Give me a reason NOT to do this

[manisandher]

with Magico Q5 or Q3...You will not hear this fine resolution with any other speaker (except YG Acoustics).

And except the Von Schweikert VR-9SE  :

http://www.stereotimes.com/showreport05cespage6.shtml

Ah but none of these can produce a 1KHz square wave like an electrostatic can. Electrostatics still remain the cleanest speakers I have heard...

BUT... they're a right royal pain in the ass to live with.

Mani.

[christoffe01]

Dartzeel, Soulution or any other amp / equipment

Hi Mani,

please see

http://www.dartzeel.com/PDF_Files/NHB108_HiFiPlus_Iss_41_for_web.pdf

Try to get the Soulution 710 or any other amp for a test into your listening room for one day and then decide. This is the only way to avoid a false investment.

An amplifier with the value of the Soulution 710 is a lifetime investment !!!


joachim

[christoffe01]

Ah but none of these can produce a 1KHz square wave like an electrostatic can.
Mani.

Hi Mani,

now we are in the academic circle.

We are listening to reproduced music. Measurements can't replace listening sessions at home.

I know that Quad owners likes the typical sound over all and that is ok. But in the meantime there was a certain evolution in speaker, crossover and driver design. See the new drivers by YG Acoustics, CNC machined out of a full metal aluminium block. Unbelievable!!!

Everything depends on the component which you like most.
If you like the Quads, then you have to build the system around the speakers. If you like the sound of tube amps then you have to build the system ............... .

My request, please test the Soulution 710 at your home. I would like to read your opinion, which would be interesting, because we read the reviews from HiFi magazines until now only.

Joachim

[juanpmar]

Ah but none of these can produce a 1KHz square wave like an electrostatic can. Electrostatics still remain the cleanest speakers I have heard...

BUT... they're a right royal pain in the ass to live with.

Mani.

Well, all that I can say on this regard is that I lived for around four years with the big electrostatics SoundLab A-1. Of course the sound was very clear and big but in my experience it was a little diffuse and a little too big. I had them in a room of 70 square meters.
When I changed to a smaller apartment in downtown I couldn´t take with me the A-1 and then I looked for the same clarity and soundstage but in a more appropriate size. What I found was the Von Schweikert VR-9SE and what I can say is that they have at least the same clarity than the A-1 but with much more precision in the delimitation of the sound images which in my opinion contributes to give a sensation of even more clarity. The soundstage is also huge and I can see here some similarities with an electrostatic speaker because of the way this VR-9SE are built with a rear ribbon following the principle of what Von Schweikert calls ACOUSTIC INVERSE REPLICATION: 
Additional research led to my further discovery that recording microphones encode the musical signal with their overlaying pickup response patterns. After making a series of recordings, using several different microphones, it was obvious during playback that the mics not only had tonal differences related to frequency response errors, but also created different types of imaging patterns. The perception of depth and space was not only dependent on the recording environment and mic placement, but also on the mic's off-axis polar response. For this reason, I decided to engineer an adjustable ambience retrieval system radiating from the rear of the VR speakers, in able to recreate the space and depth heard in the concert hall when the spaced omni method of recording is used.
 Thus, a correctly designed speaker system should project the inverse of the mic signal, acting as a decoder to translate the original sound field. I have termed my design for this decoding as Inverse Acoustic Replication, and the Virtual Reality series of designs was developed from several important concepts related to microphone pick-up patterns. These concepts are based on the consistent phase/frequency relationships in the polar response pattern of the mics, which was later reverse engineered into the VR speaker systems.

For the ones interested I recommend to read the complete article:Speaker Design Theory by Albert Von Schweikert (see beneath the VR-9SE Specifications): http://www.vonschweikert.com/techspecs/5.php

At the end, and in my humble experience, the electrostatics are not the last word in clarity, not always at least, of course it depends also of the rest of the system. Sound is also a personal thing and you can perceive it in a different way than me. If the Quads, or any other speakers, give you what you like, then they are the perfect speakers for you, and that´s what counts.

Juan

[christoffe01]

If the Quads, or any other speakers, give you what you like, then they are the perfect speakers for you, and that´s what counts.

Juan

That is 100% correct!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[manisandher]

We are listening to reproduced music. Measurements can't replace listening sessions at home.

Yes, I agree. Even though the Soulution is a private sale, the seller has agreed to bring it over to my place for me to try before I commit to buying it.

