How good are these.....?

[markw]

Can all poster's give a list of their systems?

http://cgi.audioasylum.com/systems/1606.html

[sacrasm mode]
I certainly hope this meets your approval.
[/sacrasm mode]

[E-Stat]

http://cgi.audioasylum.com/systems/1606.html

I see you are a fellow planar fan. I have likewise have spent countless hours optimizing the placement of my speakers as well.

rw

[markw]

To maximize their benefits, ya gotta place 'em correctly other wise it's not worth having 'em.

Of course, this is true for all speakers but when planars are positioned in that "magic" spot, a whole new world opens up. But, with planars, the rewards are so great that it canot be ignored. In fact, if this is not done, they can sound worse than monkey coffins, what with that reflected soundfield from the rear.

I got into planars in '99 what I took Magnapan up on their offer for the MMG's @ $500. Once they broke in, it was only a matter of time before the decision to ttrade up was made.

IMNSHO, They do need a sub to fill in the very bottom end, though. I found the best way to mate my sub to them was to simply split the preamp's outputs, send the full range to the 1.6's (since they are polite enough to simply ignore what they can't reproduce, no high pass was needed) and set the low pass filter on the sub to around 45 - 50 hz.

[musicoverall]

You and I discuss cables because we find them capable of making meaningful differences in our system(s). I continue to marvel at the effort exerted by some here who find them to have no significance. Call me crazy, but I expend zero effort writing about those topics which I find inconsequential.

rw

If I call you crazy, it'll have to be about another topic! I totally agree. I can assure you that if there is a Council on South Central Cambodian Koala Bear Feces, that they will never hear argument one from me, even if I visit their zoo!

[markw]

I can assure you that if there is a Council on South Central Cambodian Koala Bear Feces, that they will never hear argument one from me, even if I visit their zoo!

...and you think WE throw some messy arguments in your face.

[shokhead]

You and I discuss cables because we find them capable of making meaningful differences in our system(s). I continue to marvel at the effort exerted by some here who find them to have no significance. Call me crazy, but I expend zero effort writing about those topics which I find inconsequential.

rw

So if some of us have used costly cables and wires and could not hear or see any difference to warrant the price,we are nuts because you can?

[jneutron]

What is musical detail? What does it mean?

Ah, a good question..I will start with an optical example for clarity.

1. Build a half wall of translucent white glass. Make it 10 feet wide, 3 feet tall, on top of a 3 foot half wall of sheetrock.
2. Sit on one side of the glass, 10 feet away. Arrange it so your eyes are exactly 3 feet off the ground.
3. Darken the room.
4. Put a 1000 watt floodlight on the other side of the wall. Arrange the setup so the bulb is two feet off the ground. This arrangement allows you to see only the light incident on the glass, the vector from your eyes to the bulb goes through the sheetrock, so you cannot tell where the light actually is with respect to the wall.

OK.

First, put the light 20 feet away. You will ascribe a specific brightness to the white spot on the wall.

Now, move the light closer, with it aimed at the center of the glass wall. As the bulb gets closer and closer, the wall becomes....brighter, and apparently more focussed.

If you were to measure the optical intensity and plot it, you would find that as the light gets closer to the wall, the peak goes up, the sigma goes down, but yet, the integral (area under the curve) remains the same..there is no change in energy total. And yet, one would state that the image is brighter because it's peak is higher..

Now, consider the acoustical equivalent.

We use lateralization to determine the location of the sound. What happens if the acoustical virtual image of an instrument is laterally affected by the electronics? Consider the equation for magnetic loop coupling...it scales with frequency..more precisely, increases in direct proportion to frequency. The worst part of that is, the induced error term is a cosine term, lags the main by 90 degrees. And this term is the most difficult one to measure, as the main effect of a cosine additive term to a sinusoid is the time shift of the zero crossing, NOT the ampitude. Hence the incredible difficulty in measuring it using standard parts, test setups, etc...FFT's are not sensitive to it either..

