2012 California Audio Show

[tube fan]

First impressions:

Tubes and turntables everywhere! Yes, digital and ss suck (and have sucked from the very beginning). Now the high end seems to accept this manifest fact.

Worst sound: again the MBL room ran away with the award for the worst sound: 1,000 watt ss amps, inefficient speakers, and digital sources. Pure crap!

Electrocompaniet room: using analogue tape as a source, their system was impressive: detailed and effortless. The system was not cheap, except for the tape deck (under $1,000).

Music Lovers (Wilson room): Better than last year, but not my cup of tea. I got them to play a 45 vinyl record of the stupendous "Adagio d'Albinoni" record (Gary Karr on double-bass and Harmon Lewis on organ), and the sound fell short of what I hear via either my Fulton J or Dunlavy SCIV speakers. The organ sound was wimpy. The double bass lacked impact, and the organ did NOT fill the room. No goosebumps here! In contrast, the same record via the Teresonic $15,000 speaker was amazing at the 2010 CAS.

Magico: When they were playing vinyl, the room was full, and everything sounded great (except for the reticent bass which seems to be a constant in all Magico speakers).

Music Lovers (Vivid room): I preferred this room to the more expensive Music Lovers room. Still not cheap, but I was very impressed by several vinyl tracks (from Dead can Dance and Chet Baker). A relaxed, dynamic sound.

Kef room: Very good, but not great. Sound lacked dynamics on my Chet vinyl.

Audio Space: OK, RGA was right, and I was wrong about this company. Using a $4,000 integrated 300b amp (the Reference 3.1) and their version of the LS-3/5A speaker (with sub-woofer), the sound was simply amazing: clear, detailed, dynamic (!), and tonally correct. For those of limited means, these are a must listen.

Zu Audio: I liked nothing about this room: harsh, brash, and lacking in micro-dynamics. Not as bad as the MLB room, so there is that.

Focal room: Very impressive sound via their $32,500 Scala Utopia speaker and analogue tapes. Effortless, clear, and tonally accurate. Perhaps the bass could have been tighter (but, yes, here I am being very picky). Not only have turntables made a comeback, but so too have analogue tape decks!!!

Audio Note: Finally they brought a tt! However, the vinyl I got them to play (a cut from the "Chet" record), was very good, but not great. A trumpet, heard live, has tremendous impact. Here, Chet's trumpet was too restrained. Ditto for Pepper Adams's baritone sax. A sax, recorded properly, and played back through a top notch system, has fantastic punch and body. This record sounded better via the Teresonic, Acapella, and Magico speakers (and, yes, via either my Fulton Js or my Dunlavy SCIVs).

Tad: A complete failure. I expected to be impressed, but the sound was average at best! Perhaps the system was not set up properly.

Sonist/deHavilland: Now that's what I'm talking about!!! Effortless, detailed, dynamic (both micro and macro), tonally accurate, and just plain BEAUTIFUL!!! Yes, via analogue tapes, using the wonderful Kara Chaffee model 222 vacuum tube magnetic tape playback preamp and the Mercury preamp and the KE-50A amp, the sound just melted my heart! A system that combined both accuracy and musicality!

[RGA]

So far we agree on some and disagree on some.

Audio Note - We largely agree - This is the least good I have heard them sound - at least the most inconsistent that I have heard them sound. Mario plays an eclectic assortment of stuff and I find there to be some bass boom on certain recordings. I feel it is because they're doing a half-measure position. They can't get the speaker in the corner - nowhere close to a corner for that matter - 3-4 feet away. What they should do is simply pull them out and place them as regular free standing speakers - but he has them up against the side walls hoping to retain that reflection but it's not sounding like it should. But they also have not been delivered their stands as promised and for some time had to have them on the floor. yikes. Hope Sunday can get better. I went 5 to 6pm on Saturday and he played Louis Armstrong LP 59 recording on Realistic (cheap lp) and it was stunning and he played Super Trio drum music which was utterly terrific - but it's still not what it should be in terms of scale.

Electrocompaniet's room with Nordic Voice speakers and the tape was excellent - one of the best rooms so far. Agree - also liked their second room with the Broadman speakers (formerly Bosendorfer speakers) - they know something about cabinets.

Also agree with turntables - in every room where vinyl and CD was played the turntables have roundly and utterly trumped the CD/SACD or computer playback/DSD - not even remotely close. That actually surprised me somewhat because it's usually not such a drubbing. I brought a very well recorded German test disc of the highest resolution - I played some cuts in the Kef blade room. Next went on jazz LP (I believe it was you in fact - as it was Chet - (if you were wearing a hat). Anyway the LP destroyed my super audio recording which is about as good as CD gets.

Granted this was the second biggest Clearaudio Table with $30k+ pricing.

Wilson - doesn't sound cohesive - it plays loud big deal - not a fan of them at the last show. Big loud but all over for me.

Magico's big room is good. But the price!

Magico's smaller speaker $26,500 - umm no. Sorry but My J kicks's it's ass all day everyday on any music on any facet of sound. $5k. absurd. That goes for every other standmount that size at this show for over $10k. Whaaat?

Vivid was ok - I will try them again. Marks was right - they have an accurate quality but doesn't lose the musicality - I need another go to be sure.

Sony - turntable was a lot better than CD but a big fail here - they sounded terrific on Pass Labs and EMM labs at CES but one of the worst rooms - the Luxman stuff has everything sounding crammed between the speaker and no image height - blah.

Sonist Dehavilhand and tape gave me a big headache - somewhat screechy treble. Nowhere near as good as CES - but I was tired when I went in and didn't like the music being played which was old fogy music - I'm not old - play something someone under 60 was alive to hear.

Zu Audio sounded poor - what they played was new and interesting but badly recorded on a not very good Technics 1200 player. No dynamics and shouty. ZU is miles better in HK on CD - so that tells you something.

Tannoy Prestige - quite hard sounding - again like AN needs a corner and they don't have a corner - they too should be one of the best at this show and are not.

YG Acoustics - hated them before - Really enjoyed them here. Very impressive sound - start stop bass action is truly amazing and not bright - I played my stuff - and Jackson Browne's Pretender (acoustic vol 1) comes out very clean with just enough emotion - a little on the sterile side - a good tube amp could fix that up. Lot of potential here. This is a system I would normally hate - but so far it's in my top 4.

Focal Room - also in my top 4 so far. Tape is amazing - Bob Hodas room treatments work - quietest room at the show - set up brilliantly - focal has always been roundly unimpressive to me. But the treatments and the fact that girl running the room who is a mastering engineer at Reference recordings brought her system and raised the speakers ten inches has now lifted the tweeter to ear height. It goes against recommended positioning of the manufacturer - she knows more than them it would seem. Sounds way better - less bass but cleaner and more accurate and musical - thanks again to tape.

Best room so far for me and it's not close is Acoustic Zen and Triode. I wish they had vinyl or tape because their CD is limiting - and despite that the body warmth and impressive phase is all day listenable - had the same Jackson track here and it brought a tear - everyone was floored by the piano reproduction to wow's - so darn good and at $16k for the speakers (expensive) but far less expensive than most speakers here and it has an almost faultless sound.

Maybe my biggest disagreement is on MBL - they're in the top 4 for me. It took my ear to adjust and only in one seat did they truly shine but I had a few wow moments.

[tube fan]

The Acoustic Zen room used only digital, and to my ears, the sound suffered from that: too bright, lacking in micro dynamic shadings, and harsh. Loud? Yes. Clear? Yes. Musical NO!

[tube fan]

Even on day three, the Magico boys still had the channels reversed!!! What can you expect for $500,000!!! Surely blind tests could reveal the correct channels! Note, no one told them that they had the channels reversed! At last year's show, fully 30% of the rooms had the channels reversed on day one.

[tube fan]

Final ratings:

Sonist, just like last year. The system had everything I want: effortless, detailed, and MUSICAL sound.

Vivid: Even better than last year: clearer, with more detail, and great tonality.

Focal: Using the Tape Project's analogue tapes as their source, they produced a big sound with everything but a tight bass. Every Focal speaker I have heard has a too loose bass response, at least, for my ears.

Magico: fantastic sound, despite having the channels reversed.

Audio /Vision room with the Kef version of the 3/5. About $1,300 for the speakers. Using Unison Research amplification and analogue sources.

[RGA]

Last day of the show I auditioned the Sonist room again and it was a massive step up although soundstage and imaging were off - vocal came from both the right and left side (likely due to the off positioning) and the voice is supposed to come from the left side - it was all over the place. Still everything else about them I liked and I recommended them a few times to people looking for sanely priced gear.

Another star room for me was Von Gaylord - Tremendous emotion and lush depth without boom. I wish I heard them earlier in the show but they had Diana Krall playing which is an automatic leave the room for me (as is pretentious music like Patricia Barber) It's unlistenable after awhile.

I do agree in part on Acoustic Zen - would like them to use a turntable - but for me I have the ability to project what a turntable would do. Ditto MBL. Some of the rooms with both CD and turntable or tape the turntable was about 200% better. Now add that 200% better to some of these rooms without the turntable and "imagine" what they could do.

Acoustic Zen and Von Gaylord used relatively inexpensive CD and managed to better the overall sound in more expensive rooms with turntables and with tape. Adding a turntable would be even a bigger spread better.

I heard a lot of rooms sound worse here than usual and I am not totally sure why that was. Some rooms sounded better but not as many.

[tube fan]

Last day of the show I auditioned the Sonist room again and it was a massive step up although soundstage and imaging were off - vocal came from both the right and left side (likely due to the off positioning) and the voice is supposed to come from the left side - it was all over the place. Still everything else about them I liked and I recommended them a few times to people looking for sanely priced gear.

Another star room for me was Von Gaylord - Tremendous emotion and lush depth without boom. I wish I heard them earlier in the show but they had Diana Krall playing which is an automatic leave the room for me (as is pretentious music like Patricia Barber) It's unlistenable after awhile.