However, like many people here, I usually have to live with something for a while before I 'know' whether it's for me or not. So even a home demo for an hour or so isn't going to be totally conclusive.

Mani.

[manisandher]

... I lived for around four years with the big electrostatics SoundLab A-1. Of course the sound was very clear and big but in my experience it was a little diffuse and a little too big...

... At the end, and in my humble experience, the electrostatics are not the last word in clarity, not always at least, of course it depends also of the rest of the system.

Juan, I think this is where the genius of Peter (Walker, not St) comes in. He found a way to convert a 'large' panel speaker into a point source. Their sound, especially from the lower mids upwards, is absolutely pin sharp.

Mani.

[manisandher]

Ah but none of these can produce a 1KHz square wave like an electrostatic can.

Of course, this was said slightly tongue-in-cheek. However, there is a serious connotation.

PeterSt spends years on perfecting his DAC. He gets it to a point where it can pass through the signal totally unadulterated. Square waves are not converted to sine waves by the massive sigma-delta filtering of most other DACs. The output stage is massively fast. The recommendation is then to use ultra-fast amplifiers to preserve the signal. And then what do we do? We feed this amplified signal to speakers that haven't got a chance of replicating the signal exactly...

In fact, I'm convinced this is why sigma-delta DACs actually sound 'OK' to most people on the majority of systems. They are just doing to the signal what the speakers will do anyway - turn squares into sines. And what does this do to the sound?  Well, just listen to a sigma-delta DAC...

Furthermore, I'm convinced that the 'time domain' is far more important in audio than the 'frequency domain'. Is there another speaker that can match electrostatics here (see attachments)?

But look I agree with you all. If you have a pair of speakers that you like the sound of, then that's great.

Mani.

[PeterSt]

Wow Mani. Now you have just been ahead of me;
I am preparing a topic about these kind of graphs, but really ... lack of time.

Later ...
(but you are so right)

[Suteetat]

I like to add to this that Joachim has more experience than listening to Magico's on some show. So, FWIW in here, I think we can very well trust his help.

Peter


PS: Joachim, it seems offtopic (but it is not) ... what about your relocating ?

Yes, I am also very familiar with Magico quite a bit more than at show or showroom. Got Q3 in my living room for almost 2 months now

[Suteetat]

The most musical power amp is the Dartzeel NHB-108, but with 100W at 8 Ohms only. (favoured by many active musicians)

Hi Joachim, yes the Dartzeel still holds a lot of appeal for me. But it performed pretty badly on John Atkinson's bench, so I'm wondering whether it simply has a 'nice' distortion characteristic that makes it sound euphonic. If so, this isn't really the route I want to take... for now.

What I really want is to be able to hear the NOS1 with as little added by the amp and speakers as possible.

Mani.

Hmm... personally, I don't give much value to measurement per se. My Playback Design MPS-5 also did not measure well on JA's report but it sounds great. A great concert hall is a great concert hall because it has its unique attribute of sonic signature, not because it is close to a perfect anechoic chamber. PUt any great orchestra in there, you will still hear its sonic signature.  I would value stereo equipment sound quality as being life like, sounds great or whatever over a perfect measurement any day perosonally.

[Suteetat]

I've read similar comments from other people. I haven't heard that particular combo but did hear the Magicos being driven by a pair of Spectral amps at the Munich High End last year. And I can't say that I was particularly impressed by that combo either... but then again, I wasn't impressed by anything there!

Show environment is never ideal, unfortunately. I think any system that is capable of showing 30-40% of what it can do in an ideal environment at a show is already quite a feat.
Recently I went to a major hifi show in Hong Kong and I did not find any room that I like over my own listening room and there were plenty of big toys there, Wilson Alexandria, Rockport Arrakis, Avalon Time etc etc.
I heard Spectral with Magico V3 in a good environment that was spectacular.

I think I know what you mean. When I listen to a real instrument, I want to be able to 'hear' the size of the instrument being played. Too often, instruments like violins sound as if the strings have been placed on 2D MDF, rather than a gorgeous 3D waxed body.

I think this is where analog still trumps digital in spades. You get this nice 3D body of the instrument so easily. Now, it is unlikely that analog has more resolution than digital especially high rez or DSD. Heck, I could hear this even on vinyl that was transferred from digital recording more so than CD itself. My theory is that this is a part of analog distortion that somehow just give a more realistic and pleasing presentation. True or false, I would not really know but I'll take it

BUT... ultimately, I'd rather have a 'thin' sound with 'accurate' timing and touch than a 'blossomed-out' sound with just beautiful harmonics - I mean, I'd rather listen to Keith Jarrett playing a cheap stand-up than me playing a Steinway!

