My Long List of Amplifiers and My Personal Review of Each!
So I have been in a long journey looking to find the best amplifiers for my martin logan montis. As you know, the match between an amplifier and speakers has to be a good "marriage" and needs to be blend exquisitely. Right now, I think I might have found the best sounding amplifier for martin logan. I have gone through approximately 34-36 amplifiers in the past 12 months. Some of these are:
Bryston ST, SST, SST2 series NAD M25 PARASOUND HALO PARASOUND CLASSIC KRELL TAS KRELL KAV 500 KRELL CHORUS ROTEL RMB 1095 CLASSE CT 5300 CLASSE CA 2200 CLASSE CA 5200 MCINTOSH MC 205 CARY AUDIO CINEMA 7 OUTLAW AUDIO 755 LEXICON RX7 PASS LABS XA 30.8 BUTLER AUDIO 5150 ATI SIGNATURE SERIES 6005
With all that said, the amplifiers I mentioned above are the ones that in my opinion are worth mentioning. To make a long story short, there is NO 5 CHANNEL POWER AMP that sounds as good as a 3ch and 2ch amplifier combination. i have done both experiments and the truth is that YOU DO lose details and more channel separation,etc when you select a 5 channel power amplifier of any manufacturer. My recollection of what each amp sounded like is as follows:
ATI SIGNATURE SERIES 6005 (great power and amazing soundstage. Very low noise floor, BUT this amplifiers NEEDS TO BE cranked up in order to fully enjoy it. If you like listening at low volume levels or somewhat moderate, you are wasting your time here. This amp won’t sound any different than many other brands out there at this volume. The bass is great, good highs although they are a bit bright for my taste)
NAD M25 (very smooth, powerful, but somewhat thin sounding as far as bass goes) Bryston sst2(detailed, good soundstage, good power, but can be a little forward with certain speakers which could make them ear fatiguing at loud volumes)
Krell (fast sounding, nice bass attack, nice highs, but some detail does get lost with certain speakers)
rotel (good amp for the money, but too bright in my opinion)
cary audio (good sound overall, very musical, but it didn’t have enough oomph)
parasound halo (good detail, great bass, but it still holds back some background detail that i can hear in others)
lexicon (very laid back and smooth. huge power, but if you like more detail or crisper highs, this amp will disappoint you)
McIntosh mc205 (probably the worst multichannel amp given its price point. it was too thin sounding, had detail but lacked bass.
butler audio (good amplifier. very warm and smooth sweet sounding. i think for the money, this is a better amp than the parasound a51)
pass labs (very VERY musical with excellent bass control. You can listen to this for hours and hours without getting ear fatigue. however, it DOES NOT do well in home theater applications if all you have is a 2 channel set up for movies. The midrange gets somewhat "muddy" or very weak sounding that you find yourself trying to turn it up.
classe audio (best amplifier for multi channel applications. i simply COULDNT FIND a better multi channel amplifier PERIOD. IT has amazing smoothness, amazing power and good bass control although i would say krell has much better bass control)
Update: The reviews above were done in January 2015. Below is my newest update as of October 2016:
PS AUDIO BHK 300 MONOBLOCKS: Amazing amps. Tons of detail and really amazing midrange. the bass is amazing too, but the one thing i will say is that those of you with speakers efficiency of 87db and below you will not have all the "loudness" that you may want from time to time. These amps go into protection mode when using a speaker such as the Salon, but only at very loud levels. Maybe 97db and above. If you don’t listen to extreme crazy levels, these amps will please you in every way.
Plinius Odeon 7 channel amp: This is THE BEST multichannel amp i have ever owned. Far , but FAR SUPERIOR to any other multichannel amp i have owned. In my opinion it destroyed all of the multichannel amps i mentioned above and below. The Odeon is an amp that is in a different tier group and it is in a league of its own. Amazing bass, treble and it made my center channel sound more articulate than ever before. The voices where never scrambled with the action scenes. It just separated everything very nicely.