I do agree in part on Acoustic Zen - would like them to use a turntable - but for me I have the ability to project what a turntable would do. Ditto MBL. Some of the rooms with both CD and turntable or tape the turntable was about 200% better. Now add that 200% better to some of these rooms without the turntable and "imagine" what they could do.

Acoustic Zen and Von Gaylord used relatively inexpensive CD and managed to better the overall sound in more expensive rooms with turntables and with tape. Adding a turntable would be even a bigger spread better.

I heard a lot of rooms sound worse here than usual and I am not totally sure why that was. Some rooms sounded better but not as many.

Yes, you are probably correct in your pumping up the rating of digital based systems. Acoustic Zen could well have been special with a good analogue source. They were using an SET amp, if I remember correctly. I just have a hard time liking any digital system. The only time I was actually impressed with a digital sourced system was at the 2010 CAS: An AN E speaker pared with the fantastic Jinro integrated amp (unfortunately, about $30,000). Audio Space and Unison Research are making affordable SET amps. At the 2010 CAS, Audio Note had a room that allowed them to come close to ideal placement, but I suspect that the Jinro contributed much to the musical sound. The Sonist room was better last year when using a deHavilland SET amp. This year they were using a 40 watt triode amp. I was stunned at the sound of the KEF 50 with the Unison Research SET amp. Both my Chet and Billie Holiday vinyl records sounded better in the Audio/Vision Kef 50 room than they did via the $500,000 Magico system. Look out for both the Kef 50 and Unison Research. Both are affordable and great sounding.

[RGA]

The problem with the Sonist was that I have a recording where male voice is supposed to come from the left channel - it was coming out both channels and it created a pseudo center fill - something wasn't right - they're position was off center but it wasn't what was on the disc. For the money they're great but I am less convinced across a much wider range of music that they're beating the better rooms.

On that note however I wasn't thrilled with the prices of stuff. Even Vivid which I liked didn't carry big emotional impact - at $40,000 for the speakers - Von Gaylord speakers and Acoustic Zen on the same CD carried more emotional weight on Jackson Browne's "Pretender" piano piece acoustic Vol 1 album and these speakers were $13k and $16k using tube amps and digital.

The Vivid room had the turntable trump card - but the Von Gaylord and Acoustic Zen room had the SET amp trump card.

Vivids win on large scale large volume music - on small scale - singer/instrument which is a significant portion of what I listen to the Vivids would need a lot of help for me to rave about them. Then again all those rooms were crap with the fake side walls.

[tube fan]

The problem with the Sonist was that I have a recording where male voice is supposed to come from the left channel - it was coming out both channels and it created a pseudo center fill - something wasn't right - they're position was off center but it wasn't what was on the disc. For the money they're great but I am less convinced across a much wider range of music that they're beating the better rooms.

On that note however I wasn't thrilled with the prices of stuff. Even Vivid which I liked didn't carry big emotional impact - at $40,000 for the speakers - Von Gaylord speakers and Acoustic Zen on the same CD carried more emotional weight on Jackson Browne's "Pretender" piano piece acoustic Vol 1 album and these speakers were $13k and $16k using tube amps and digital.

The Vivid room had the turntable trump card - but the Von Gaylord and Acoustic Zen room had the SET amp trump card.

Vivids win on large scale large volume music - on small scale - singer/instrument which is a significant portion of what I listen to the Vivids would need a lot of help for me to rave about them. Then again all those rooms were crap with the fake side walls.
My Billie Holiday vinyl cut and the "Chet" one sounded the best in the Vivid room, and that's NOT large scale large volume music by any means. BTW, I have NEVER been impressed by a recording of a full symphony going all-out. Even in the Sonist and Focal rooms, at this year's show, when they played tapes of symphonic music, the sound was compressed and bright (compared to what you hear live in concert). At home I listen to pop, house, and trance at live levels, but accuracy is not that crucial to the enjoyment of those kinds of music.

Playing pop music loud, the Acoustic Zen WAS impressive, and, yes, those SET amps probably contributed much to that sound. 40 watts of SET amplification is enough to drive any sensibly designed speakers (no, NOT the MBLs).

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I hate that I missed this show, but I won't next year if it's around.

I am somewhat disappoint in the lack of diversity of observations and comments. These comments sound like the same person talking to themselves. Surely not all of the digital and SS setups sounded bad, and not all of the tube, tape and vinyl demo's where perfect.

[tube fan]

I hate that I missed this show, but I won't next year if it's around.

I am somewhat disappoint in the lack of diversity of observations and comments. These comments sound like the same person talking to themselves. Surely not all of the digital and SS setups sounded bad, and not all of the tube, tape and vinyl demo's where perfect.

Yes, ALL the digital and ss sucked!!! DUH!!! Fortunately turntables and analogue tape decks were everywhere as were tubes. 15 years ago, all you heard at audio shows was crapy digital and ss. Now, analogue and tubes are just KILLING ss and digital!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Yes, ALL the digital and ss sucked!!! DUH!!! Fortunately turntables and analogue tape decks were everywhere as were tubes. 15 years ago, all you heard at audio shows was crapy digital and ss. Now, analogue and tubes are just KILLING ss and digital!

Tube fan, your biases are well known, and I guess I was stupid for expecting a more ojbective perspective from you.

[Luvin Da Blues]

Yes, ALL the digital and ss sucked!!! DUH!!! Fortunately turntables and analogue tape decks were everywhere as were tubes. 15 years ago, all you heard at audio shows was crapy digital and ss. Now, analogue and tubes are just KILLING ss and digital!

Just kinda curious, is there anymore room for tubes were your head is up?

[RGA]

I hate that I missed this show, but I won't next year if it's around.

I am somewhat disappoint in the lack of diversity of observations and comments. These comments sound like the same person talking to themselves. Surely not all of the digital and SS setups sounded bad, and not all of the tube, tape and vinyl demo's where perfect.

Sir T

The turntables and tape in the same room against their digital was a drubbing. Even Bob Hodas brought a tape that killed their other format - and his room was the best actual "room" in terms of treatments and one of the best for sound quality.

But that is not the same as saying digital rooms sounded bad. MBL and YG Acoustics were in my top 5 and both rooms ran nothing but digital. Other show reports have already chosen MBL best of show - they ran CD and computer based only.

And to be fair many of the turntable rooms were using $30K+ tables and much cheaper CD players.

But the all digital MBL room sounded better than the turntable based Wilson, Sony, Magico, Vivid, Kef, Tannoy rooms on the first floor. Vinyl dramatically improved those systems over their digital but it wasn't enough against MBL and their CD. If the MBL could improve 100% like some of those other rooms did with vinyl or tape then MBL would have to be considered as one of the best systems available - if not already.

[tube fan]

Sir T

The turntables and tape in the same room against their digital was a drubbing. Even Bob Hodas brought a tape that killed their other format - and his room was the best actual "room" in terms of treatments and one of the best for sound quality.

But that is not the same as saying digital rooms sounded bad. MBL and YG Acoustics were in my top 5 and both rooms ran nothing but digital. Other show reports have already chosen MBL best of show - they ran CD and computer based only.

And to be fair many of the turntable rooms were using $30K+ tables and much cheaper CD players.

But the all digital MBL room sounded better than the turntable based Wilson, Sony, Magico, Vivid, Kef, Tannoy rooms on the first floor. Vinyl dramatically improved those systems over their turntables - but it wasn't enough against MBL and their CD. If the MBL could improve 100% like some of those other rooms did with vinyl or tape then MBL would have to be considered as one of the best systems available - if not already.

If you think the MBL room sounded good (much less the best at the show!) using their 1,000 watt ss amp, inefficient speakers, and digital sources, then you should reevaluate your preference for low power tube amps, especially SET amps, and analogue sources. I suspect that you listen to a lot of pop and rock, and tonal beauty is not a major concern with much of that type of music. The MBLs were clear (on the attack of notes), and were being played LOUD, LOUD, yes, VERY LOUD. They did NOT capture either the accurate decay of notes, or, of course, the beauty that is at the heart of the type of music I love. BTW, the MBL sound is the exact opposite of the Audio Note sound which you purport to love. The EXACT OPPOSITE!!! BTW, I talked to several attendees at the show who agreed that the MBL room was, by far the worst. Of course, we all have different reality triggers, but I simply don't understand how your reality triggers are pulled by such dissimilar sounds as the MBL and Audio Note.

[RGA]

The MBL room sounded much better than the Audio Note room - and I own Audio Note and everyone knows my AN fanboyism - but MBL sounded better. So did YG Acoustics which also used nothing but digital. Neither sounded as good as Audio Note's better systems set-up properly but that was not the case as CAS and I have to report what I heard not what it "could be"

MBL is designed for much bigger rooms and for a big room they would be on my list. I think you should try to project what it "could be" with vinyl and up powered tubes. I get the decay argument you're making - it wasn't a strength here but they're not as hard to drive as you might think - tone and decay is the strength of SET/tubes and that would bring in MBL's only real weakness. And even then it was better here than most any other SS systems

The rooms that gave me the highest emotional triggers were both tube rooms (but neither used a turntable) and those rooms were Von Gaylord and Acoustic Zen.

MBL is a polarizing room because I suspect the tube/turntable fanboys immediately walk in with "I'm going to HATE this room no matter what because there is no turntable/tube"

The guys on staff didn't all like the MBL room either but other competing writers (who are primarily vinyl guys) have MBL as best room. Peter Breuninger owns MBL speakers but uses Carver tube amps. This is where I think MBL may get a massive up tick to the musicality. I was very excited by the potential of that room.

You are highly inconsistent on your complaints - on another thread you were ranting and raving that a system has to present live level scale - Sonist is a JOKE at that - can't do it (played very loud they screamed at me and piano was pingy). Then you rant that MBL is played loud - yes at LIVE SCALE levels with ease and no audible distortion at those levels. WOW. But now you knock that? It can play classical and jazz at those levels - Sonist? C'mon. Sonist is excellent - sounds great for the money but better than MBL's room is just nonsense.

