Which
analog rig?
October
28, 2011
Marc,
I've
written to you on previous occasions and found your insights/impressions very helpful. I
hope you might be able to provide me with more of the same regarding the sound of two
analog combos: the TW-Acustic Raven / Graham Phantom II / Dynavector XV-1s, and the Basis
Signature / Vector 4 / Dynavector XV-1s. I currently own the Dynavector XV-1s cartridge,
but I am looking to move from my old VPI HW-19 Mk 3 'table to either a Raven One or Basis
Signature 2200. I listen almost exclusively to classical music, so it is important for me
to have a turntable that can resolve low-level detail and provide the kind of presence
that illuminates instruments at the rear of the soundstage. Perhaps I like a bit closer or
more up-front perspective on the orchestra, while retaining a sense of layered depth. I
also favor a sound that approaches what I usually hear live in the concert hall; that is,
non-fatiguing, with instrumental contours sounding a bit more rounded rather than sharp or
excessively tight, and a presentation with an easy, natural flow. That's mainly it!
Jeff
Lee
I can't give you much feedback on Basis products -- I've never used a Basis
turntable or tonearm in my system. I have heard both at shows, and in the past they've
been part of very good demo systems. I will say that I'm somewhat suspect of turntables
that use acrylic heavily, as they seem to share a sonic signature that's more about
quickness and sharp transients than tonal color and musical flow.
Of
course, the TW-Acustic turntables use no acrylic. Instead, their plinths and platters are
made of a dense proprietary composite material that, to my ears, has very good sonic
properties. I have used a Raven AC with a Graham tonearm for a few years and love it. It
presents music with a good ratio of weight to speed, and this meshes well with the
Dynavector XV-1s, which I also use. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that this 'table,
'arm and cartridge are a synergistic combination. It presents a robust musical picture
that would satisfy your desire for instrumental color and rounded images, although your
phono stage will also have influence here. -Marc Mickelson
Ranking
the M1.2s
October
26, 2011
Marc,
A
follow-up question on your top-five amp list. I was surprised to see that there is no
mention of your long-term reference, the Lamm M1.2 Reference. Does this mean that you feel
their sound is outdated by more modern designs as the ones you mentioned?
Thimios
Bouloutas
No,
I don't think the sound of the M1.2s is "outdated." The amps continue to be my
reviewing reference. My informal list, as compiled in my
review of the Atma-Sphere MA-2 Mk 3.1 monoblocks, collects an arbitrary number of
amps, with the five I've limited myself to (Convergent Audio Technology JL2 Signature Mk 2
stereo amp, Lamm ML3 Signature monoblocks, Atma-Sphere MA-2 Mk 3.1 monoblocks, Luxman
B-1000F monoblocks, Ayre MX-R monoblocks) being the very best of those I've heard. If the
list were expanded to ten, for instance, the Lamm M1.2s, would be on it. By the way,
Vladimir Lamm would agree with my ranking of his amps, as he also considers the ML3
Signature the best amp he makes.
What
may complicate the list -- possibly requiring that some additions and omissions be made --
is if I get to hear the Audio Research Reference 250, CAT Statement, and VTL Siegfried
monoblocks in my system. All are very promising amplifiers. -Marc Mickelson
David
Gilmour's "greatness"
October
24, 2011
Marc,
From
your Rocky Mountain Audio Fest report: "This demo was a potent reminder of
how innovative and expertly constructed this music was -- and that David Gilmour's
greatness cannot be overestimated." Although Gilmour was an unquestionably
talented songwriter and guitarist, I would question whether he achieved
"greatness." It was only within the context of
his collaborations with Roger Waters, the principle songwriter and leader of
Pink Floyd, that Gilmour achieved anything approaching greatness. Waters' genius and
vision fueled Floyd, with Gilmour playing the role as an exceptionally talented
contributor. Waters composed nearly all of Floyd’s music and lyrics, with some
minor contribution from Gilmour. “Shine On You Crazy Diamond,” Floyd's
tribute to former band member Syd Barrett (another amazingly creative thinker), is a good
case in point. We certainly hear Gilmour’s exceptional prowess as a lead guitarist on
"Shine On. . . ," but as was the case for most of Floyd's music, Waters
compositionally led this song, with contribution on some sections from Glimour and Richard
Wright. On The Wall, Waters wrote most of the songs, with Gilmour sharing credit
only on "Comfortably Numb," "Run Like Hell," and "Young
Lust." "Comfortably Numb" is a great example of how Gilmour only
achieved near-greatness when collaborating with Waters. Gilmour wrote the music for
"Comfortably Numb," Waters the lyrics. It's a great song, and it showcases
Gilmour’s ability as a songwriter. It also contains one of Gilmour’s most
musically beguiling guitar solos. But this song is so hauntingly beautiful because of the
counterpoint between Waters and Gilmour -- Gilmour’s music paired with Waters' dark
lyrics. The counterpoint continues on the recorded performance; Waters' voice a neurotic,
angst-ridden contrast to Gilmour's soothing vocal style; Gilmour singing the chorus
("There is no pain / you are receding. . ."), Waters the verse ("...just a
little pinprick / there will be no more (screams) ahhhhhh"). By The Final Cut,
Waters was listed as the sole composer. Indeed, the album was subtitled: "A requiem
for the post-war dream by Roger Waters, performed by Pink Floyd."