Theta Dreadnaught D: Good detailed amp. Looks very elegant, has a pleasant sound, but i found it a tad too bright for my taste. I thought it was also somewhat "thin" sounding lacking body to the music. could be that it is because it is class d?
Krell Duo 300: Good amp. Nice and detailed with enough power to handle most speakers out there. I found that it does have a very nice "3d" sound through my electrostatics. Nothing to fault here on this amp. Mark Levinson 532H: Great 2 channel amp. Lots of detail, amazing midrange which is what Mark Levinson is known for. It sounds very holographic and will please those of you looking for more detail and a better midrange. As far as bass, it is there, but it is not going to give you the slam of a pass labs 350.5 or JC1s for example. It is great for those that appreciate classical music, instrumental, etc, but not those of you who love tons of deep bass.
It is articulate sounding too Krell 7200: Plenty of detail and enough power for most people. i found that my rear speakers contained more information after installed this amp. One thing that i hated is that you must use xlr cables with this amp or else you lose most of its sound performance when using RCA’s.
Krell 402e: Great amp. Very powerful and will handle any speaker you wish. Power is incredible and with great detail. That said, i didn’t get all the bass that most reviewers mentioned. I thought it was "ok" in regards to bass. It was there, but it didn’t slam me to my listening chair.
Bryston 4B3: Good amp with a complete sound. I think this amp is more laid back than the SST2 version. I think those of you who found the SST2 version of this amp a little too forward with your speakers will definitely benefit from this amp’s warmth. Bryston has gone towards the "warm" side in my opinion with their new SST3 series. As always, they are built like tanks. I wouldn’t call this amp tube-like, but rather closer to what the classe audio delta 2 series sound like which is on the warm side of things.
Parasound JC1s: Good powerful amps. Amazing low end punch (far superior bass than the 402e). This amp is the amp that i consider complete from top to bottom in regards to sound. Nothing is lacking other than perhaps a nicer chassis. Parasound needs to rework their external appearance when they introduce new amps. This amp would sell much more if it had a revised external appearance because the sound is a great bang for the money. It made my 800 Nautilus scream and slam. Again, amazing low end punch.
Simaudio W7: Good detailed amp. This amp reminds me a lot of the Mark Levinson 532h. Great detail and very articulate. I think this amp will go well with bookshelves that are ported in order to compensate for what it lacks when it comes to the bass. That doesn’t mean it has no bass, but when it is no Parasound JC1 either. Pass labs 350.5: Wow, where do i begin? maybe my first time around with the xa30.8 wasn’t as special as it was with this monster 350.5. It is just SPECTACULAR sounding with my electrostatics. The bass was THE BEST BASS i have ever heard from ANY amp period. The only amp that comes close would be the jC1s. It made me check my settings to make sure the bass was not boosted and kept making my jaw drop each time i heard it. It totally destroyed the krell 402e in every regard. The krell sounded too "flat" when compared to this amp. This amp had amazing mirange with great detail up top. In my opinion, this amp is the best bang for the money. i loved this amp so much that i ended up buying the amp that follows below.
Pass labs 250.8: What can i say here. This is THE BEST STEREO AMP i have ever heard. This amp destroys all the amps i have listed above today to include the pass labs 350.5. It is a refined 350.5 amp. It has more 3d sound which is something the 350.5 lacked. It has a level of detail that i really have never experienced before and the bass was amazing as well. I really thought it was the most complete power amplifier i have ever heard HANDS DOWN. To me, this is a benchmark of an amplifier. This is the amp that others should be judged by. NOTHING is lacking and right now it is the #1 amplifier that i have ever owned.