MBL often played it louder than I would but so did Sonist. Audio Note played at lower levels - but guess what - then people complain that they didn't have the scale or impact of other rooms. Can't win either way. The Meishu is an 8 watt amp and can't produce those levels. It's not geared to - it's geared for lower volume levels (lower even than they played) and the AN room to me was about 60% of what they're capable of doing - the bass was somewhat boomy and one note on a number of recordings. This was may be the least good I have ever heard from AN - no corner - no speaker stand spikes and one speaker right beside a closed door - it actually depressed me and Mario in that you basically heard a shell of what they're about.


MBL's were in the same bad rooms that all the other first floor rooms were in - but they made it work albeit only in one or two chairs. I hear more information on my jazz albums than other rooms and yes for rock and pop it sounded phenomenal - pop and rock make up more than 98% of all music sales so umm - it's important to be able to make those sound good. I played Guns and Roses "Knockin on Heaven's Door" a decent recording for rock and the MBL room made me feel I was there - the Vivid room in contrast felt like a glorified gutless B&W. It was good in the Vivid room but no better than good. And I will point out that that was the cheaper MBL speakers too not their big ones.

I also think you can do more with MBL in terms of adding more musicality to their cut throat nature - I would like to hear them with other SS or big tube amps.

Sony sounded pretty dreadful but I heard them sound great at CES 2010 with Pass Labs - here it was Luxman - Pass may be one of the 2-3 best SS amplifier makers in the business. Expensive but perhaps a bargain compared to much of the industry.

Of course all of this is moot since MBL is just so expensive - their speakers alone were more than double the price of the entire Audio Note system. The AN system is about 4 times the price of my AN system and my AN system in my room sound WAY better (maybe 5 times better) than what they showed at CAS. Which illustrates that corners, stands, and not having doors beside the speakers matter.

[tube fan]

The MBL room sounded much better than the Audio Note room - and I own Audio Note and everyone knows my AN fanboyism - but MBL sounded better. So did YG Acoustics which also used nothing but digital. Neither sounded as good as Audio Note's better systems set-up properly but that was not the case as CAS and I have to report what I heard not what it "could be"

MBL is designed for much bigger rooms and for a big room they would be on my list. I think you should try to project what it "could be" with vinyl and up powered tubes. I get the decay argument you're making - it wasn't a strength here but they're not as hard to drive as you might think - tone and decay is the strength of SET/tubes and that would bring in MBL's only real weakness. And even then it was better here than most any other SS systems

The rooms that gave me the highest emotional triggers were both tube rooms (but neither used a turntable) and those rooms were Von Gaylord and Acoustic Zen.

MBL is a polarizing room because I suspect the tube/turntable fanboys immediately walk in with "I'm going to HATE this room no matter what because there is no turntable/tube"

The guys on staff didn't all like the MBL room either but other competing writers (who are primarily vinyl guys) have MBL as best room. Peter Breuninger owns MBL speakers but uses Carver tube amps. This is where I think MBL may get a massive up tick to the musicality. I was very excited by the potential of that room.

You are highly inconsistent on your complaints - on another thread you were ranting and raving that a system has to present live level scale - Sonist is a JOKE at that - can't do it (played very loud they screamed at me and piano was pingy). Then you rant that MBL is played loud - yes at LIVE SCALE levels with ease and no audible distortion at those levels. WOW. But now you knock that? It can play classical and jazz at those levels - Sonist? C'mon. Sonist is excellent - sounds great for the money but better than MBL's room is just nonsense.

MBL often played it louder than I would but so did Sonist. Audio Note played at lower levels - but guess what - then people complain that they didn't have the scale or impact of other rooms. Can't win either way. The Meishu is an 8 watt amp and can't produce those levels. It's not geared to - it's geared for lower volume levels (lower even than they played) and the AN room to me was about 60% of what they're capable of doing - the bass was somewhat boomy and one note on a number of recordings. This was may be the least good I have ever heard from AN - no corner - no speaker stand spikes and one speaker right beside a closed door - it actually depressed me and Mario in that you basically heard a shell of what they're about.


MBL's were in the same bad rooms that all the other first floor rooms were in - but they made it work albeit only in one or two chairs. I hear more information on my jazz albums than other rooms and yes for rock and pop it sounded phenomenal - pop and rock make up more than 98% of all music sales so umm - it's important to be able to make those sound good. I played Guns and Roses "Knockin on Heaven's Door" a decent recording for rock and the MBL room made me feel I was there - the Vivid room in contrast felt like a glorified gutless B&W. It was good in the Vivid room but no better than good. And I will point out that that was the cheaper MBL speakers too not their big ones.

I also think you can do more with MBL in terms of adding more musicality to their cut throat nature - I would like to hear them with other SS or big tube amps.

Sony sounded pretty dreadful but I heard them sound great at CES 2010 with Pass Labs - here it was Luxman - Pass may be one of the 2-3 best SS amplifier makers in the business. Expensive but perhaps a bargain compared to much of the industry.

Of course all of this is moot since MBL is just so expensive - their speakers alone were more than double the price of the entire Audio Note system. The AN system is about 4 times the price of my AN system and my AN system in my room sound WAY better (maybe 5 times better) than what they showed at CAS. Which illustrates that corners, stands, and not having doors beside the speakers matter.

When I was in the Sonist room, they were playing tapes at a volume level close to what I play 95% of my vinyl records at, and the sound was detailed, with correct micro and macro dynamics, and a tonal purity that COMPLETELY eluded the MBL system. We clearly listen to different types of music: you listen to Guns and Roses, and I listen to Chet Baker, Miles, Billie Holiday, Evans, Monk, Contrane, Ray Charles, Mingus, Ellington, Basie, etc. ("old fogey"). BTW, The best sound I heard at all three CASs was produced in the Teresonic room at the 2010 CAS. That was using a speaker with one driver and a 2 1/2 watt SET amp!

[tube fan]

Call me crazy, but I demand that any good audio system MUST reproduce the tonal beauty present in my favorite music.

[RGA]

I don't walk the halls playing one track and basing all my decisions upon how it does that one track. I listen to Ella, Miles, Peterson, Charles, Wes Montgomery, Metheny, an assortment of vocal, guitar, jazz.

It just so happens that that's not all I listen to. I listen to everything. How much of what results in my choices.

And I liked Tape at CAS but I doubt I can buy a tape for more than 2% of my collection.

[tube fan]

I don't walk the halls playing one track and basing all my decisions upon how it does that one track. I listen to Ella, Miles, Peterson, Charles, Wes Montgomery, Metheny, an assortment of vocal, guitar, jazz.

It just so happens that that's not all I listen to. I listen to everything. How much of what results in my choices.

And I liked Tape at CAS but I doubt I can buy a tape for more than 2% of my collection.

And yet, your favorite room was comprised of a horribly inefficient speaker, 1,000 watt ss amps, and digital sources. IMO, the sound was bright, strident, harsh, and, yes, LOUD. I REPEAT: you claim to love low power tube amps, efficient speakers, and analogue sound, and yet you liked the "music" in the MBL room! Talk about being inconsistent! I used ten vinyl records in my evaluation of the various rooms, not one cut. Plus, I listened for many hours to vinyl records others brought. Did I listen to digital? As little as possible!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Call me crazy, but I demand that any good audio system MUST reproduce the tonal beauty present in my favorite music.

So your perspective decides what constitutes tonal beauty. What about what is accurate? How do you get tonal beauty off of an inaccurate medium? Anyone who has ever cut a vinyl record will tell you that vinyl colors the sound of the original master tapes.

When I read what you post, I am convinced that Euphoric listening is more important than trueness to te source.

[E-Stat]

The MBL room sounded much better than the Audio Note room - and I own Audio Note...
Did the Earth start rotating in the opposite direction? :)

How many rooms played multi-channel? From a mere observer of the various show reports, it seems there aren't too many of them. Ray Kimber's Iso-Mike demos seem to be very much in the minority.

[RGA]

The thing is I happened to like systems that did what they did well.

A simpler way to view things is going for that "accuracy/neutrality" approach without throwing out musicality and the other is going for beauty and tone and timbre without completely chucking out neutrality and accuracy.

My favorite rooms were MBL, Focal, Acoustic Zen/Triode, Von Gaylord, YG Acoustics, Nordic Tone/Electrocompaniet,

MBL and YG Acoustics were all accuracy/neutrality solid state affairs. Great sound.

Acoustic Zen/tri and Von Gaylord were Tube/SET amp affairs and immensely seductive - you'd have a tough time not loving this sound and for all day listenability and saner prices this is tough to beat.

Nordic and Focal were using Master tapes.

As for arguments aginst vinyl - that's all well and good but vinyl sounded better than CD or computer in every single room where I auditioned both - and it wasn't close. I am not a vinyl zealot by any stretch because there is so much music not available on anything but CD so you need it. Master Tape machines that you can buy for $50 (plus $200 to clean up) trounced the room's ultra expensive CD players at the highest bitrates available to consumers). That's all well and good but there's no music on the format so it's pretty much useless - interesting and cool and all but with no music - it's a pointless investment.

I think one thing I like about Nelson Pass is that he seems to "GET IT." He makes the ridonculous high power SS cut throat amplifiers but also manages to understand the VALUE in 20-30 watt pure class A (single ended sounding) amplifiers.

I liked what MBL brings to the table and I like what Acoustic Zen and Von Gaylord brings to the table. I don't see why you can't like both.

[E-Stat]

The thing is I happened to like systems that did what they did well.
I was just kidding. I'm glad to know there is a world other than AN.


I think one thing I like about Nelson Pass is that he seems to "GET IT." He makes the ridonculous high power SS cut throat amplifiers but also manages to understand the VALUE in 20-30 watt pure class A (single ended sounding) amplifiers.
Arguably, his *best* amp is the 10 watt SIT-1 single ended design using custom made VFETs.