My respect for Gilmour was greatly diminished when he took on the
Pink Floyd name sans Waters (one of four founding members of Pink Floyd along with Syd
Barrett, Nick Mason, and Richard Wright). Waters left the band believing that Floyd had
run its creative course. He had also become disillusioned with Gilmour, contending that he
was driven more by ambition than by artistic integrity. Waters initiated a lawsuit against
Gilmour and the band in attempt to, among other things, stop them from using the name Pink
Floyd. Waters saw Gilmour as a creative hijacker, arguing that he was not an original
member of Pink Floyd. With an arrogance that typified Waters, he reasoned that
without him as a member, the band was no longer Pink Floyd. He was Pink Floyd.
Literally. He pointed out that the character “Pink” central to the theme album The
Wall was autobiographically based on Waters. It was during this post-Waters,
pseudo-Floyd era that it became apparent to me that Gilmour was disingenuous and
opportunistic, exploiting the equity of his old band's name for his own gain, and in the
process implicitly attributing to himself Water's creative energy. It is perhaps because
of Gilmour's leading role in the post-Waters Floyd that Waters' greatness (and Waters was
indeed great) seems to be consistently underestimated -- if not overlooked. In some
circles, it was assumed that Waters was dispensable. In reality, in its live
performances, Floyd had become a cover band performing music Waters either composed or
co-composed. Then came the Pink Floyd albums with musical direction now left to Gilmour.
Tom Graves in Rolling Stone perhaps put it best: “. . . ironically
enough, [the new Pink Floyd under Gilmour] seems to cry out for someone with an overriding
zeal and passion -- in short, a nettlesome, overbearing visionary like Roger Waters.”
To be fair, Waters also struggled as he searched for new creative
direction outside the confines of Pink Floyd. His first two solo albums, Pros and Cons
of Hitch Hiking and Radio K.A.O.S., were strange and idiosyncratic at best. But
it finally came together for him on Amused to Death, an album that reached a level
of greatness equal to any in the pantheon of Floyd music.
John Giolas
You point out (without stating it)
that I should have qualified my statement by saying "Gilmour's greatness as a
guitarist
cannot be
overestimated. . . ." This is, in truth, what I meant. Sorry for being unclear. He
has some amazing solos on Wish You Were Here -- amazing for the slow, restrained
way they build tension and then release it. -Marc Mickelson
Ranking
the Reference 250s
October
20, 2011
Marc,
Where
would you place the Audio Research Reference 250 in the hierarchy of the best tube amps
you have heard, such as with the Atma-Sphere MA-2 Mk 3.1?
Tracy
Hill
As I was writing the
review of the Atma-Sphere MA-2 Mk 3.1s, I honestly wondered how long it would take to
get a question about the Audio Research Reference 250s. Your message came in about a half
hour after the review went live.