My current amps are Mcintosh MC601s: i decided to give these 601s a try and they don’t disappoint. They have great detail, HUGE soundstage, MASSIVE power and great midrange/highs. The bass is great, but it is no pass labs 250.8 or 350.5. As far as looks, these are the best looking amps i have ever owned. No contest there. i gotta be honest with you all, i never bought mcintosh monos before because i wasn’t really "wowed" by the mc452, but it could have been also because at that time i was using a processor as a preamp which i no longer do. Today, i own the Mcintosh C1100 2 chassis tube preamp which sounds unbelievable. All the amps i just described above have been amps that i auditioned with the C1100 as a preamp. The MC601s sound great without a doubt, but i will say that if you are looking for THE BEST sound for the money, these would not be it. However, Mcintosh remains UNMATCHED when it comes to looks and also resale value. Every other amp above depreciates much faster than Mcintosh.
That said, my future purchase (when i can find a steal of a deal) will be the Pass labs 350.8. I am tempted to make a preliminary statement which is that i feel this amp could be THE BEST stereo amp under 30k dollars. Again, i will be able to say more and confirm once i own it. I hope this update can help you all in your buying decisions!
Educate ME? A big theme of this whole thread and life in general is that one knows very little about anything without experience. With components, listen to something in your own system before commenting about it. For maxima95, you know nothing about my zip cord, and Rane EQ because I doubt you have listened to them at home. If you have, then you can report exactly what you heard. Otherwise, criticizing my expertise is foolish.
As for other experience of actually knowing what live unamplified music sounds like, from a close distance where the main mikes are, very few posters here have even a fraction of my experience. So, anyone's criticism of "elevated top end" is totally uninformed. The reality is that most systems I have heard are dull and lacking top end. If that's what someone LIKES, they are entitled to their taste, but it is divorced from the concept of high fidelity to the real thing. Most people have snubbed the original goal of system building, which is imitating the live experience. Instead, they have adopted the goal of softening of real sounds.
It is true that I don't have experience listening to most gear discussed here. However, most of my comments are about general principles of sound and my listening findings from Jay's videos, which apply to all components. Without understanding general principles, such an audiophile will continue to randomly try any component and burn out emotionally and financially when little progress is made. What are your goals? If it is to color the music according to your changing tastes like women's fashions, that's what happens. If your goal is high fidelity, getting real world listening musical experience is the most efficient way to satisfy that goal. No burnout and financial ruin, just a closer appreciation of what the real music offers.
psnyder149, No, about 43% preferred my Rouge, which is not a minority. After getting my amp back from Jay and listening further, that finding of 43% is actually a solid endorsement, since I estimate that the taste of this thread is 90% in favor of soft, pleasant amps with rolled off HF. I am not claiming that Jay's mystery amps are soft and rolled off, because even I found that the differences between mine and his were fairly small, and my findings are only comparative. Jay's mystery amp is still very revealing, much more than any tube amp, although we have to wait until Jay does the SS/tube A/B to be sure. However, Jay has already said the VAC system is soft and offers the pleasing (to him) soulful sound he likes. When something is less brilliant and more pleasant, the advocates of such euphony wax poetically how it is more soulful, with more finesse, refinement and the like.
I posted a few pages back how the midhall listener correctly says that the softer sound of these euphonic amps is a closer imitation of the reality of that midhall sound. However, this is fallacious, because most recordings, especially pop/jazz are upfront because the mikes are close. For the listener seeking high fidelity, the 1st row seat is closer to the sound of the recording, and the electronics with the more brilliant HF presentation is a closer imitation of that reality.
speedbump6, Your post is correct, assuming that subjective preferences divorced from the ideal of high fidelity are the objective goals for enjoyment. Everyone has different preferences, sure. But only a small % of a-philes are trying to imitate reality/high fidelity. So I have a preference for the goal of high fidelity, and most people have a preference for just what pleases them without an objective standard.
Now let's assume that a group of listeners with the high fidelity standard get together and discuss how a system compares with the sound they just heard at a concert from the first row where the mikes are. I think I remember that you have a nice collection of guitars, so you are knowledgeable about the different sounds of guitars. Your like minded guitar connoisseurs hear a concert of guitars and other instruments from the first row. If your friends are perceptive, they can agree that the bite and transients of the live guitar is best revealed by your system, but the body resonances of the live guitar are better revealed by your friend's system, although this system sacrifices the bite/transients. This is where subjective preferences can be respected, because they are referenced to the real live music. But without reference to live music, subjective preferences have less meaning, and are totally arbitrary. Why spend time and money on arbitrary preferences? This leads to burnout and abandonment of the wonderful audio hobby.