I gather MC was nowhere to be found. Like that of mainstream hi rez recordings.

[RGA]

Yeah - no MC around that I saw. Though SACD players were around but not in MC.

[tube fan]

I was just kidding. I'm glad to know there is a world other than AN.


Arguably, his *best* amp is the 10 watt SIT-1 single ended design using custom made VFETs.

I gather MC was nowhere to be found. Like that of mainstream hi rez recordings.

RGA clearly does not hate digital and ss as much as I do. I'm in the Michael Fremer camp when it comes to digital: it makes me physically sick. BTW, the SIT 10 watt SET amp will not even play the MBL speakers at background levels. Clearly, we all have different reality triggers as wine drinkers have their own personal preferences. If you love inefficient speakers, and high power ss amps, and digital sources, go with it. I'll take my low power tube and analogue system.

[E-Stat]

RGA clearly does not hate digital and ss as much as I do.
Hate? Boy, that is a strong sentiment!

I can certainly relate to the raw sounding SS gear of the 70s when I began my audio journey and that of early digital of the 80s. I just don't find that to be universally true today.

My mostly SS vintage system is easy to listen to for extended periods of time - even if does not provide the level of realism delivered by the main tube system. Its sins are largely of omission. The Manley DAC uses a simple 12AU7 based analog output. The modest NAD preamp does a fine job with the Ariston/SME/Shinon table. The Threshold amp is free from global feedback, uses no protection circuitry, has a stiff 105 joule power supply and runs class A for the first 10% of its output. It uses a shielded aftermarket power cord to minimize RFI and all other components are run through a power conditioner for the same objective. Since I enjoy the outdoors, I actually listen to that system more often that the "big" one. :)

With your penchant for (single) blind testing, to what SS gear have you compared your 80s vintage ARC gear in your own system?

edit: BTW, did you realize there are not one, but TWO Texas Instruments TL071 op amps in the signal path of your D-70? You may need to sit down and take a powder!

D70 schematic (http://www.arcdb.ws/D70/D70.html)

Look at U1 and U2 :)

[Worf101]

Hate? Boy, that is a strong sentiment!

I can certainly relate to the raw sounding SS gear of the 70s when I began my audio journey and that of early digital of the 80s. I just don't find that to be universally true today.

My mostly SS vintage system is easy to listen to for extended periods of time - even if does not provide the level of realism delivered by the main tube system. Its sins are largely of omission. The Manley DAC uses a simple 12AU7 based analog output. The modest NAD preamp does a fine job with the Ariston/SME/Shinon table. The Threshold amp is free from global feedback, uses no protection circuitry, has a stiff 105 joule power supply and runs class A for the first 10% of its output. It uses a shielded aftermarket power cord to minimize RFI and all other components are run through a power conditioner for the same objective. Since I enjoy the outdoors, I actually listen to that system more often that the "big" one. :)

With your penchant for (single) blind testing, to what SS gear have you compared your 80s vintage ARC gear in your own system?

edit: BTW, did you realize there are not one, but TWO Texas Instruments TL071 op amps in the signal path of your D-70? You may need to sit down and take a powder!

D70 schematic (http://www.arcdb.ws/D70/ARC_D70MKII_schematic_psu.jpg)

Look at U1 and U2 :)

I'd be REALLY impressed with your dissertation if'n I knew what language you was a speakin'! LOL! Honestly I had to re-read your post a couple of times to get the gist of it. Thanks all for educating me on the merits (?) of Tubes and Analog over SS and digital..... I think. But as a poor slob who cannot afford a dedicated 2 channel system, my CD player and AV receiver will have to make due till my "ship comes in".

Worf

[E-Stat]

I'd be REALLY impressed with your dissertation if'n I knew what language you was a speakin'!
LOL!

The tube fan doth protest too much, methinks!

I really hope I didn't ruin his day with the realization about the TI op amps in his beloved amp. :)

[Jack in Wilmington]

LOL!

The tube fan doth protest too much, methinks!

I really hope I didn't ruin his day with the realization about the TI op amps in his beloved amp. :)

I think the rest of us are hoping you did.

[Feanor]

...
edit: BTW, did you realize there are not one, but TWO Texas Instruments TL071 op amps in the signal path of your D-70? You may need to sit down and take a powder!

D70 schematic (http://www.arcdb.ws/D70/D70.html)

Look at U1 and U2 :)
Oh horrors :shocked:

I still think the opamps get a worse rap than they deserver from some quarters.

If U1 and U2 are socketed, maybe Tube Fan could swap those '80s opamps for something more modern, say OP627's or OPA2134's. Or I'd be willing to take the D70 off his hands for a couple of hundred bucks. :2:

[E-Stat]

I still think the opamps get a worse rap than they deserver from some quarters.
Oops, false alarm. My bad. It seems they both are power supply related.

Tube Fan can breathe a sign of relief. :)

[RGA]

RGA clearly does not hate digital and ss as much as I do. I'm in the Michael Fremer camp when it comes to digital:

Maybe - but Fremer hates SET and loves 1000 watt amps.

Fact is people are not all in one camp. If SS does the job then I will say so - this is nothing new - I have liked plenty of SS amplifiers from Pass Labs, Sugden, Heed Audio, Technical Brain and others. It's not my preference because the speakers I own don't require their power.

And I think the MBL system would be better with vinyl and tubes. Since I don't play that loud and I would not need to fill that space - I would really like to hear their speakers on a very well built robust tube amplifier - even some of the bigger watt SETs or maybe something like the Carver amps.

I hear the potential in those speakers.

[Feanor]

Oops, false alarm. My bad. It seems they both are power supply related.

Tube Fan can breathe a sign of relief. :)
Just curious but what part would an opamp play in a power supply?

[E-Stat]

Just curious but what part would an opamp play in a power supply?
A closer look on my part reveals both are used in the regulation circuitry and are not in the signal path per se. You'll note other semiconductors used in the B+ supplies as well (all those blocks labeled with a "Q" as opposed to a "V"). Some may argue, however, that since an amplifier is really just modulating the signal via the power supply, you could say that in an indirect way, it is in the path.

Those tube purists draw a distinction between a "pure tube" design that solely uses tubes not only in the circuit path, but in the power supply rectification and regulation stages as well. Even some Audio Note amps contain SS components in the power supply.

By comparison, VTL and Conrad-Johnson products use SS power supplies exclusively.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

LOL!

The tube fan doth protest too much, methinks!

I really hope I didn't ruin his day with the realization about the TI op amps in his beloved amp. :)

Boy do I agree with this. I can understand having a taste for a certain thing in audio, but I just cannot understand why anyone would want to live in a audio box.

As far as the lack of MC, it would be VERY difficult to do with the size room I saw demo's in last year. Unless the system used mini monitors, there would be no way to optimize in those size rooms.

As far as all of this vinyl sounded great, and all digital sound bad. Me thinks bias played more of a role than truth does. Either that, or the exhibitors did not pay as much attention to the digital playback as they did to their analog. Hell, I can make DXD sound really bad if I wanted to, especially if my taste leaned towards heavy salt and pepper on my audio.

[Feanor]

A closer look on my part reveals both are used in the regulation circuitry and are not in the signal path per se. You'll note other semiconductors used in the B+ supplies as well (all those blocks labeled with a "Q" as opposed to a "V"). Some may argue, however, that since an amplifier is really just modulating the signal via the power supply, you could say that in an indirect way, it is in the path.

Those tube purists draw a distinction between a "pure tube" design that solely uses tubes not only in the circuit path, but in the power supply rectification and regulation stages as well. Even some Audio Note amps contain SS components in the power supply.

By comparison, VTL and Conrad-Johnson products use SS power supplies exclusively.
It doesn't mean a think of course, but I've never heard of an opamp in power supply circuit, so I'll have to study this further to fathom what's going on.

I'd need a lot more persuading to believe that the power supply is some how in the signal path. Power is a commodity and only needs to be abundant and clear. What's wrong with s/s rectification and regulation?

Obviously there are a lot of reputable tube designs that rely on s/s power supplies. My former Sonic Frontiers preamp was one of those.

[RGA]

It's not that CD sounded bad - it just sounded like CD. Bob Hodas is one of the best recording engineers on the planet - they played tapes - they destroyed CD. They were however marketing the sale of Tapes called the Tape Project but a $200ish tape machine was embarrassing a very pricey CD player.

I am not sure why you are SOOOO anti-vinyl. Surely as a recording engineer you should know that the recording not the playback medium is MORE important. You take an exceptionally well recorded vinyl and you play it on a top flight "spared no expense" type rig versus this week's flat sounding CD recording and the myriad of crappy Jazz CDs where they just dumped it over on CD and of course the vinyl is going to beat CD upside the head.

I brought very well recorded HDCDs and system tester CDs and it was startling to me that some 1950s LP embarrassed them. Life got sucked out of the recordings along the way and a lot of otherwise fine new artists are sounding pretty sterile and frankly artificially doctored in comparison.

It's like the way CGI looks good and smooth but also often looks fake in comparison to the solidity and reality of models.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

It's not that CD sounded bad - it just sounded like CD. Bob Hodas is one of the best recording engineers on the planet - they played tapes - they destroyed CD. They were however marketing the sale of Tapes called the Tape Project but a $200ish tape machine was embarrassing a very pricey CD player.

Just because the CD player was pricey, does not mean it was set up optimally.


I am not sure why you are SOOOO anti-vinyl. Surely as a recording engineer you should know that the recording not the playback medium is MORE important. You take an exceptionally well recorded vinyl and you play it on a top flight "spared no expense" type rig versus this week's flat sounding CD recording and the myriad of crappy Jazz CDs where they just dumped it over on CD and of course the vinyl is going to beat CD upside the head.

