I am only raving about the theoretical concepts behind the Tekton tweeter array. We all agree that listening is the final arbiter. I mentioned 2 different theories about the respective advantages of the 20.7 and 13A. One theory won out in practice, to show how the 20.7 is superior in most sonic criteria. Will the tweeter array concept win against the probably inferior cabinet design and/or crossover design of the Tekton compared to Wilson? Only listening will tell. For now, speedbump6 is in the best position to tell us.
On to the next theory about whether an extra preamp stage is needed. I just listened to the latest video with the Christine preamp in play. Going back and forth with the song, Baby I love your way, they are very close. The earlier video without the preamp is recorded perhaps 1 notch louder than with Christine. I can't say I have matched SPL's properly, so at this time I can't say which I prefer. The brilliance is about equal on both. The Christine I found superbly transparent in earlier comparison videos, so it makes sense that I can't come to a conclusion. Sometimes I find the Christine more detailed, and other times I find direct more detailed.
But let's suppose that a certain preamp makes the sound more detailed than without the preamp, in an apparent refutation of my commandment to avoid unnecessary circuitry. How could this be? Two possibilities. One, there is a more favorable impedance match with the preamp added in. Second, the preamp may be functioning like a subtle EQ which favors HF.
I could insert my Rane EQ in WC's room, and show easily how the EQ makes the sound more brilliant than a direct connection without it. Even though the added circuitry of the EQ is certainly less transparent than the direct connection without it, the effect of judicious EQ overwhelms its slight lack of transparency. I could also show more brilliance with the Rane EQ than with the more transparent Christine but without EQ.
I could also use the EQ to make the Alexia 2 please me much more than the 20.7 (my favorite speaker on the videos) without EQ. The Alexia 2 is so good, and little behind the 20.7 for what I like, that I am certain of this, because there is much more benefit from using the EQ than switching between the 20.7 and Alexia 2. With the 13A, which I find significantly inferior to the other speakers, I am not so sure I could use the EQ to make the overall sound superior.
If anyone thinks that I am doing drastic things to create totally artificial sounds like hyped up disco recordings, I can say all it takes is relatively small boosts or dips to show what I have described. In a blindfold test, I could show most listeners that I can provide extra detail and still keep the overall sound natural. They would prefer the sound with the EQ in the system.
Also, carey1110 mentioned that people who listened to the Dag preamp with the EQ engaged preferred it to the Dag without the EQ.
On to the next theory about whether an extra preamp stage is needed. I just listened to the latest video with the Christine preamp in play. Going back and forth with the song, Baby I love your way, they are very close. The earlier video without the preamp is recorded perhaps 1 notch louder than with Christine. I can't say I have matched SPL's properly, so at this time I can't say which I prefer. The brilliance is about equal on both. The Christine I found superbly transparent in earlier comparison videos, so it makes sense that I can't come to a conclusion. Sometimes I find the Christine more detailed, and other times I find direct more detailed.
But let's suppose that a certain preamp makes the sound more detailed than without the preamp, in an apparent refutation of my commandment to avoid unnecessary circuitry. How could this be? Two possibilities. One, there is a more favorable impedance match with the preamp added in. Second, the preamp may be functioning like a subtle EQ which favors HF.
I could insert my Rane EQ in WC's room, and show easily how the EQ makes the sound more brilliant than a direct connection without it. Even though the added circuitry of the EQ is certainly less transparent than the direct connection without it, the effect of judicious EQ overwhelms its slight lack of transparency. I could also show more brilliance with the Rane EQ than with the more transparent Christine but without EQ.
I could also use the EQ to make the Alexia 2 please me much more than the 20.7 (my favorite speaker on the videos) without EQ. The Alexia 2 is so good, and little behind the 20.7 for what I like, that I am certain of this, because there is much more benefit from using the EQ than switching between the 20.7 and Alexia 2. With the 13A, which I find significantly inferior to the other speakers, I am not so sure I could use the EQ to make the overall sound superior.
If anyone thinks that I am doing drastic things to create totally artificial sounds like hyped up disco recordings, I can say all it takes is relatively small boosts or dips to show what I have described. In a blindfold test, I could show most listeners that I can provide extra detail and still keep the overall sound natural. They would prefer the sound with the EQ in the system.
Also, carey1110 mentioned that people who listened to the Dag preamp with the EQ engaged preferred it to the Dag without the EQ.