Viber, I’m going to have to disagree with some of your assumptions. The goal for each can be different, and that in no way makes it wrong. Not because you think your vision of the hobby is correct, nor anyone else’s thoughts. We each have to chase our on visions. Ive seen very disparate impression of equipment and sounds from people who I highly regard their knowledge of this hobby. It’s actually allowed me to open my thoughts to different things and learn to appreciate many ideas. There are always some that no matter what, I just cannot hear what they do, and there’s nothing wrong with that. I don’t feel that they are looking for some inferior sound, and I don’t feel that I am either. I don’t believe that most here can be pigeon holed into the spot you are placing them, or that your assessment of them is correct. It’s obviously not the sound you seem to be looking for I would agree. I find that you use the term euphonic to describe most sounds outside your comfort zone, and that it’s not appropriately applied. You imply that they’re looking for a inferior sound since it’s not within the realm of your comfort level. It seems as if you say these things as a way to defend against what you see as attacks on you. Try less to convince others of your vision. Discuss, yes. But it seems you are always trying to get others to see some light that you see, that you believe they do not. And some here have struck back with comments like the educate one you mentioned. Give everyone else room to have their own thoughts which are just as valid and right as your own are for you. We should be able to discuss without judging others for what they believe they hear and experience. In a way it might be easier for me if I could find just one sound that I thought was the right one, no need to be chasing so much gear and spending so much doing it. But for me, and from talking with many others, that’s part of the fun and enjoyment. I enjoy more than just one signature sound. I can find something I like in many different ones. It’s the same issue I have with guitars. Each creates a different tone, adds something that another does not. Then add in the all the amp combos, and then you have all the effects possible. There are some that are just not worth listening to in my mind, that for others is the top,of their bucket list. Then I’ve gone back later and found that hey, there is something there after all. The amp didn’t change, the guitar didn’t. I did. For me, that’s a blast, and why I tend to go off the deep end in many hobbies I have. The journey never ends, there’s always new sights and sounds to explore, and I’m thankful for that.
Don’t forget a Very BIg One "Didn’t believe in Cables" or maybe in the beginning , "Didn’t want to believe in cables or Admit to it" .. because, it opened a Whole Other "Can of Worms"
@Viber6 I must correct you on 1 thing ...your Math. If we only have 2 groups #1- people who preferred the Rogue Amp OR #2- people who preferred the Other Amp Unless it was split 50% VS 50 % The smaller number of the group is "The Minority" If it was 51% for the Other Amp 49% for the Rogue. The People who liked the Rogue would be in the minority
Also I hate to say it but
The reality is that most systems I have heard are dull and lacking top end.
That is not "Reality" That is "Your Opinon"...as you see it , with your background and your experience . It might be "Your Reality" Problem is that you talk about everything as if it is fact, but IN FACT it is your opinion. You really should use IMO or IMHO in your statements or opinions. and Stop stating things as fact, when in reality, it is you opinion. Am I wrong here ?
Viber, the reason very few here respect your sonic views (as is clear by the responses you’re seeing) is not because they are fringe views and, as Paul accurately states, tend towards exactly the type of sound most audiophiles try to avoid (poor quality, INACCURATE sound).
No, that is not the reason.
The reason is that you lie and make crap up to suit your fringe views. And you do it incessantly.
Example: “90% here prefer soft, rolled off highs” Wrong. I”d bet very few do. Everyone raise your hand if you prefer soft, rolled off highs. I prefer accuracy, which is what most of WC’s stuff has. Your Rouge, by contrast, was not accurate at all, which experienced audiophiles recognized even if you couldn’t. Go rewatch WC’s review of your amp. It parallels what Paul and I posted before the reveal, but with additional context.