As
I noted in my
blog on the Reference 250s, I heard the amps at Audio Research, so how exactly they
would fare versus my amplifier "top five" list, all of which I've heard in my
system, is guesswork at best. So I will refrain from speculating, other than to say that
the Audio Research amps are very strong contenders. I've discussed writing about the
Reference 250s with the people at Audio Research, so I may be able to answer your question
definitively at some point. Sorry for not being able to do so right now. -Marc
Mickelson
GPA
and SRA
October
12, 2011
Marc,
Well,
it started several years back, doctor -- say, seven or eight years ago, when I stumbled on
an ad in the back of an old Stereophile magazine. It was for a
futuristic-looking, acrylic-and-metal-clad, science-laden equipment rack that had all the
glitz and shine of a high-end Krell amp. I was captivated, and so my research began. I
read everything that I could about vibration isolation and the various types of vibrations
that could significantly diminish the performance of the audio gear I was investing so
much money in acquiring. There were floor-borne vibrations, air-borne vibrations,
intra-equipment and inter-equipment vibrations. I was warned that without a proper
equipment rack that isolated my electronics, I'd never hear the music as it was intended
to be heard.
After
much adieu and great trepidation, I parted with a few thousand dollars to purchase a Grand
Prix Audio (GPA) Monaco rack. Oh, yes, it was revolutionary. It gave me a clearer look
into the music. GPA was all I knew then, but was this the best rack offered? Did I make a
hasty decision? Is there another rack manufacturer that I'd overlooked? Aren't we all
plagued by these questions in this hobby of ours, which is plagued with snake-oil
salesmen?
But
then, after having been piqued by previous correspondence, I decided to scour the Internet
to find all of your reviews, and you sing the praises of Silent Running Audio (SRA)
products. Ignorance is truly bliss, but, alas, the horror. In all the reading, I
discover that Sorbothane deteriorates over time, ensuring the return of your equipment to
the vibration hell from whence it was delivered. On the other hand, SRA has a pad under
the shelves that can withstand temperature swings like those in the Northeast for up to
200 years.
So
now I'm a prisoner of this new knowledge and have returned to seek your help, doctor. Have
you any experience with GPA? If so, what are your opinions regarding GPA versus the SRA
offerings?
Ray
Hendrickson
My experience with Gran Prix Audio comes much the way yours does with Silent
Running Audio: secondhand and through the various materials I've read. I have seen Gran
Prix Audio products at CES and heard systems in which they were used, but it was
impossible to speculate on their contributions. There is real science behind GPA products,
and I admire that, but unfortunately I can't say anything substantive about their
performance.
On
the other hand, I have a great deal of firsthand experience with Silent Running Audio
products and think they are thoroughly state of the art. I honestly can't imagine my
system without them, so profound is their contribution to the sonic outcome, especially
since I've become more engrossed in analog. To further pique your interest, we'll be
publishing a review of SRA's newest rack, the lower-priced Scuttle, very soon, so you'll
get to find out what another TAB writer thinks about SRA and its products.
-Marc Mickelson
45s
worth it?
October
6, 2011
Marc,
I
moved my racks around a few months ago, and this has enabled me to get to my turntable
easier, and I am now playing more records than ever before. I have been playing only 33s
on my 'table, but I can play 45s if I want to. The spindle has two notches -- one for 33
and one for 45. I only need to move the drive string to the larger notch to play 45s. I
have yet to try this, however. What are your thoughts on 45rpm LPs available? Do they
sound better than 33s?
Mike
Doukas
There's
an important technical advantage to the 45rpm speed. Each portion of groove has to hold
less information when the record is spinning faster, resulting in better sound. There is
also the matter of the groove's width. At 45rpm, an LP generally has more room, as the
program is limited to around 12 minutes, and the mastering engineer can use that space to
produce a record that's truer to the sound of the master tape, especially the bass.
The
45s from Music Matters, Analogue Productions and Original Recordings Group are created
with extreme care at every step, including tracking down the very best source tape.
Because of this, as well as the technical advantages and care at the time of pressing,
these records are state of the art and really the highest-fidelity way to hear music here
and now. Of course, all of this means a higher price as well -- $50 to $60 -- but many
audiophiles believe that the end product is worth the extra cost. -Marc Mickelson
Tubes
vs. solid state for guitarists
October
3, 2011
Chris,
Here's
an interesting question from my son, who is studying guitar. Many guitar players use tube
amps; also, of course, many use solid-state amps. Wouldn't a musician playing live prefer
solid state in the event that a tube blows in the middle of, say the solo in
"Comfortably Numb"? What does one do? I would think tubes may be the choice for
a studio-recording's controlled environment, but live I would think most artists would go
solid state. Any thoughts?
