction of any type of music is midrange accuracy, in which the ML CLX is near SOTA. You could spend a million bucks for the best amp to drive the Magico, but you will still not get the midrange accuracy of the CLX driven by any decent cheap amp. Of course, the Magico beats the CLX in imaging focus, bass, dynamics and maybe high freq. We each make our choice based on aspects of sound that we personally value above other aspects, but it is all a compromise in one way or another. Even a billionaire with money to burn cannot have perfection in everything. Get an amp where most of the money is spent on the electronics rather than cosmetics to impress the neighborhood. Get value in everything you do. I knew a very wealthy woman who didn't want to be charged incorrectly at the supermarket. She could afford to be cheated, but her moral compass was more important than anything, so she spent extra time in correcting the error.
|
riaa_award, Cut your disrespectful crapola. My live music background and experience dwarfs that of most people on this forum. When I tell you that most audiophile systems are veiled and dark compared to the snap and precision of the real thing, RESPECT THAT STATEMENT. I have never personally had any D'ag (not Krell) in my home for audition, but I am just telling you that the salesman said that by comparison with Spectral, D'ag is RELATIVELY dark. When he listened to my Bryston that I brought in, he said that from his experience with D'ag in his store, D'ag was AGAIN RELATIVELY dark. That doesn't mean that D'ag is absolutely dark, and in comparison with lots of other gear of less resolution, those other gear would be darker. I and many people define "dark" as being rolled off in the highs so that the sound is weighted more toward the lower freq. It is often associated with loss of information and clarity. The way WC described the sound of the Lux M900u and from Doug Schneider's review saying that its highs had clarity beyond belief, my guess is that D'ag will be darker than the Lux.
|
|
minorl, I love the way you expressed the differences between live and reproduced music. Totally correct. I believe that a system must be played at the volume levels matching live. For most music of all genres, it is 70-80 dB average, with occasional peaks much higher. A guitar that is not being smashed, an interpretive singer who is not screaming, a bass player providing plucked accompaniment or a melodic line, even a relatively louder trumpeter playing a tune--all these are at fairly modest volume levels. Now, assume you are listening to a perfect fidelity dream system (in my fantasies, say, a full range plasma massless driver) at average level of 75 dB to match the live level of that particular piece. If you then turn the volume up 6 dB to excite yourself, that is not high fidelity--it is just plain distortion of the real thing. The sound will be bloated and less natural. |
WC, I suggest you save your money and don't bother with the Mac2301. You are in the upper echelon of refinement with your Magico, Pass, possible D'ag Progressions (somewhat reasonable price, possibly more advanced thinking than the Momentums), and of course, the Lux M900u. Pass is a more refined version of Mac, if you like sweet and rolled off highs and somewhat loose bass. I haven't heard Pass or Mac amps at home, but years ago I A/B'ed my old excellent Belles OCM 200 with a powerful Mac amp in my friend's Soundlab system. The Mac was big and round, but the Belles killed it for clarity. At home, I A/B'ed the Pass XP15 phono stage with my excellent Belles phono stage. Compared to the sparkling clear and extended Belles, the Pass was sweet but markedly rolled off, with no snap on violins and muddy plucks of the harp. By the way, the newest Belles amps are rolled off and markedly inferior in clarity to my 1995 Belles OCM 200 which still sounds good. While I can't speak for the latest Pass amps, it is generally true that there is a sound philosophy from a designer throughout most of his products--Pass admits that he doesn't go for technical accuracy but believes that audiophiles should be "happy." Happiness to the typical audiophile means the rolled off sound in mid hall. Believe me, the mid hall listener is missing most of the information content that the much closer microphones are picking up. Anyone is entitled not to like "too much treble", find happiness in the rolled off sound of mid hall, but it is not high fidelity to what is on the recording. The Magicos are telling the truth by revealing the highs on recordings, so in the name of true high fidelity they should be lived with and respected/accepted for the truth tellers they are. I still predict that the Lux M900u is the best amp out there for you. Wait till you hear their clarity with the Magico! I don't know techno_dude, but I would take his offer of trade for your Gryphon. I'm confident he would trust you if he sent you his Lux first. Then you could A/B the Lux (with your preamp) and the Gryphon. If you prefer the Lux, you just send him his Gryphon. If not, you send back the Lux, with maybe a small fee for the privilege of the A/B. I like to do business this way out of respect for the risks to the seller and his lost time.