Example 2: You say Jay has said the VAC is soft and pleasant, implying it is not accurate. That is a lie. You just cannot handle that VAC is MORE ACCURATE than the gear you favor.
So yes, you have a lot to learn, my friend, as so many here are trying to show you. The last page or so are folks graciously and patiently trying to help you grow in your audio journey.
Your preferences are your preferences, and that’s fine. But don’t lie about what others think or what WC thinks to suit your fringe views
Correcting your assertion…. 57% vs 43% is a landslide. 30% more. But that is not really the true result… I was just summarizing. The full results are far more revealing and detrimental to your position.
presentation 1: 45%-55%. (The least obvious of the 3) 20% more. presentation 2: 41%-59%. 45% more presentation 3: (and easily the clearest to hear due to the more revealing Soulution preamplifier:…. 37%-63%. 70% more.
A gargantuan difference and statistically significant by nearly any measure.
The difference between the Rouge and mystery amp were not “fairly small”. They were so large that many of us—including you—had no trouble not only identifying differences but rather confidently labeling the two on multiple blind AB trials via a highly and lossy compressed YouTube video recorded with an iPhone and stereo microphone. A reasonable expectation would be that if they were “fairly close” we wouldn’t be able to identify them.
Addressing what is more likely the main reason your preferences are tilted so far away from the norm (accepting that you do have some knowledge, some experience and some skill): It seems likely that in your age, you have lost much more of your hearing above a few thousand hz than you realize. An expected result of both age and spending much of your life sitting in the middle of an orchestra and having your instrument’s sound hole 6 inches from your ear.
Until you have designed and successfully sold a line of audiophile equipment or world class instruments or been the keynote speaker at an audio or recording conference or been otherwise publicly recognized—contrary to your own opinion—you are not an expert in this field. You are an hobbyist with some experiences and a point of view. That’s it…. Just like most of us.
I studied cello with 2nd chair in Pittsburgh symphony. I studied classical guitar in college. I have been the manager of an actively touring and recording artist recording in some of the worlds best studios working with top producers and engineers. I have been on the credits of 3 records that spent time on Billboards top 10 chart. I have owned several world class instruments including cello and guitars. I grew up with an audiophile father who hand built his own first stereo in the late 50’s early 60’s while attending MIT for undergraduate and graduate school and was constantly trying to improve his system. Audio Research SP3 and SP6b with Vandersteen speakers were some of his prized system in the 70’s and 80’s—I know you would hate that system, but I wonder how many thousands of speakers Richard V has sold over the past half century?. I have been patiently building my own high end system since college in the 80’s (albeit never reaching into the stratosphere world that Jay is able to report on). I have been blessed to listen to some of the greatest musicians in very good… and very bad venues.
BUT…! I am not an expert. I am also an hobbyist. I am a music lover striving to eke out that little bit of higher performance within my limited budget.—By the way, there are other trained, professional musicians that also participate in this thread. You are far from special in this regard.
You regularly expound on equipment that you have not ever heard, let alone owned or had in your system and then castigate others for doing the same thing.
I have an idea…. Take out your camera phone—without changing a setting (we are on the honor system…!)—take a picture of your beloved Rane (clearly showing the settings) and post it on your Audiogon virtual system. We can then take a pole and post what we all think your system would sound like. My top 2 predictions…. 1. Teenager that listens to too much heavy metal at <105 db’s, 2. Deaf old man who ought to recognize his own deficiencies by virtue of the settings he has chosen on his Radio Shack quality, graphic equalizer that are readily available for $129.99 + shipping in 1 whopping payment from eBay.