Sheldon
Simon
I
have been playing plugged in and out for many, many years and have never lost a tube and
can't think of an instance where a friend has either. Guitar amps are a fairly benevolent
environment for tubes, it seems, and I really don't think failure is a consideration. Old
tubes just get better before fading gently away. Having said that, it is of course worth
having a couple of replacements in your kit bag.
The
much more important point is the difference in sound quality between tube and solid-state
guitar amps. Obviously this is personal, but for me there is no comparison. I'll take
tubes all day, every day. In an audio system, you might want a completely neutral,
colorless amp, but in a guitar system you want completely the opposite. Tube amps have a
soft, warm clipping sound and plenty of tone and sustain. Solid-state amps have gotten
better, but I only use them as practice amps. When you take them into clipping and
distortion they have a nasty, square-wave-type edgy distortion that tires listeners very
quickly. Of course, if you are a merciless thrash-metal axeman, you like to make ears
bleed.
So,
for what it is worth, go tube and let the solos flow. -Chris Thomas
Speaker-amp interface
October
1, 2011
Marc,
I
am writing because I have a technical question that was sparked based on some recent
threads that appeared in online discussion forums. The threads touched on the advantages
of using high-current amps for certain types of speakers. This reminded of a white paper that Ralph Karsten of Atma-Sphere wrote some time back
about the so-called Power Paradigm versus the Voltage Paradigm.
So
here's my question. I own Paradigm Signature S8 v2 speakers. My electronic gear includes
an Audio Research Reference 5 preamp and Audio Research VS115 amp. Do you think that tube
amps in general and my VS115 in particular are a good, bad or neutral amp to match with
the Signature S8s? To help with your answer, I am attaching a link to some S8 test results that report on impedance and phase
across the frequency range. I realize that these values vary quite a bit over the
frequency range for pretty much all speakers for technical reasons relating to the
crossover attributes, back EMF, cabinet resonance and so forth. But in the case of the
S8s, its impedance and phase graphs look like roller coasters.
For
what it's worth, to my ears, my system sounds great. No apparent distortion, clipping or
strain that I can hear. But what do I know? Maybe ignorance is bliss. I was thinking about
hooking up my recently factory-refurbished Crown Series II D150A amp for fun to hear how
solid-state amplification sounds, but I realized that my Reference 5 and VS115 are
balanced and I don't have the correct cables to use the Crown amp.
So,
bottom line, what do you think? I think my question obviously has relevance and
application for pretty much all amp/speaker matches.
Bruce
Feinstein
First,
regarding the measurements you cite, while they do indicate something about the speakers
and subwoofer measured, they aren't particularly useful, because they were taken in room,
not in an anechoic chamber or even under quasi-anechoic conditions. They even undercut
themselves by mentioning the existence of "room effects" without giving any
indication of their severity or where they might occur. In this case, you literally can't
separate the speakers from the effect of the room in which they were measured, so you
can't tell exactly what the speakers are doing. These measurements are a curiosity and
hardly definitive.
I
am very familiar with Ralph Karsten's paper on the Power and Voltage Paradigms. I've read
it closely and even quoted from it in the past. Additionally, I'm reviewing Atma-Sphere
amps right now. For your purposes, however, the relationship between speaker impedance and
amplifier output is pertinent. Speakers that present a low-impedance load need an
amplifier with a low output impedance, so the combination of the two products doesn't
create a sonic outcome that's seriously colored. Regarding current, the issue here is the
impedance and the phase angle of the impedance plot. Low-impedance speakers with a steep
phase angle theoretically require a high-current amplifier.
Theoretically. I think you actually answer your own
question with "to my ears, my system sounds great." Ralph Karsten answers it as
well with the distinction he makes between the Voltage and Power Paradigms. Your Audio
Research amp has the power output and low impedance that make it suitable for use with
most speakers, and not surprisingly your Paradigm Signature S8s. When it comes to audio, I
don't trust what I see (in measurements, that is) over what I hear, and I likewise don't
trust anyone who does. There are plenty of audiophiles (and, sadly, audio reviewers) who,
at best, listen to sound, not music. They are seriously misguided, because no one buys
speakers in order to admire their measurements. If you like what you hear, this matters
over and above what any measurements or theories on what's "proper" seem to
indicate. -Marc Mickelson