First Richard, I am not anti vinyl. I realize the compromises vinyl does when compared to the original master tapes or file. Unlike you, I do not compare apples with oranges that your example presents. When I have made my comparison back in the mid 90's, I compared the original master 35mm tape to the CD and vinyl quality check. The CD sound more like the tapes than the vinyl did, and by a pretty wide margin. YOu example puts the CD at a disadvantage, and puts the vinyl in its best light. This shows the weakness of your argument. Level the playing field a bit here. Let us compare the original tapes to a 24/192khz digital encode against the vinyl. That is a far more fair comparison.


I brought very well recorded HDCDs and system tester CDs and it was startling to me that some 1950s LP embarrassed them. Life got sucked out of the recordings along the way and a lot of otherwise fine new artists are sounding pretty sterile and frankly artificially doctored in comparison.

Once again Richard, you are comparing the mid fi Redbook format again vinyl with your biases intact. I prefer a more objective perspective than Tube fan and yours.


It's like the way CGI looks good and smooth but also often looks fake in comparison to the solidity and reality of models.

Another very poor comparison. CG is made up in a computer, and CD is a copy of the original master tapes.

[E-Stat]

I'd need a lot more persuading to believe that the power supply is some how in the signal path.
Think of it this way: the power supply (along with upstream power cords and power conditioners) most certainly affect sound quality.

I've proven that lesson to myself many times over. In 1976, I owned a Dynaco PAT-5 extensively massaged by Frank Van Alstine. Aside from his mods using higher performance active devices and passive parts, he has always been a fan of big fat hairy power supplies. Do you remember the "Double Dyna 400"? He added so many banks of filter caps, they had to outboarded in a separate box! Dynaco endorsed both sets of changes and put them into their own production with the PAT-5 BiFET and ST-416 with optional C-100 "energy storage unit".

At the time, I was using a sweet 100 watt/channel Audire amp driving Magnepan MG-IIs. To its existing bank of 30,000 uF of storage, I similarly added another 80,000 uF in an external cabinet. I was 19 and thought, "why not?" I also replaced the bridge rectifier to a 30A unit so as not to melt the original upon power up. Result? Added transparency, bass impact and dynamic power. The sucker would play on for almost a minute when switched off.

The aftermarket power cords, conditioners and power supply used with the Touch I use today definitely open up the top by filtering RFI grunge. At first blush, however, the resulting sound is seemingly darker and rolled off. Then you realize what is missing is the haze and a purer top end emerges.


Obviously there are a lot of reputable tube designs that rely on s/s power supplies.
You betcha.

[E-Stat]

As far as the lack of MC, it would be VERY difficult to do with the size room I saw demo's in last year. Unless the system used mini monitors, there would be no way to optimize in those size rooms.
I agree entirely, but isn't that pretty much the case with two channel systems using any number of large speaker systems? I know that my three foot wide speakers that need to be 6-8 feet out from the back wall would be far from optimum in a hotel room. And, conversely, why speakers optimized for smaller rooms like the ANs work so well? I'm glad I'm not faced with a 12 foot wide room like Art Dudley.

If MC music isn't presented, then how can anyone develop enthusiasm over the format? I'm thinking that the Best Buy sales guy won't be promoting their HT systems using 2L recordings.

[RGA]

Your arguments are fair but I am not sure what you mean by set up the CD player optimally. How exactly do they set-up CD improperly?

As for apples and oranges - well that is kind of a given if you are remotely interested in music playback rather than JUST sound playback.

If I have 10 LPs that have no master tape in existence and all the CD copies sound worse than the LPs what am I to do - try to offer some practical advice for once.

I really don't give a rat's ass whether tape SACD, DSD or vinyl or mini-disc is superior technology as a sonic reproduction format.

What anyone who is remotely interested in listening to MUSIC gives a crapola about is getting the best music reproduction of their favorite music.

Tape sounded the best - great - but I can't get any music on that format and I have to deal with the pain in the ass of using the tape. Vinyl is bad enough for pain int he ass factor but at least there are hundreds of thousands of albums on the format and they cost next to nothing (in many cases nothing) to acquire.

If the vinyl sounds better than the same album on CD which is often (though not always) the case then vinyl it is. SACD and DSD probably don't even have the option for purchase. And even the Tape project is a system where you can buy something like 10 tapes per year for over $3000 and basically you take what they put out with a few opt outs.

Miles Davis or Ray Charles on 45rpm versus CD/SACD and the few Blu Ray music discs I've heard is embarrassing.

Conversely I have CD and vinyl of the same album where the CD easily wins.

I am not a slave to format - I really couldn't care less about formats or their technical prowess - I care about the result. I think everyone agrees that vinyl is weaker than digital in a technical sense and it may sound worse. Tape is great - no albums. CD for the first decade sucked and now it's compessed to hell. DSD had little to no presence at a show geared to people who care about audio reproduction. Wish I saw it. I want to get into computer audio - looking at several players but what music is available?

The discs I used in my sessions (other than G&R and McLaclan stuff were 24/192khz. My current CD player is also 24/192khz. And my planned computer player is likely going to be using the Sabre ESS Technology 9018 32 bit DAC chip with zero jitter.

I'm simply stating what I heard at the show - tape and the black discs in every room they were in sounded better even against some stellar discs. 1950s pressing were killing German made best CD can get CD and the SACD discs played in the SACD players (that were being used).

I think if you want to sell people on superior sounding technology I am opened minded enough to accept that - but I want it to be demonstrated to me in a real life situation. Once it is demonstrated to me that it is superior - I will say so. Demonstrated me in room listening session - not providing white papers and anecdotal personal experiences.

And while you seem to get frustrated with me - I am one of the few reviewers you will find that is willing to drop vinyl in a second if I like something better. Some reviewers are pretty entrenched on that format. I am not. If I can replace my favorite LPs with a better sounding version on download - my vinyl collection will head to the used shop immediately. Indeed, if it was close and LP only had a slight edge I might just save me the bother. But apples to oranges or not when I use a great CD recording and a guy puts on an old Chet LP and it KILLS a newly recorded SOTR even if it is CD played on a Chord CD player on heavy stands there is no way anyone could walk out of there saying they liked the CD better. And that CD got a huge number of compliments from a number of people saying to me how great it sounded.

But if I can get Loreena McKennett, Sarah McLachlan, Jackson Browne kind of music on DSD - then you have my interest. If all I can get is Mahler, Mozart - bah - don't care.

[E-Stat]

What anyone who is remotely interested in listening to MUSIC gives a crapola about is getting the best music reproduction of their favorite music.
What Rich just said. Greenie time.

Except that even if magically I could get equivalent hi-rez downloads of my vinyl library, I'm not sure that today I would drop several thou just for the convenience and marginal improvements.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Your arguments are fair but I am not sure what you mean by set up the CD player optimally. How exactly do they set-up CD improperly?

If you don't know by now, you will never never know. I should not have to explain this to you Mr. Reviewer.


As for apples and oranges - well that is kind of a given if you are remotely interested in music playback rather than JUST sound playback.

Come on Richard, don't be stupid. Whatever format is playing music, it is music playback. A PA system would be sound playback. Please don't stupidly assume that I don't know the difference.


If I have 10 LPs that have no master tape in existence and all the CD copies sound worse than the LPs what am I to do - try to offer some practical advice for once.

Here what you do. You realize that you would rather listen for euphoria rather than accuracy and trueness. In other words, you like your audio well seasoned, and have no idea what accuracy(which IS musical) really is. Here is another piece of advice(and this is practical), go hear some hi rez audio. Live with it if you can stand it(rolls eyes), then come back and let's talk.


I really don't give a rat's ass whether tape SACD, DSD or vinyl or mini-disc is superior technology as a sonic reproduction format.

No you don't. You don't care about anything but AN, and listening to and through cooked audio.


What anyone who is remotely interested in listening to MUSIC gives a crapola about is getting the best music reproduction of their favorite music.

Then get a grammphone then if it is all about the music. I think this is a BS copout. Anyone who loves music should want to hear it sound as close to the source that recorded it, not some cooked replication of it.


Tape sounded the best - great - but I can't get any music on that format and I have to deal with the pain in the ass of using the tape. Vinyl is bad enough for pain int he ass factor but at least there are hundreds of thousands of albums on the format and they cost next to nothing (in many cases nothing) to acquire.

So it is not about the music, it is about your budget. The fog is clearing now.


If the vinyl sounds better than the same album on CD which is often (though not always) the case then vinyl it is. SACD and DSD probably don't even have the option for purchase. And even the Tape project is a system where you can buy something like 10 tapes per year for over $3000 and basically you take what they put out with a few opt outs.

So far we find out the basis or your arguement is not what really sounds best, but what you have the most access to, and your budget.


Miles Davis or Ray Charles on 45rpm versus CD/SACD and the few Blu Ray music discs I've heard is embarrassing.

Mile Davis can be found on HDtracks in high resolution, and it can be found on SACD and CD.


Conversely I have CD and vinyl of the same album where the CD easily wins.

]I am not a slave to format - I really couldn't care less about formats or their technical prowess - I care about the result. I think everyone agrees that vinyl is weaker than digital in a technical sense and it may sound worse. Tape is great - no albums. CD for the first decade sucked and now it's compessed to hell. DSD had little to no presence at a show geared to people who care about audio reproduction. Wish I saw it. I want to get into computer audio - looking at several players but what music is available?

Why don't you get off your azz like I did and look instead of having somebody look and tell you. By just getting on the internet and typing in high resolution downloads, your question is easily answered.


The discs I used in my sessions (other than G&R and McLaclan stuff were 24/192khz. My current CD player is also 24/192khz. And my planned computer player is likely going to be using the Sabre ESS Technology 9018 32 bit DAC chip with zero jitter.

What disc did you use that can hold 24/192khz audio? The only one I know of is the Bluray disc. Your current CD player may have 24/192khz DAC's, but what the hell good is that if you only listen to Redbook CD? And please don't tell me it upsamples, because that does not add more information that improves quality, it just moves the brick wall filters.


I'm simply stating what I heard at the show - tape and the black discs in every room they were in sounded better even against some stellar discs. 1950s pressing were killing German made best CD can get CD and the SACD discs played in the SACD players (that were being used).