You like to talk about equipment that is not to your preference as “euphonic”, “soft”, “rolled off”, etc. I’m guessing that were we not polite, we would describe your 1970’s era graphic equalizer modified preferred sound as “discordant”, “disharmonious”, “dissonant”, “inharmonious”, “blaring”, “grating”, “harsh”, “jarring”—antonyms for “euphonic”. I would likely describe it as strident, harsh and completely unnatural. In a world where the designers of high end equipment spend their lives striving to perfect their equipment according to you nearly every one of them get’s it so wrong that you have to apply up to 12 db to the top 15% of the spectrum—as stated per your prior posts—of elevating levels from 8000-20000 Hz. What you describe as “sparkle”, most of us would describe as shrill… the stuff of fingernails on a chalkboard.
You are being patently offensive when you say that the readers “…90% in favor of soft, pleasant amps with rolled off HF”. You are being patently offensive when you say “only a small % of a-Phil’s are trying to imitate reality/high fidelity… most people have a preference for just what pleases them without an objective standard.”
When tossing the word “foolish” about criticizing your expertise, clearly there is not a mirror large enough in your house to recognize yourself.
Viber, as you can see, many have been patient and tried to help you understand that your comments are often abrasive. Those responding to you have been kind and helpful. But you see now how all this discussion detracts from the content of this thread and has resulted in over a page of discussion that's really not germane to the topic. Sharing what you like is great, telling others what they hear, or should want to hear, is not. Please let this thread get back on track.
grey9hound, You're right that 49% is a minority. That's just a meaningless fact used by politicians to say that the guy who got 51% of the votes proved his mandate, will of the people, and similar BS. Landslides are something like 60/40, similar exaggerations of the truth. No doubt you have plenty of life experience to know that some outstanding people you knew were in the minority. In fact, major innovators are a tiny slice, by definition. They stand out from the crowd.
The music server has arrived and it is now playing. It needs serious break-in (i can tell based on what i am hearing) so i probably won't be playing any music until i return from Capital Audio. Stay tuned, i got a a full loom of new cables coming (needed for when my transparent cables are sent back to recalibrate), more powercords, more amps, "special outlets" not out in the market yet are being sent to me by a manufacturer that claims they are better than furutech? hmmm.. MORE INTERESTING STUFF COMING YOUR WAY!
psnyder149, Thanks for revealing your musical background and professional accomplishments which enables a more fruitful discussion. BTW, in 1976 I did medical internship in Pittsburgh and took care of a retired Pgh Symphony violist and principal 2nd violinist. They gave me great violin lessons.
My experience is that most pro classical musicians have mediocre low fi audio systems at home. They spend so much time practicing, rehearsing and performing music that they don't want any more recreational listening at home. They know that even fancy audio systems don't come close to what they hear at close range on stage. But they know that midhall sound is so dull compared to stage sound. Here is the opportunity for the audiophile who doesn't have the opportunity to hear the exciting stage sound. A decent system often has more exciting detailed sound than the live midhall sound. This is because a good recording is usually made with close mikes near the 1st row, with very close spot mikes on individual players, with variations due to engineer taste for ambience mikes mixed in.
I learned these things from my experience over many decades, starting when my HF sensitivity was better--my preferences haven't changed. As for my use of EQ to boost HF, the defining moment came in 1995 when I started to do recordings of my orchestra at a medical school lecture hall. I used good equipment--Neumann KM 184 cardioid mikes in stereo ORTF configuration close above and behind the conductor's head, Bryston preamp, Prism A/D converter into digital input of the Panasonic DAT pro recorder. The young conductor and I heard the immediate playback on my headphones, and we were both disappointed by the dull thud of the overblown bass and dull HF. All that great recording equipment and mike placement didn't matter. I then went to Sam Ash, a store for rock/pop bands, disc jockeys and such, and bought the Rane EQ. I cut the bass and boosted HF. For my next recording shortly later, we were both pleased with the newfound brilliance and overall balance/musicality. This conductor had his mediocre home speakers on the floor, but he knew good sound. Of course, this lecture hall was not designed for music and really was acoustically dead and dull, but I managed to salvage it with the EQ. I used similar EQ settings in better halls with other orchestras, and had excellent results which were far more detailed than commercial recordings of the same pieces.