One other thing. Many amps clip gracefully so that the clipped sound peaks don't reveal any obvious distortion. This can make it appear that the amp is very powerful, but unfortunately it means that frequent clipping is destroying the speakers. My little Bryston 2.5 clips on big peaks, and appears to be powerful, but the red flashing clipping lights tell me the truth. I don't know if the Pass 200.5 has clipping lights, but also its rolled off highs let someone push the volume higher with less obvious stress. You have noted this effect in reverse with the extended highs of the ATI Signature 6005. Pushing the volume on the ATI revealed the highs that you didn't like at that time, forcing you to keep the volume lower. But remember that live music has lots of highs, but the natural modest live volume levels prevents irritation. Nobody wants to listen to live music blasting in your face, such as a trumpeter pointing his bell at you from 5 feet away. So if anyone gets irritated by highs in his system, he is probably listening at unnaturally high volumes.
|
brhatten, I don't know what DM means, or how to retrieve it if it is a message. I would look forward to an email from you--russlaud@gmail.com. Thanks. |
pwhinson,
What characteristics of the Pass X makes it better than the XA for your Thiel 2.4 or the Salon 2? Technical differences, tonal differences?
|
WC, interesting that the Mac 2301 is better in every way than the 601. This confirms my belief that bigger is often NOT better. 300 quality watts into your 4 ohm Magico is satisfying. What is the overall sonic flavor of the 2301, still rounded and tubey compared to the best SS you have had, such as Lux M9000u, Simaudio, Levinson 532, etc.? Audio Research is still probably the most accurate of tubes. How about the GS150 you loved some time ago? ONLY 150 watts, but remember quality is more important than quantity. The GS150 is probably the most accurate and refined tube amp out there. I bet the big D'ag is inferior to the GS150 in those respects, although it will have more balls. And the Lux M900u still the champ of all, unless you want to spend big bucks for the Rowland M925.
Also, you haven't commented recently about your Gryphon with the Magico. Maybe it is not in the running, so why don't you talk with techno_dude for his trade on the Lux? |
Riaa, Since I haven't personally heard the ARC 160 monos or the Dag 400 monos, I would be interested in your OBJECTIVE description of the sound characteristics of each compared to each other, and possibly compared to other amps you have had at home. Do you have the top Ayre Twenty monos? Don't wax eloquently about the magic or emotional connection to the music--many people here would want to hear objectively about tonal balance, tightness of bass, extension in the highs, midrange tonal accuracy, subtle information retrieval, etc. Also, in what way was the ARC GS150 "junk" as you claimed? I can only speculate that it was not as romantically tubey the way other ARC products are, although as a whole, ARC has been less tubey than other tube equipment from Conrad Johnson and others. Many years ago, I did hear the ARC SP 6B and SP 10 preamps, CJ Premier 3 preamp, so I know the general characteristics of those companies' products. Thanks.
|
Riaa--musical preferences certainly vary, but even though I don't listen much to the music that WC prefers, I still value and respect his observations on the objective and subjective aspects of sound. Violins, harps, guitars, string bass are all plucked instruments, so someone's comments about unamplified guitars has relevance to me. High frequency extension of cymbals/triangles is greater than that of violins, so again someone's comments about cymbal/triangle sound is of great interest to me, no matter whether the cymbal is used in classical, jazz or other types of music. Many people here including me would like to hear your comments about the comparative tonal characteristics of the Dag, ARC 160M, Ayre VXR Twenty. Sure, it's not your thread, but I am sure WC appreciates all the input here from everyone, especially since he probably loses some money on many trials, but he is willing to lose some money in return for the experience and knowledge gained. In return for the knowledge and experience he has given us, I think it is appropriate for us to provide as much knowledge/experience that each of us can give.