All this tells me is that they did not pick the best digital sources, but did so with the vinyl ones.


I think if you want to sell people on superior sounding technology I am opened minded enough to accept that - but I want it to be demonstrated to me in a real life situation. Once it is demonstrated to me that it is superior - I will say so. Demonstrated me in room listening session - not providing white papers and anecdotal personal experiences.

As many shows are you go to and you have never heard a DXD demo. I heard one at the CAS two years ago. You have never heard a well recorded(not upsampled) 24/192khz audio? Two years ago I went to the Rocky Mountain audio fest and heard quite a bit of well recorded high resolution audio. PLENTY of it. So it is rather obvious you only go to shows were deaf old people that enjoy cooked audio go. What a shame.


And while you seem to get frustrated with me - I am one of the few reviewers you will find that is willing to drop vinyl in a second if I like something better. Some reviewers are pretty entrenched on that format. I am not. If I can replace my favorite LPs with a better sounding version on download - my vinyl collection will head to the used shop immediately. Indeed, if it was close and LP only had a slight edge I might just save me the bother. But apples to oranges or not when I use a great CD recording and a guy puts on an old Chet LP and it KILLS a newly recorded SOTR even if it is CD played on a Chord CD player on heavy stands there is no way anyone could walk out of there saying they liked the CD better. And that CD got a huge number of compliments from a number of people saying to me how great it sounded.

Another damn vinyl CD comparison. This is like a broken record......Wise up fool, you cannot compare to incompatible recordings. A recording of one thing, compared to a recording of a completely different thing proves absolutely nothing.


But if I can get Loreena McKennett, Sarah McLachlan, Jackson Browne kind of music on DSD - then you have my interest. If all I can get is Mahler, Mozart - bah - don't care.

You can get Jackson Browne on DVD-A that carries both a 24/192khz track, and a 24/96khz surround track. The reviews on Amazon say it sounds far better than the LP/CD. Sarah label is on Arista Record label, and they have never been known for quality recordings IMO. They also do not support high resolution formats.

While you may enjoy these artists, they are niche artists who do not have enough sales to justify transfering anything on to SACD.

When you look up SACD on Amazon, you find 7,539 results. I am sorry that out of more than 7,000 titles, you cannot find one thing you like. I also think you are not looking either. Richard, you (like another individual that comes to mind) are a wordy BS artist - one of the best I have ever come across.

[Feanor]

Think of it this way: the power supply (along with upstream power cords and power conditioners) most certainly affect sound quality.
...
The aftermarket power cords, conditioners and power supply used with the Touch I use today definitely open up the top by filtering RFI grunge. At first blush, however, the resulting sound is seemingly darker and rolled off. Then you realize what is missing is the haze and a purer top end emerges. ...
Don't get me wrong: I wasn't saying power supply is unimportant. I did say that power has to be "abundant and clean".

All my components have at least some RFI/EMI filtering ahead of them and I use a shielded AC cord for key components, e.g. my class D amp.

[tube fan]

Hate? Boy, that is a strong sentiment!

I can certainly relate to the raw sounding SS gear of the 70s when I began my audio journey and that of early digital of the 80s. I just don't find that to be universally true today.

My mostly SS vintage system is easy to listen to for extended periods of time - even if does not provide the level of realism delivered by the main tube system. Its sins are largely of omission. The Manley DAC uses a simple 12AU7 based analog output. The modest NAD preamp does a fine job with the Ariston/SME/Shinon table. The Threshold amp is free from global feedback, uses no protection circuitry, has a stiff 105 joule power supply and runs class A for the first 10% of its output. It uses a shielded aftermarket power cord to minimize RFI and all other components are run through a power conditioner for the same objective. Since I enjoy the outdoors, I actually listen to that system more often that the "big" one. :)

With your penchant for (single) blind testing, to what SS gear have you compared your 80s vintage ARC gear in your own system?

edit: BTW, did you realize there are not one, but TWO Texas Instruments TL071 op amps in the signal path of your D-70? You may need to sit down and take a powder!

D70 schematic (http://www.arcdb.ws/D70/D70.html)

Look at U1 and U2 :)

Audio Research has been making hybrid amps for many decades. I like many hybrid amps, but, so far, no totally ss ones ( Krell, Bryston, Ayre, Naim, etc). Totally ss designs fail to produce palpable three-deminsional images. Audio Research has, from their beginning, tried to close the gap between typical tube bass and treble and the superior bass and treble of ss amps. They even tried to go all ss in some amps, a huge failure. I compared Audio Research's PH2 (all ss) and PH3 (hybrid) phono preamps, and, once again the ss unit, though more costly, failed to reproduce palpable sound. I brought the PH3 and continue to use it. Many ss amps have superior tonal balance to hybrid Audio Research ones (IMO, all Audio Research amps are too bright), but they fail in the production of palpable midrange images. NOS tubes help to tame Audio Research's brightness. JV has explained this in his many Audio Research reviews in TAS. Pure tube amps yield even better images than Audio Research, but their bass and treble is not accurate. Again, it's a question of each listeners' reality triggers.

[tube fan]

Maybe - but Fremer hates SET and loves 1000 watt amps.

Fact is people are not all in one camp. If SS does the job then I will say so - this is nothing new - I have liked plenty of SS amplifiers from Pass Labs, Sugden, Heed Audio, Technical Brain and others. It's not my preference because the speakers I own don't require their power.

And I think the MBL system would be better with vinyl and tubes. Since I don't play that loud and I would not need to fill that space - I would really like to hear their speakers on a very well built robust tube amplifier - even some of the bigger watt SETs or maybe something like the Carver amps.

I hear the potential in those speakers.

Perhaps the main problem with the MBL room was that they played everything FAR too loud when I listened. I hear that they do this at almost all audio shows. Very loud sound impresses the naive, so maybe it's sensible market-wise.

[E-Stat]

Totally ss designs fail to produce palpable three-deminsional images.
I see. You've never listened to any in your own system under single blind conditions.

[YBArcam]

OP's point of view on ss and digital just seems way too overzealous and unbalanced. At least RGA, who may not be the biggest fan of those approaches, understands there are good examples of each and doesn't let bias totally cloud his POV.

I have gone from one ss/digital system to another with a big improvement in timbre and tone, where music just feels real and alive, with a nice sense of space around each part. While perhaps tubes and analog would do this better it's pretty much guaranteed that they'd also do some things worse. I want my system to be well rounded, to be able to play everything that I throw at it convincingly. And I'm proud to say that it can do this for a very modest sum of money relatively speaking. This change convinced me that I didn't have to spend more to get better sound, and it definitely shows that one ss amp and CD player doesn't sound like another (OP seems to think they all sound the same and it's the same way they sounded back in 1986).

I also happen to believe that, as long as a piece of equipment is well made, it can sound good. Just because you hear an amp or speakers sound poor doesn't mean that they would sound as bad in another system, in another room, and set up differently. Were the proper things done to maximize the performance of a system when you heard it? I think my Naim gear sounds incredible, however two of the three demos in which I've heard a Naim system sounded very poor! Kind of bright, seemingly lacking in the lower frequencies needed to give warmth and foundation to music. That's not how my system sounds at all.

All that said, I'm going to try a tube amp this fall/winter. And I actually just purchased a tube phono stage (the Synthesis Brio, with two 12ax7 tubes). Not a pricey unit at all, but I gather nicely designed and built (in Italy) and 12ax7 tubes are supposed to sound quite nice. So yes, I do spin vinyl and while I need to do a bit more on that front to get the setup up to snuff, I've never had a better sounding source than my CD5X.

[tube fan]

I see. You've never listened to any in your own system under single blind conditions.

I fail to see how anything I have posted indicates that I have done no blind listening tests of ss amps. NOTHING! Oh yes, it's another incorrect assumption/conclusion.

[tube fan]

I see. You've never listened to any in your own system under single blind conditions.

I fail to see how anything I have posted indicates that I have done no blind listening tests of ss amps. NOTHING! Oh yes, it's another incorrect assumption/conclusion. I've heard some good things about SET ss amps, and I would like to hear one.

[E-Stat]

I fail to see how anything I have posted indicates that I have done no blind listening tests of ss amps. NOTHING!
Perhaps you missed the fact that you quoted my question and *chose* not to answer it. As this response continues to illustrate.

[tube fan]

Perhaps you missed the fact that you quoted my question and *chose* not to answer it. As this response continues to illustrate.

What question, in which post, are you referring to? This is beyond picayune!

[E-Stat]

What question, in which post, are you referring to?
That would be your post on the 11th around noon. I'll be happy to repeat the question:

With your penchant for (single) blind testing, to what SS gear have you compared your 80s vintage ARC gear in your own system?

[tube fan]

That would be your post on the 11th around noon. I'll be happy to repeat the question:

With your penchant for (single) blind testing, to what SS gear have you compared your 80s vintage ARC gear in your own system?

Check my post #46: Krell, Bryston, Ayre, Naim and others. All ss units supplied by various friends.

[JohnMichael]

Check my post #46: Krell, Bryston, Ayre, Naim and others. All ss units supplied by various friends.


Can you list model numbers instead of brand names since all companies have had some products that were more successful than others?

[tube fan]

Can you list model numbers instead of brand names since all companies have had some products that were more successful than others?

Here are two that happen to be in Stereophile's Class "A" ss list of amps: Ayre V-5xe and Simaudio Mood W-7.

[JohnMichael]

Here are two that happen to be in Stereophile's Class "A" ss list of amps: Ayre V-5xe and Simaudio Mood W-7.


I think you might mean the Simaudio Moon W-7? Any other models from the brands listed previously?

[RGA]

DSD system I heard and covered at CES 2010

Pyramix DSD/DXD workstation, and a Digit Audio Denmark converter capable of 32-bit/352.8kHz operation. (Usher room)

Ray Kimber was also running hires in the Sony room at CES 2010. Incidentally the room I also purchased his High Altitude drums disc. Unfortunately the effort is all about the recording sound over the music - it's not a musically rewarding album - like most of the discs people use to test gear. Which is why it doesn't sell outside the audiophile market.