My audiophile days began in 1977, and I was brought up on the prejudices of typical audio retailers who shunned EQ. So in 1995 with that conductor's blunt criticism I had to do something. I shed this audiophile prejudice, and am grateful to him for his constructive criticism, which opened up worlds for me. I continued to use the EQ for my home system with commercial recordings, and did well, adjusting the boosts for different recordings. Even in the flat position without EQ, the Rane ME 60 was more open than my Spectral DMC 10 gamma preamp, and with the EQ settings everything rose to a transformative level. It does great things for the cello, your instrument. Without EQ, on dynamic speakers and even my clearer electrostatics, there is too much boom without enough artificulation. Then with EQ HF boost, it is remarkable how the buzz of the string is revealed. You can hear the naturally gritty effect of the rosin on the bow. I start boosting above 8 kHz, but the EQ bands extend down to about 1 kHz to reveal the upper midrange harmonics. Yes, it can be artificial, so you have to adjust this effect according to your preference. Even the great cellist, Pablo Casals used crude match sticks between the strings and the ebony fingerboard to correct imperfect fifths, etc. As a musician, you do what you have to do to get results. Many audiophiles are trying all kinds of tricks to get better sound, and I admire all of this. It's just a pity that many are not open minded to try this with EQ, based on audiophile prejudice.
None of the above is preaching or commandments--it's just mentioning the possibilities learned from my experience, so there is no need for people to think I need to be counselled.
Like you, I got my inspiration from my father, an EE who built his mono Altec Voice of the Theater 7 foot corner horn, and his 30 W mono tube amp. I loved his sound. He convinced me that horns are the best dynamic speakers because horns are a natural form of amplification which enable lower distortion. Jay would have loved them. They didn't shout, unlike other horns I heard later. But after I got my electrostatics and SS amps, my father admitted they have lower distortion and better HF than his horns. He also bought a SS home theater amp and used mixed 2 channels for his mono Altec. He also said the SS amp had better overall sound and clarity than his tube amp, his baby. That's open mindedness, learning from experience.
Jay, I spoke to Steve today. He is going to the show with the latest tweaked GTA speaker, his Pass electronics, etc. He said you will interview Greg and him. You should have fun meeting other people he will introduce you to. Bring lots of recordings. I'll hear it all when he returns.
mrdecibel and techno_dude were also very disruptive to this thread. They were asked to leave or banned from posting. Sure hope it doesn't come to that....but it does seem like nothing is getting through to viber.
Back to the topic of the new VAC preamp, finally, a great tube pre. Even on MP4, the sound is close to great. The 450 amps will help. Surely YouTube doesn’t help, but there is still a slight but present SS/digital edge. And, finally, acoustic, little processed content! I listened many times compared to hardly able to listen for more than a couple of minutes to the usually highly processed stuff. One has a base line on the sound of acoustic.
Jay, The Arion Audio tall speaker in the Jefferson Room posted 12:04 PM is interesting. The drum recording doesn't present these speakers in the best light. Ask them to play your recordings to judge them better. I saw but didn't hear a smaller version of these speakers over 2 years ago at Harry Weisfeld's VPI House in NJ. The tower uses stacked variants of ESS Heil tweeter technology, which "squeezes" air as the driving principle. Harry said they are faster than ribbons. 105 dB efficiency enables these drivers to go down to about 100 Hz, with the subs providing bass. The entire speaker system is about $25K.
Back in 1970, I heard a small speaker containing Heil tweeters. At $450/pr, they had more extended and pure HF with natural realism than any other speaker at the time. At age 17, I couldn't afford them.
Of course, I await your video of the latest GTA speaker system. Steve will be glad to play your recordings.
curious to hear the behind the scenes and jay’s commentary. i imagine some of those presenters may have realized they were about to be seen by 30,000 viewers
Guys It's hard for me to update this thread while I'm editing and uploading videos. If someone could copy and paste the links of the last 5 videos i uploaded last night and paste them here, that would be great.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
