Axpona 2016 Show Report

[PaulF70]

My wife & I made the short trek down to the northern Chi burbs to check out Axpona for a day, as we did last year (with 16-month-old Anastasia in tow again).  Here's my little report.

I had a very targeted list of about a dozen rooms to visit, though, of course, I popped into some others.

The short story is that I did not find a thing - with one exception (noted below) - to impress me enough to think it might rival my own system.  (This does not mean nothing else was better, but does mean that nothing else sanely priced was better - or even as good.)

Room descriptions below are in no/little particular order.

Classic Audio Reproduction/Atma-Sphere

In one of the large ballrooms were the large, horn-loaded, field-coil-driver CAR speakers driven by A-S OTL amps and other gear.  As with last gear, I was completely and totally unimpressed with this mega-buck system (I think the speakers are at least $40K).  Thin sound, with no mid-bass weight and little texture.  Yes, there was purity in spades, but it was a completely amusical sound (Pam agreed, with no foreknowledge or prompting on my part).

mbl

mbl was not on my list but since they were showing their massive, top-line omni speakers and electronics I had pop in.  And stay for a while we did - the sound was first-rate, despite the fact that they were playing extremely cr*ppy pop music.  Michael Jackson - seriously.  And, Frankie Goes to Hollywood's Relax - on reel-to-reel!  I have to admit, that track was completely awesome on this system.  That $300K+ (WAG) system had no flaws.  (Actually, it probably did.  I kind of doubt those wildly inefficient speakers could reveal all the nuance and decays of acoustic instruments - what really matters, to me anyway.  We didn't get to hear any there.)

Martin Logan/McIntosh

This was another pop-in.  I was impressed by some vocals early on, but a long audition (with one of my CDs, Miles' Four & More), revealed classic hi-fi brightness and lack of texture.  Of course, this could have been solely the fault of the McIntosh DAC they were running - who knows.

This brings me to a tangent which will be explored more fully below: There were many rooms in which the digital source was clearly or likely holding back the system (I can only say "likely" when said room did not also have an analog source for comparison).  At home, my Phasure NOS1A DAC has taken digital to a level previously not experienced in my system, and experienced at shows by nothing less than a $70,000 dcs stack.

Doshi/Wilson

Last year Wilson speakers impressed me so much (with both Doshi and D'Agostino electronics) that I went and bought a pair of (brand-new, re-certified) Sophia IIs.  I ended up selling them as they require too much power to do what they can do and no amp with that kind of power and with the nuance of low-power SE amps exists - at any sane price, anyway.  But - in terms of "conventional", dynamic speakers, the (newer) Wilsons actually are impressive - despite being the very epitome of "hifi sound" for some (they're really not).

This year, Paragon (the Michigan dealer from which I bought my speakers) was again showing with Doshi, with tape and digital (dcs) sources.  After plopping down I thought it was the reel-to-reel playing, but then realized it was the dcs stack - make no mistake, that $70,000 pile of boxes can make music on-par with anything.

Doshi is always a really nice guy too, and builds great gear.

Many rooms with YG, Sonus Faber, and numerous other low/mid-efficiency boxed speakers

This would be pretty much the majority of rooms at the show.  They all suffered more or less from the same weaknesses:

- Lack of speed (driver mass too high) - this is the biggest issue for me
- Fat and/or muddy bass & mid-bass
- Dynamic homogenization (especially in the bass)
- Lack of coherence (very common)

Unfortunately, msb, who makes some great resistor-ladder DACs (so I read), was using YG speakers, and I found their room completely pedestrian.

Avantgarde

Avantgarde had two rooms, one with the Uno and one with the Zero.  We spent a good amount of time in the first room.

I owned Trios so I know what the AV speakers are capable of, and recognized the house sound immediately: Extremely smooth, "billowy", never harsh, but a bit diffuse (definitely no point source here).  The Uno, with dynamics bass (which is powered) extending up pretty high, did display some discontinuity in dynamics between it (the bass) and the far more sensitive horns, but integration overall was surprisingly good.  Very musical, but these speakers are very expensive - $35,000.  (Gee, I remember when even the Duo was under $20K new!)

Audio Note UK

I have loved the AN room at every show I've ever been to, because the sound is always great, whether they're playing digital or vinyl and whether they have a $20,000 or $200,000 system.  Yes, detail levels will vary, but whatever errors exist are virtually always of omission and the whole is always extremely musical.

This year they were showing some new speakers with a new form-factor (non-wide baffles) and a new EL34 integrated with built-in DAC.  This was a decidedly low-end (for AN) system, but still sounded great, though clearly not reference-quality in any particular area of sonic dissection.