Not sure I get the argument.
Sarah McLachlan is not available on hi rez cause she's a Niche artist. Really? Niche implies a subset of the market with little popular interest.

Sarah McLachlan Sales "as of 2009, she has sold over 40 million albums worldwide."

Diana Krall is probably the biggest selling audiophile Jazz singer and has sold 15 million. Impressive - but less than half that of Sarah.

Adele sold 22 million copies of one album for heaven sake and she's an artist screaming for a better sounding recording!

Madonna? close to 300,000,000 album sales.

And before someone makes the "it's amplified music so who needs it on a better format?" argument - why then are there tons of old fogy CCR and Rolling Stones, Genesis, type stuff available? That case doesn't fly.

Even Jackson Browne has sold more than most of the available lot on this SACD availability list.
SA-CD.net - Recent Additions (http://www.sa-cd.net/recent)

But yes everyone - throw out ALL your vinyl and CD because something new is out. never mind that the top selling artists are not available on the format and the occasional few popular artists who are available have only a few of their albums on the format. The public spoke with their wallets on SACD - and they laughed it off the map.

Setting up CD? Yes the dismissive answer - place CD player on a rack - connect CD player to amplifier with one of various connection options - turn CD player on, put CD in - listen to CD.

If you can point me to ANYTHING that tells users to open the box and fiddle with the internal workings of the machine to "set it up properly" then be my guest. :out:

[E-Stat]

Setting up CD? Yes the dismissive answer - place CD player on a rack - connect CD player to amplifier with one of various connection options - turn CD player on, put CD in - listen to CD.

If you can point me to ANYTHING that tells users to open the box and fiddle with the internal workings of the machine to "set it up properly" then be my guest. :out:
I would make a couple of suggestions (that are likely not what Sir T had in mind):

1. Place on roller bearing based isolation feet
2. Ensure unit is level
3. Use an optically absorbent mat like the Marigo product to minimize laser scatter.

[Feanor]

I would make a couple of suggestions (that are likely not what Sir T had in mind):

1. Place on roller bearing based isolation feet
2. Ensure unit is level
3. Use an optically absorbent mat like the Marigo product to minimize laser scatter.
Placing an aluminum foil cone over the player might help too.

OK, it's true that CDs can be misread by CD transports but the mystical improvements claimed by Marigo, (HERE (http://marigoaudio.com/cd-mats/evolution-signature/)), just aren't going to happen except in your imagination.

What I do is rip CDs using multi-pass reading, plus Accuraterip if it's available, (see HERE (http://www.accuraterip.com/)). Then playback from my WinVista computer using a "bit perfect" method such as ASIO or WASAPI. I haven't used my CD player in months, (at then it was for SACD).

[RGA]

I would make a couple of suggestions (that are likely not what Sir T had in mind):

1. Place on roller bearing based isolation feet
2. Ensure unit is level
3. Use an optically absorbent mat like the Marigo product to minimize laser scatter.

Yes such things are available - some of which is highly considered dubious. And I wonder how many of those same digital folks pay attention setting up the turntable in their comparisons. Most of them have never bothered to have a very good turntable to make their comparisons. Most of them at best had a stock Rega P2 with $50 MM cartridge.

Proper set-up of a turntable is critical. Using feet and mats for a CD player is dubious compared to cartridge alignment - and even playing a CD level is suspect in the sense that plenty of CD player designs play them sideways and work well. they're not high end models but they work - B&O and mega changers not to mention portable discman cd players and car decks which play while bouncing all over the road.

[E-Stat]

OK, it's true that CDs can be misread by CD transports but the mystical improvements claimed by Marigo, (HERE (http://marigoaudio.com/cd-mats/evolution-signature/)), just aren't going to happen except in your imagination.
Those of us who have actually used the product just smile to those speculations.

There is nothing "mystical" about reducing easily demonstrable laser glare. Try for yourself: shine a laser pointer through a CD. What do you see on the other side?

I also rip discs as well. The transport reads each sector as many times as it requires to get an accurate rip - NOT in real time. Sir T's observation is about CD players.

[Feanor]

Those of us who have actually used the product just smile to those speculations.

There is nothing "mystical" about reducing easily demonstrable laser glare. Try for yourself: shine a laser pointer through a CD. What do you see on the other side?
...
Smug-assed as usual.

I used Exact Audio Copy to rip CDs for a while. One of its virtues is that it would report errors or misreads that required reread or correction. The typical result for me, using my computer DVD burner, was about 3 per disc which usually a single pit (or bit). This would be fixed by any player's built-in error correction and be completely inaudible. The "huge" improvements touted for the Marigo are fanciful, (excepting, maybe, that you player is a total POS).

If your weary brain is concerned about laser glare, cut out a piece green, matt-finished paper and try that under you CD before you pop $200 on the Marigo.

[E-Stat]

Smug-assed as usual.
As opposed to the arrogance of you're somehow knowing exactly the effect of something completely outside your experience and ridiculing those who actually have? C'mon Bill!

Tell us about the experience of parachuting from an airplane. Ever done that? How do you think it feels to fall at 150 MPH? I'll be happy to share my experience.


This would be fixed by any player's built-in error correction and be completely inaudible.
Speculation IS you.


The "huge" improvements touted for the Marigo are fanciful, (excepting, maybe, that you player is a total POS).
Clearly with virtually all products, the sales department needs to inflate the apparent worth of whatever they're trying to sell. Like cables, the improvements are subtle and vary from disc to disc. It is an optimization for high resolution systems.


If your weary brain is concerned about laser glare, cut out a piece green, matt-finished paper and try that under you CD before you pop $200 on the Marigo.
In no other hobby do I find this much animosity towards performance enhancements.

Just amazing. The sad part is you'll never understand.

[Feanor]

As opposed to the arrogance of you're somehow knowing exactly the effect of something completely outside your experience and ridiculing those who actually have? C'mon Bill! ...
Study a little epistemology, Ralph. Nothing can be know with absolute certainty. But like God for instance, there are a few things we can say exist or don't exist with a high degree of probability.



...
In no other hobby do I find this much animosity towards performance enhancements.

Just amazing. The sad part is you'll never understand.
On the contrary. There are few hobbies where people are so susceptible to snake oil. What I do understand is that a lot of perceived sound differences are simply imaginary.

http://gallery.audioreview.com/data/audio/500/medium/BrilliantPebbles.jpg

[E-Stat]

Study a little epistemology, Ralph. Nothing can be know with absolute certainty. But like God for instance, there are a few things we can say exist or don't exist with a high degree of probability.
Oooh, trying to squeeze in multiple jabs here. I'll pass on your religious views. Regarding the audio topic, that's exactly what Julian Hirsch would say!


On the contrary. There are few hobbies where people are so susceptible to snake oil. What I do understand is that a lot of perceived sound differences are simply imaginary.
That is a great illustration of the "Appeal to Ridicule" logical fallacy. Bravo!

Let's not attempt to discuss the issue at hand. Instead, we'll parade a jar of rocks as our evidence.

[JohnMichael]

Placing an aluminum foil cone over the player might help too.

OK, it's true that CDs can be misread by CD transports but the mystical improvements claimed by Marigo, (HERE (http://marigoaudio.com/cd-mats/evolution-signature/)), just aren't going to happen except in your imagination.

What I do is rip CDs using multi-pass reading, plus Accuraterip if it's available, (see HERE (http://www.accuraterip.com/)). Then playback from my WinVista computer using a "bit perfect" method such as ASIO or WASAPI. I haven't used my CD player in months, (at then it was for SACD).




I own and use the Sound Improvement Disc and the benefit to my ears is obvious. It is the type of product that you can not sit at home and read print and make up your mind. It needs to be heard. Another tweak I like is the cd lathe that trims the cd's to be a true circle. Bernd sent me both a standard cd and a trimmed cd. The trimmed cd was better sounding.

[Feanor]

...
That is a great illustration of the "Appeal to Ridicule" logical fallacy. Bravo!

Let's not attempt to discuss the issue at hand. Instead, we'll parade a jar of rocks as our evidence.
I have attempted to discuss the subject, e.g. mentioning the result of rips that indicate that one-disc errors are rare and that ordinary drives without special "set-up" can read discs with few problems.

But instead you sneeringly dismiss this object information, telling me that I ought to listen to my betters and that, in any case, will never understand. What a hypocrite!

To achieve the "huge" improvements these mats are claimed to achieve would require a continuous stream of errors from disc driver: I don't believe this happens. There is no more objective evidence that at these mats work as claimed that there is the Brilliant Pebbles work. Oh! you say you've hear improvements -- I'm sure you do -- so do the users of Brilliant Pebbles. Hearing is a psycho-acoustical phenomenon.

Pardon my skepticism -- or don't; all the same to me.

[E-Stat]

I have attempted to discuss the subject, e.g. mentioning the result of rips that indicate that one-disc errors are rare and that ordinary drives without special "set-up" can read discs with few problems.
In your world, there are no qualitative differences in transports. Bits are bits. Timing errors and jitter are completely inaudible. If they read the bits, there cannot possibly be any sonic difference.

Enjoy your Walkman. And your speculation.

[Feanor]

Yes such things are available - some of which is highly considered dubious. And I wonder how many of those same digital folks pay attention setting up the turntable in their comparisons. Most of them have never bothered to have a very good turntable to make their comparisons. Most of them at best had a stock Rega P2 with $50 MM cartridge.

Proper set-up of a turntable is critical. Using feet and mats for a CD player is dubious compared to cartridge alignment - and even playing a CD level is suspect in the sense that plenty of CD player designs play them sideways and work well. they're not high end models but they work - B&O and mega changers not to mention portable discman cd players and car decks which play while bouncing all over the road.
I'm with you on this one, RGA.