|
Hello ALL,
It is not fruitful to argue about what is "best" because "best" is a subjective opinion that is not useful to other listeners here. What is most important and most useful is to be able to OBJECTIVELY describe the sound of a component in the context of a system. Even though there are so many variables, a particular sweet sounding tube amp will sound that way in almost any system compared to a particular fast sounding SS amp in such a system. Instead of calling other people trolls because they have different opinions, just describe your sonic observations objectively and then let other people consider the component based on their own tastes and budgets. It also doesn't matter what kind of music you like, you should be able to objectively describe the sound of different instruments which are utilized in any type of music. An unamplified (not electronic) guitar will sound like itself no matter what the genre of music. The most obvious case is the human voice which we all hear every day in all kinds of settings. I even listen carefully to the sound of random street conversations involving single voices or groups talking, laughing or yelling. I listen to the sounds of nature like different birds, honking horns, buzzing saws/drills, banging hammers and dropping boards of wood and metal from construction crews, the fan blowing in my bedroom, etc. This is all part of education about what real natural sounds are like, and this forms the basis of all our perceptions about music, which is merely a unique type of environmental sound. I feel that WC has done a very thorough job in much of this with additional color from his experiences with cars, and he has inspired many of us to share our own experiences. That is what this forum is about, which is the free expression of our experiences, instead of snide attacks on other people from the attacker who probably has an agenda, business or otherwise.
|
Very important discussion here about the term, "neutral." Literally, it means that nothing stands out or is emphasized. For example, someone with legal blindness 20/200 vision may see everything equally badly, and someone with superb 20/15 vision may see everything equally clearly. Both people have "neutral" vision, but it is obvious that the person with 20/15 acuity is getting more out of the visual world, and enjoying more of it because of the increased information content perceived, unless you want to be cynical and say that he also sees more of the flaws and is unhappy. Most of us spend money and effort on systems to get more out of the music we enjoy, therefore the rational goal is to try to be objective and go for accuracy and information retrieval. You otherwise might take the subjective "happiness" approach of someone like Nelson Pass, seek to flavor your music any way you like. But you will probably get tired with the flavoring approach, especially if someone brings over a component with more accuracy that makes you wonder why you have been missing musical information--this is because you have been artificially flavoring your system. If you are a wine connoisseur and enjoy many types of wines, don't add sugar to each wine you are tasting, since you will obscure the true character of each wine because each will taste like sugar. |
techno_dude and charles1dad, interesting discussion about colorations of both tube and SS electronics. I agree. 35 years ago, I tried the class A Bedini 25/25 SS amp. It was thickly syrupy sweet with rolled off highs, vastly inferior to almost any tube amp of that time in accuracy, information retrieval and of course, musical appreciation. That Bedini was equally far different from many other SS amps I tried. So techno_dude, I agree it is absurd to say that some tube designer is trying to make it sound like SS. It is more fruitful to objectively describe the sound of any amp, whether it is tube or SS. I personally don't care whether a technology is tube single ended or push pull triode or pentode, or SS class A, AB, D, G, H, etc. I have an open mind to whatever comes along, although so far it seems that even the accuracy oriented Audio Research still has vestiges (slight amounts) of loose bass, sweet midrange, diminished highs compared to most but not all SS amps I have tried. To realize this, just play recordings of sounds of nature like ocean waves, birds, crickets, the wind, feet crushing leaves, buzzsaws, spoken voice, etc. Then listen at the beach, continue to take walks to orient yourself to the real sounds of things. There is nothing sweet about the sounds of nature--these entities are just as they are, without any of the chicken fat cushion of most "sweet" electronics, whether tube or SS. These "sweet" electronics are like a beautiful woman wearing loose clothing. But take the clothing off, and you will see more of her beauty revealed by seeing her muscled, toned and delicately curved features that were previously obscured. |