Highwater Sound

Jeff Catalano's room is another audio show constant for great sound.  His Horning speakers always sound incredible, driven by Tron (previous years) or NAT (this year).  And, of course, he has superb taste in music and only plays vinyl.

To nitpick those speakers, however, they do not have dynamic snap or coherence of an unimpeded Lowther (properly front and rear-loaded anyway).

The Surprise - LaHave/Berning

I wanted to check out a room (the only one, I think) running Berning electronics because they are, of course, first-rate.  The surprise was the speakers, made by "LaHave Audio", using a single Seas widebander in what the dealer (who's also the LaHave distributor) stated was some kind of unique loading. 

This room had just about everything - a total absence of electronic signature in the music, point-source coherency, paper-driver tone, and high-efficiency micro and macro dynamics.  I was extremely impressed, and came back a 2nd time to play my vinyl copy of Hubbard's First Light. 

If there was one room in the entire show I might take over my system, it would have been this one - but, to be honest, after listening upon returning home I'm virtually certain it was not quite as good.

Because I had never heard of these speakers (and I thought I'd heard of everything) I did some searching online at home - there is, surprisingly, next to nothing about them on the web, though there is another speaker manufacturer of the same name.  However, I did discover this: Michael Fremer picked this room as his favorite of the show last year!  So, apparently I really was on to something there.

Epilogue (My System)

Upon returning home, I, of course, sat down to listen, after letting my amp warm up for 30 minutes (everything else is always on). 

My system consists of the following:

- Analog Source: Rega RP8/Shelter 501/EAR MC-4 SUT/Graham Slee Reflex M Phono Preamp
- Digital Source: Phasure NOS1A DAC
- Linestage: Django AVC
- Amplifier: First Watt F2J
- Speakers: Beauhorn Virtuoso with Lowther DX-4 drivers, and twin subs

I'm going to say a few words here about my new DAC, the Phasure.  This thing is pretty remarkable. 

Over the past couple years, I've gotten accustomed to really good digital, especially with the Auralic Vega.  That is a really impressive piece, that presents even redbook recordings with very vivid tonal colors and dynamics that escape almost every DAC.  It plays DSD especially wonderfully (which is actually a bummer since there is so little material on DSD).

However, there was still no doubt that, especially for what I listen to most - 40s-60s un-amplified jazz - vinyl was generally superior, comparing commercial recordings especially.

I did not expect the Vega to be beaten any time soon, which is why I was surprised to have the Phasure leap beyond it in the areas of instrument separation and treble refinement - the two biggest areas where I find even really good digital to lag behind analog.  Most digital (again, even pretty good digital) has a sort-of homogenizing effect on micro-dynamics and instrument separation (probably related).  The NOS1A just sorts out instruments in a way that is much more akin to what vinyl does routinely, and it does this with redbook recordings.  I've only had it for a bit under a week now but it's got me completely captivated.

In fact, I had a very interesting "first" just last evening: For the first time ever - and probably by a long shot at that - I preferred a recording on redbook digital to the same recording on 45 RPM vinyl, with the latter being a very high-quality recording!  The record, one of my favorites, was Miles Davis' Sorcerer.  The vinyl (this is a superb recording) sounded just a tiny bit compressed and distorted in the bass in comparison, though that thought had never struck me before (I love this record).  The digital didn't have this weakness but, much more importantly, the midrange and treble were on-par with the vinyl.  No, of course, they didn't sound identical, but neither was one or the other necessarily superior.

In other words, the digital recording, free of typical digital weaknesses (that are so terribly amusical when present), brought to the forefront the (relatively mild) weaknesses of the analog medium.

For the first time ever, I can realistically see giving up the hassle of vinyl even without having recorded all my records (though I'll certainly finish that, if for no other reason than a lot of my jazz records are still and may never be available on digital, or in any decent digital recording).

It's surprising and heartening "news" (to me) that, after all, just maybe, many or maybe even most redbook recordings don't actually suck!  No, they've just never been played like they need to be.

And here's the thing: I have not yet tapped the full potential of the Phasure DAC.  Everyone agrees that for this DAC to shine it must be used with the corresponding XXHighEnd player - the two are a system, created by the same individual.  At present I am running it with HQPlayer, which is definitely an excellent player, however, with anything other than XX the DAC can only accept data upsampled to 384 Khz, while XX allows double that.  (With resistor-ladder DACs, of course, upsampling moves noise beyond the audio band and is necessary for best sound.)  XXHighEnd also has, apparently, the only filter available today with no pre- or post-ringing.

