Jay,I enjoy your commentary and offerings.It would be very helpful if your selection of music include acoustic non processed. It is hard to judge music when it is not known what the instrument or voice really sounds like.
Thanks,Mike
Thanks,Mike
My Long List of Amplifiers and My Personal Review of Each!
psnyder149, Let's discuss your statements, "I begin this longwinded post (Ron, you can just ignore it!) by addressing a presumption that brightness equates with detail. This is a false equivalency. What artificially high brightness sometimes does is make the details more apparent, it does not create them." Later, "Amp 2 is both less bright and more detailed." There is some truth and falsehood in the above. Yes, we agree that brightness makes the details more apparent. (I am not advocating CREATING details, because that is distortion not present in the recording). It means nearly the same thing to say that brightness equates with detail. The 2 statements ARE equivalent, but of course other factors are involved in overall detail perception. See my last paragraph. In musical terms, brighter components call more attention to higher freq, so the higher freq overtones of any instrument and voice are revealed more. The less bright component usually calls attention more to lower freq, because the HF overtones are lessened. This may happen with midrange dominant material like voices. Less HF may be more pleasing to some people because the beauty of the midrange stands out. Revealing more HF takes attention away from the midrange, so the midrange seems less prominent. That's why the component which is less bright may seem to have more midrange detail which is preferred by some. An obvious gross illustration is if a speaker tweeter is blown. There is little HF, so all you get is midrange and bass. But it is obvious that the speaker with the blown tweeter is missing the HF overtones which are a part of the natural sound of any instrument. It is important to reveal all the HF overtones to fully appreciate any instrument. The component that reveals less HF overtones is at a disadvantage, unless there are other factors as discussed in my next paragraph. I will give an example of an experience I had many years ago that you might use as an illustration of your viewpoint. I had the Mission 770, a midsized floor standing dynamic speaker. It was bright and I liked it. I also had Stax SRX mk III electrostatic headphones. The tonal balance of this headphone on my head was less bright and balanced more to lower freq. Matching volumes, the Stax was far more detailed and musically natural than the dynamic 770 speaker. But that was mainly applicable to the midrange and lower freq. With HF instruments, it was a toss up between the 770 and Stax. Extreme HF like triangles were more lifelike on the 770, whereas upper midrange material like trumpets were better on the Stax. But the reason that the Stax overall was superior to the brighter 770 was that the Stax was a full range electrostatic which is far superior to the dynamic driver principle of the 770. Only in the dynamic tweeter was there good resolution perhaps comparable to the Stax in HF. But if I drove either the 770 or the Stax with a brighter amp, I got better clarity and detail in all freq, with more appreciation of the full spectrum of the tone of all instruments. More later regarding the shootout. |
btw - I had my friend come over early (we watched a movie tonight) so that I could play Jay's third demo. After listening to the whole song with the first amp, it took him about 30 seconds into (if that) hearing the Class A amp to identify it (PC running JRiver into my powered Vanatoo Audio Transparent One Encores which has a 24/96 DAC fed by a WyWires silver USB cable - https://wywires.com/collections/digital-cables/products/litespd-usb-cable-a-b?variant=50095529940) and he could clearly hear what it did better (I didn't have any doubts). Viber many moons ago I had Mission 780s (- https://www.stereophile.com/content/mission-system-mission-780-argonaut-loudspeaker) when they were a current model. When I was no longer using them, I brought them over to my brothers house to use as rear surrounds and it worked well in his room for that purpose. |
I agree. I thought amp 2 was much more detailed and had much better clarity than amp 1. I said so before the reveal with specific reference to piano chords or any time music got complicated. Amp 1 didn’t have the detail or clarity there. Fell apart. WC confirmed using same words I did. I even offered a reason the YT poll might have been closer than necessary (music selections too simple). Amp 1 was brighter but this was a negative because it made it less authentic. For someone who likes unnatural brightness I could see why they prefer amp 1. That said I didn’t think amp 1 was excessively bright in a profound way, but noticeable and edgy in a distracting and unnatural way to some extent. I’m not going to rip on amp 1 too much. It was a David/ Goliath matchup that ended predictably. I really want to hear if WC thought it could compete with any bottom tier amps. McIntosh maybe? |