Mani.

Heh heh, this is one of those thing. One man's perfect amount of blossom is another man's way too thin and lean.
One man's perfect bloom is another man's bloated and overly warm. Me.... I prefer Kissin on a nice big Steinway rather than myself on a little upright

[manisandher]

I would value stereo equipment sound quality as being life like, sounds great or whatever over a perfect measurement any day perosonally.

Yes, ultimately me too.

However, right here, right now, I want to hear the specific character of the NOS1, with as little changed as possible. Once I've got this done, if the sound doesn't suit me, then I'll 'tune' it to something that does.

"You take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes."

I'm taking the red pill - I want to hear how deep the NOS1 rabbit-hole goes...

Mani.

[PeterSt]

My view (if not known by long) :

First of all, measurement tells all. Yes, I know look like a stupid engineer without thinking, but mind you, ever back I was not like this. I'm not sure I was from the leage "a nice tube sound will improve the sound", and all I know is that I ever hunted for "being able to measure". Even the stuff which can't be measured, I made measureable. Not only for sports, but merely because it would be non-sense not being able to measure what we hear/perceive.

Next thing, is that I *know* that when things measure better, sound will improve. It *will*. But this is a most dangerous thing.  I mean, if I measure one device and that measures better than yesterday (because of some tweak, whatever) it is not said at all that the whole system now performs better. Read back on Mani's post with the little graphs. That really tells it all. Thus, improve on the impulse response on one side, and tear up your speakers diaphragms on the other (so to speak). That did NOT turn out for being the better (solution).

For this reason the real moral is to have the reference. And here again Mani hits the hammer on the nail, because he knows that at least the NOS1 is such a reference device. I know that too, and only if one doesn't trust that things will become more difficult.

By now I know that my amps (the GainClones) are a reference just the same. This is 200% important, because now all what's left is the speakers (ok, assuming the software does a nice job as well, and which I *do* assume these days).
While there's now only one part left in the chain, it is theoretically the most easy to improve the chain, because it's only about the speakers. Not that I'm working on that though ...

I can't emphasize enough that everone who is using a preamp or even single resistor to attenuate the volume CAN NOT know what he is talking about. He may think he knows, but all he does is implying measurement results which WILL look totally wrong. What's the bet ? 1000 ? 10000 ? I am ready for it.
Besides that you will loose the bet, you will be the most sad that you thought you were listening to a fine system, while actually you were listening to a bunch of filters, them masking all the other stuff being wrong. The test is so easy : take out your preamp and notice that the sound gets worse. In that case, it *is* worse, and something *is* wrong.

But then, don't even attempt with an OS DAC. You really won't know what you will be listening to.
Ok, I will attach two graphs, because I made the graphs anyway. No real text. Not yet.

Both graphs are from the same playback file. Same scales (and both cover 5ms of music data, though they don't start both at the 0ms point which does not matter).

Look at the mouse pointer in the second graph which is key to the distortion in the first. Notice that there are two more of these sneaky points (the first graph shows 4 of them in total).

I don't need to ask you which is which, and hopefully I also don't need to ask you which one you'd prefer for listening. But I can guarantee you (by 100%) that any DAC not being the NOS1 will let you listen to the graph NOT of your choice. That bet too is on.
While this is the analogue output from the DAC, I just could have taken it from the LS outputs from the amps. It most probably will look the same, although I never tried it. Point is, when the slew rate of the amp is too low, very nasty things will happen, up to a an almost flat line. Well, looking at the graph you do NOT prefer, that might just as well work out for the better, right ?

Now, let loose your imagination on this.
I have prepared dozens more of these graphs. For later ...

Peter

[christoffe01]

I would value stereo equipment sound quality as being life like, sounds great or whatever over a perfect measurement any day perosonally.

The ROOM is the thing!!!!!!!!!!!

Room acoustics and placement of the speakers is the top priority and have the most effective result.

I visited a highend freak with the best McIntosh equipment you can think of. His room has the dimensions 5m x 5m and hard walls all around. Right side glass walls, back side a board with glass doors etc.
The sound was horrible, no focus, booming bass etc.

With a very good acoustic you can save a hell of money in hardware.