Looking forward to that next step; I just need my copy of Windoze to arrive.  (It pains me a bit to have had to buy one - I've been a Mac guy for a decade now at home and at work - but I'm sure in this case it will be well worth it.)

[juanpmar]

Hi Paul, thanks for such a complete report on what you have seen at the Axpona Show. I'm sure that once you get the complete front XXHE system you'll be even happier with it. I leave for others with a wider knowledge on components than me the opinion about the different systems in the show. I only would like to ask you for one thing. As it looks you are mostly a vinyl guy, at least so far, and that you have worked carefully the way to convert to digital your vinyls, could you tell me please what's the method you used to do it? I, like you, have some good jazz vinyls that I'd like to convert to digital to be listened through the NOS1A.

Regards,
Juan

[juanpmar]

I've just read this interesting post from Paul McGowan from PS Audio and I recommend to follow it:

"Certainly the question of why vinyl is so appealing to some, unappealing to others, has gotten a clearer answer than ever before, at least in my head.

We understand that some of the vinyl’s magic can be explained by its generation of an artificial three dimensional sound bed from which the music is anchored in. The sound bed, consisting of surface noise and record ticks and pops, stand apart from the music because the needle sees them as separate–surface noise and music embedded in the record grooves ARE separate. To make matters even more interesting, vertical displacement of the needle often puts channel-to-channel stereo surface noise out of phase, which further adds to the illusion of dimensionality, from which the music can be anchored in. Further, and this is one part I find fascinating, every vinyl disc has a unique noise signature depending on numerous factors: how it was cut, the type of plastic it was made from, how clean it is, the condition of the surface. In other words, this satisfying bed of noise we seem to treasure is never the same, making each album a customized experience, and each cartridge more or less spatially interesting depending on how it tracks the surface.

We also understand vinyl’s stereo separation is nearly gone as the frequencies go up – so that upper harmonics, and high frequency spatial cues are somewhat mono as they tend to be in a live environment; a great example of poor performance enhancing the live feel of music. In digital, channels are separated exactly as they were recorded, which may not be what we want if we’re hoping to duplicate vinyl’s allure. A masterful recording engineer might add realism with an ambience microphone to take the place of vinyl’s limited channel separation in the upper registers.

And yet another mystery has been solved too. It is now clear why a digital copy of a needle drop is nearly indistinguishable from the actual playback through an analog setup. It’s likely because of the artificially induced three dimensional noise bed which is captured in the digital recording.

Further, we can also deduce this is may be part of the same reason an original digital recording sounds “better” when captured on vinyl, vs. playback through a DAC.

Paul  McGowan "

Regards,
Juan

[PeterSt]

Paul, what a super story ! Thanks a lot for posting and of course the effort !

Best regards,
Peter

[PeterSt]

Hey Juan, nice find.

And yet another mystery has been solved too. It is now clear why a digital copy of a needle drop is nearly indistinguishable from the actual playback through an analog setup. It’s likely because of the artificially induced three dimensional noise bed which is captured in the digital recording.

Especially that because it has been my optinion too (not the explanation - which is very nice).

Regards,
Peter

[PaulF70]

Hi Paul, thanks for such a complete report on what you have seen at the Axpona Show. I'm sure that once you get the complete front XXHE system you'll be even happier with it. I leave for others with a wider knowledge on components than me the opinion about the different systems in the show. I only would like to ask you for one thing. As it looks you are mostly a vinyl guy, at least so far, and that you have worked carefully the way to convert to digital your vinyls, could you tell me please what's the method you used to do it? I, like you, have some good jazz vinyls that I'd like to convert to digital to be listened through the NOS1A.

Regards,
Juan

Hi Juan,

I use a Korg MR2000 recorder with my phono stage going right into it (you must adjust recording level appropriately).

This is not the last word - there are certainly more expensive ADCs - but its results are pretty darn good.  A recording made at DSD128 is very difficult to distinguish from the vinyl - most people cannot do it reliably.

I've discovered something interesting recently, which is that the Korg sounds better recording in DSD than in PCM at 24/192 (it can do both).  Get this: DSD128 recordings sound better than 24/192 PCM even when the DSD is converted on the fly (by HQPlayer) to play on the Phasure.  So it seems the Korg is just optimized for DSD, which is now a bit of a bummer to me, as I'd prefer to be able to record in PCM now.  I may seek out another recorder for that reason...