Analog pick-up benefits from getting as close to prefection as possible. Digital pick-up on the other had simply doesn't need to same perfection; the read system can either read the pit or it can't. If the pit is slightly imperfect, misshapen or misplaced, but the pick-up sees it, good enough. The proponents of these mats imply a continuous stream of misreads, either missing pits or inducing jitter: is there objective evidence of this? Is there objective evidence that the mats reduce this?

(One of the benefits to of ripping to computer files is that drive-induced jitter, such as there might be, is irrelevant.)

When we get into the realm of very small differences in sound as might be produced by, e.g. interconnects, power cables, isolation devices, speaker cables, opamps, and maybe, CD mats, I become very skeptical of audiphile testimonials. Personally I don't trust my own ears: plenty of times I've though I've heard a difference from such components but later concluded that I could discern no difference. I certainly don't trust other people's ears.

The differences from tube vs. solid state, or LP vs. digital, are typically an order of magnitude greater. No CD mat is going to make CD sound like vinyl.

[JohnMichael]

Using feet and mats for a CD player is dubious compared to cartridge alignment - .


I always thought that anything that enabled the laser to read the disc better thus reducing the need for error correction creates better sound. Much the same way you align the phono cartridge and set tracking force so the stylus can follow the groove maintaing good contact. My SID reduces laser scatter so the laser is more focused on the disc. A laser misreading a disc and a stylus that does not maintain contact with a groove are similar problems that require different solutions.

[tube fan]

Study a little epistemology, Ralph. Nothing can be know with absolute certainty. But like God for instance, there are a few things we can say exist or don't exist with a high degree of probability.



On the contrary. There are few hobbies where people are so susceptible to snake oil. What I do understand is that a lot of perceived sound differences are simply imaginary.

http://gallery.audioreview.com/data/audio/500/medium/BrilliantPebbles.jpg

Yes, and that is why I advocate blind listening tests where those doing the rating of components are not aware of the specific unit they are rating. The exact same thing applies to wines. Famous, extremely costly wines or audio components will be rated much higher if done sighted versus blind. Look at Art Dudley's claim that rubbing some sort of cream on equipment resulted in better sound! talk about snake oil!

[Poultrygeist]

I'm sold on the combination of both ss and triodes in my multi-amping approach to OB.

[RGA]

tube fan

With your love in with Fremer because he "knows the absolute sound and hi-fi and accuracy" and hate for Art because Art likes musical instead of accuracy then I can't figure why you didn't like MBL.

Fremer on MBL

"Why belabor the point? No box above the bottom octaves and a 360° radiating pattern should produce imaging and soundstaging superior to that of any boxed or planar speaker, and once the speakers had been placed properly, the 101E Mk.IIs did just that, reproducing with eerie verisimilitude recordings of large orchestras as well as of small ensembles in intimate settings, such as a superb-sounding reissue of Johnny Hartman's I Just Dropped By to Say Hello (LP, Impulse!/ORG 176). The sound was intimate and properly sized, and produced Hartman's baritone with a natural warmth free of congestion or bloat."

Renders ALL panels and direct radiators like your speakers as piles of crap.

"The speakers' presentation of physical instruments and musicians in space required no suspension of disbelief—the holographically three-dimensional picture was just there."

"With all of these recordings, the MBLs produced as believable a rendering of the sound of a solo piano as you're likely to hear from any speaker"

"The Reference 101E Mk.II is among the most revealing speakers you're likely to hear. It ruthlessly reveals the sonic characters of the equipment it's hooked up to, which means that that system, including the cables, must be assembled with great care. It's also tricky to set up, and requires both an optimally sized room and careful placement in that room. Although my entire system has changed in the eight years since the first version of the 101E Radialstrahler was here, I feel confident saying that the sound of the Mk.II is more refined and well behaved, and far more capable of speaking with a uniform, focused voice. The combination of MBL's 6010D preamp and the 9011 amplifiers that I reviewed last month driving the 101E Mk.IIs was among the most formidable-sounding audio systems ever assembled in my room." MBL Radialstrahler 101E Mk.II loudspeaker Page 2 | Stereophile.com (http://www.stereophile.com/content/mbl-radialstrahler-101e-mkii-loudspeaker-page-2)

But no - the Kef LS50 sounds better? Be serious.

[tube fan]

tube fan

With your love in with Fremer because he "knows the absolute sound and hi-fi and accuracy" and hate for Art because Art likes musical instead of accuracy then I can't figure why you didn't like MBL.

Fremer on MBL

"Why belabor the point? No box above the bottom octaves and a 360° radiating pattern should produce imaging and soundstaging superior to that of any boxed or planar speaker, and once the speakers had been placed properly, the 101E Mk.IIs did just that, reproducing with eerie verisimilitude recordings of large orchestras as well as of small ensembles in intimate settings, such as a superb-sounding reissue of Johnny Hartman's I Just Dropped By to Say Hello (LP, Impulse!/ORG 176). The sound was intimate and properly sized, and produced Hartman's baritone with a natural warmth free of congestion or bloat."

Renders ALL panels and direct radiators like your speakers as piles of crap.

"The speakers' presentation of physical instruments and musicians in space required no suspension of disbelief—the holographically three-dimensional picture was just there."

"With all of these recordings, the MBLs produced as believable a rendering of the sound of a solo piano as you're likely to hear from any speaker"

"The Reference 101E Mk.II is among the most revealing speakers you're likely to hear. It ruthlessly reveals the sonic characters of the equipment it's hooked up to, which means that that system, including the cables, must be assembled with great care. It's also tricky to set up, and requires both an optimally sized room and careful placement in that room. Although my entire system has changed in the eight years since the first version of the 101E Radialstrahler was here, I feel confident saying that the sound of the Mk.II is more refined and well behaved, and far more capable of speaking with a uniform, focused voice. The combination of MBL's 6010D preamp and the 9011 amplifiers that I reviewed last month driving the 101E Mk.IIs was among the most formidable-sounding audio systems ever assembled in my room." MBL Radialstrahler 101E Mk.II loudspeaker Page 2 | Stereophile.com (http://www.stereophile.com/content/mbl-radialstrahler-101e-mkii-loudspeaker-page-2)

But no - the Kef LS50 sounds better? Be serious.

I have said many times that MF is NOT one of my favorite writers, because of his love of high power ss amps and inefficient speakers. Plus, he rarely reviews anything that I could afford. Art Dudley, on the other hand, prefers analogue, low power tube amps, and speakers they can drive. I suspect, warts and all, I would vastly prefer Art's system to MF's. BTW, Stephen Mejias preferred his inexpensive system to the upwards of $500,000 one he heard at MF's, which included the MBL 101 E Mk II speaker: "I was very happily surprised. Whether it was because I was back in Jersey City, in my own room, surrounded by my own things, or because I was high on winter moonlight, I can't be certain--but as I sat there listening again to "Holes," I couldn't help but think that the experience wasn't merely as good as what I'd heard earlier that day at Mikey's--it was better." I have been to wine tastings where both the group and I preferred a $10 wine to ones costing up to thousands of dollars. Price is NOT an indication of quality.

[RGA]

Jack Roberts CAS coverage - I found his views interesting.

He also chose his 5 best rooms. We agreed on only one room (although this time I chose a best four because 4 rooms stood out for me and were a "step up" over the rest of the rooms.

If I had chosen a fifth room it would have been Bob Hodas' room which made Jack's top five.

Jack Roberts CAS3 Coverage, Part III: Music Lovers Audio, MBL, Audio Image Ltd., Blue Moon Audio, Audio High, Loggie Audio, Dared Audio - Event Reports - Dagogo (http://www.dagogo.com/View-Article.asp?hArticle=1072)

Me CAS3 Coverage, Part IV: MBL, Acoustic Zen/Triode, Zu Audio, Vivid/Aesthetix/Brinkman/Synergistic Research, Angel City Audio/Melody/Wywire, Lumenwhite speakers/Ayon, Soundscape/MartinLogan, Von Gaylord Audio - Event Reports - Dagogo (http://www.dagogo.com/View-Article.asp?hArticle=1073)

CAS3 Coverage, Part IV: MBL, Acoustic Zen/Triode, Zu Audio, Vivid/Aesthetix/Brinkman/Synergistic Research, Angel City Audio/Melody/Wywire, Lumenwhite speakers/Ayon, Soundscape/MartinLogan, Von Gaylord Audio - Event Reports - Dagogo (http://www.dagogo.com/View-Article.asp?bShowUnpublished=&hArticle=1073&PageOfArticle=1)

Jack's top 5 rooms CAS3 Coverage, Part V: Top five rooms - Event Reports - Dagogo (http://www.dagogo.com/View-Article.asp?hArticle=1079)

My last page is being edited TBA

[tube fan]

I cannot understand how the AN room made it into Jack's top 5. From my listening (went all three days) of the AN system, it was not in the top 15 rooms: boring and colored.

[RGA]

Well it didn't make my top 4 and if I had a fifth it would have been Bob Hodus' room.

Jack must have heard something he liked on Sunday. I was surprised Von Gaylord didn't make his list - I know Adam Labarge also loved the Von Gaylord room. Their problem was that their system was not in the room you walked into but in the bedroom so you could walk in and see nothing playing and walk out.

I didn't hear the Magico room on Sunday - I don't know what the hoopla is over Magico - seems like TAS loves them but that is usually good reason to look somewhere else.

[RGA]

Last page is up

And no Audio Note did not make my best rooms final cut nor did Audio Space.

CAS3 Coverage, Part X (final): Bob Hodas Acoustical Analysis/Focal, Electrocompaniet/Brodmann/MIT, Zesto Audio/Merrill-Williams/WyWires/TAD Labs, Loggie Audio/YG Acoustics/Esoteric/Ypsilon/Stage III - Event Reports - Dagogo (http://www.dagogo.com/View-Article.asp?hArticle=1094)

[bobsticks]

That was some great coverage. Thanks for the links Rich. I can't imagine i wouldn't have found quite a bit to appreciate in any of those rooms.