As for Mr. McGowan's thesis on vinyl, I don't buy it.  The phenomena he describes may be a factor but the real reason vinyl sounds better than digital is that digital errors, which plague quite a lot of digital, are wholly "unnatural" - they create effects in the sound unlike anything we encounter with analog waveforms, even when those have issues with harmonic distortion, bandwidth restriction, compression, etc.  I'm sure Peter understands these things very well!

[PeterSt]

Hi Paul,

Yes, I think I understand. But what you can't know is that earlier today I started about Vinyl (towards you) and how people know that I can't bear that any more - too stuffed ears feeling.
I scratched that not to offend you.

There is no way that Vinly can win this game - not any more. Point also is : this was true (for me) already 6-7-8 years ago, but the Vinyl guys make no progress while we digitalists make progress of "2x" each year (whatever "2x" exactly means). So it's a lost case.

I know, still a few will go against this, but one by one they drop off.
I am telling the story more often : I have many ripped LPs which do not exist in digital and I so much love to play them because from my youth etc. So what did we just say ? Vinyl once digitally recorded sounds the same as the analogue playback means itself ? ... hell no. By not a mile !
It is unlistenable and each time I try it lasts no 20 seconds. That bad.
All is relative, but ...

Don't let this mess up your fine day !
Peter

[PaulF70]

Peter,

Are you saying that if you digitally record vinyl you find the playback is not close, even "unlistenable"?  I'm not sure I followed that.

If that is so, what recorder are you using?

I'm curious... results should at least be decent.

[esimms86]

PaulF70, I really enjoyed your Axpona report.

Regarding needle drops, I've never recorded any though I do have a few in my library(the Beatles in Mono that I got from a friend, plus a few commercially available Steve Wilson needle drops of Yes albums). I no longer have a record player so I can't make A/B comparisons either.

So, are needle drops equal to the sound of the original LP? While I can't weigh in on that one, I can say that it doesn't seem logical that a digitally recorded needle drop would then be free of the very digital artifacts that listeners find so disturbing.

Esau

[PaulF70]

PaulF70, I really enjoyed your Axpona report.

Regarding needle drops, I've never recorded any though I do have a few in my library(the Beatles in Mono that I got from a friend, plus a few commercially available Steve Wilson needle drops of Yes albums). I no longer have a record player so I can't make A/B comparisons either.

So, are needle drops equal to the sound of the original LP? While I can't weigh in on that one, I can say that it doesn't seem logical that a digitally recorded needle drop would then be free of the very digital artifacts that listeners find so disturbing.

Esau

Very good digital equipment today can have very few such artifacts, possibly below the level of audibility.  The Phasure is certainly one such DAC (and plays redbook in particular better than anything I've heard).

I can tell the difference between my high-res drops and the record, but it takes a trained ear.  You have to learn what to listen for.  And those differences are not really ones of "digititus", but a very small reduction in nuance & air.  They still sound very, very much like vinyl (meaning the vinyl weaknesses are there as well, of course).

[manisandher]

Hi Paul,

Great post!

Wow, your experience so closely echoes my own whenever I've come back from a hifi show (I've only been to 3-4 in my life mind).

And here's the thing: I have not yet tapped the full potential of the Phasure DAC.  Everyone agrees that for this DAC to shine it must be used with the corresponding XXHighEnd player - the two are a system, created by the same individual.  At present I am running it with HQPlayer, which is definitely an excellent player, however, with anything other than XX the DAC can only accept data upsampled to 384 Khz, while XX allows double that.  (With resistor-ladder DACs, of course, upsampling moves noise beyond the audio band and is necessary for best sound.)  XXHighEnd also has, apparently, the only filter available today with no pre- or post-ringing.

You can look forward to the XXHighEnd learning curve - and some people think HQP is complicated!... Haha. But you're already using the next best thing to XX. I haven't used HQP for a long time now (just haven't had the need), but Jussi knows what he's doing - he just has a different philosophy to Peter.

And as for the NOS1a, well, what can anyone say? I've still (after 5 years) not heard another DAC that is its equal. Many have their charms, like the Schiit Yggy I've had here for the last 3 weeks or so. But they have a 'flavour'. The NOS1a doesn't - it simply converts whatever digital signal it's given into analogue... adding nothing and taking away nothing. Well done on acquiring it!

Mani.

[PaulF70]

Here is one more little bit - Anastasia enjoying the ModWright/Eggleston room.  (The Andra is a great speaker for a mid-efficiency non-horn-loaded beast.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZ6amOWcrVk&feature=youtu.be

[PeterSt]

So nice Paul !