Next...why would one consider error induced time lag to be insensitive to frequency? It will be quite frequency sensitive. I have experienced lateralization errors affecting the virtual imaging in my stereo..because I have an 11 band eq (home brew), I do not have the ability to set it exact channel to channel. Phase and amplitude are hugely non repeatable. It is rather weird, trying to get a monophonic signal, female vocal, to image in the exact center of the speaker field. By level adjust, I can get the bulk of the vocal smack dab in the center of the field, but I am not able to get the sibilance to be exactly with the vocal..it was to the right. Using the eq, I could get the sibilance to move, but trust me, the overall sound was not a pretty "sight".

So, for me, I consider detail as follows: The ability of the system to accurately place an instrument or voice at a specific angular location within the virtually constructed soundfield, and that all of the frequency components of that instrument appear to come from the same location in space. And, it is my contention, that if a system is changed such that it brings the virtual image together with respect to frequency, that the image is interpreted as being "brighter".

In excess of two years ago, I lamented online about the lack of scientifically engineered definitions for all this..this is one case.

For your perusal...the attached graph shows the nefarious nature of cos based summation..the blue line is sine theta..the red line is cos theta..the resultant summation is the yellow one..note that even though the cos term is 10 percent of the origional, you see that the peak value did not increase much at all..but yet, the waveform now clearly lags the origional signal..Note also that all measurements of the yellow signal will show ZERO harmonic distortion...nada thing...

But if this happens to only one channel, we will "see" that time shift.

At this point in time, there is no measurement technique established to even attempt to look at this...yet..I will change that.

Cheers, John

[E-Stat]

... when planars are positioned in that "magic" spot, a whole new world opens up. But, with planars, the rewards are so great that it canot be ignored. In fact, if this is not done, they can sound worse than monkey coffins, what with that reflected soundfield from the rear.

I agree with you completely. My current Acoustats are even pickier because of their tendency to beam. I use a tape measure, string, and a laser device to assure absolute consistency in their placement. Mine are about eight feet out into the room.

I got into planars in '99 what I took Magnapan up on their offer for the MMG's @ $500. Once they broke in, it was only a matter of time before the decision to ttrade up was made.

I've got a few years on you to foster my love for planars. Bought MG-IIs in 1975. Drove them with an Audire power amp / H-K Citation 11 preamp, Esoteric Audio ICs (yes, they sounded better to my ears than the Audio Technicas and Beldens they replaced back then) and "powered" subwoofers. Actually the subs were internally tri-amped Braun LV-1020s the Maggies replaced with the other drivers disabled. Then moved to the Acoustat X in '77. Later upgraded to Monitor 4s and eventually to the 2+2s I've used for the past twenty years.

While I'm still a Maggie fan, I've not heard the 1.6s. I only read high praise about them and of their incredible value. Most recently, I heard 20.1s driven by some very nice electronics (yes, wired with Nordost Valhallas ). Simply breathtaking. They possess the best planar bass I've heard. While they don't have quite the "wow" factor of the massive Alons, I find them to be somewhat more coherent.

IMNSHO, They do need a sub to fill in the very bottom end, though. I found the best way to mate my sub to them was to simply split the preamp's outputs, send the full range to the 1.6's (since they are polite enough to simply ignore what they can't reproduce, no high pass was needed) and set the low pass filter on the sub to around 45 - 50 hz.

I have a love-hate relationship with subwoofers. It's just so difficult getting them to blend seemlessly with planars. I ran powered subs with my Acoustats for a couple of years until I got higher powered amps. I likewise used a similar low pass setting, but did high pass the 'stats to get more headroom. While the subs arguably went lower, qualitatively they were not as satisfying to these ears. Mine tended to blurr the sound of the skin of concert drums and basses. I do understand that a tradeoff to the smaller Maggies vs. the 20.1s is somewhat higher bass response.

rw

[E-Stat]

So if some of us have used costly cables and wires and could not hear or see any difference to warrant the price,we are nuts because you can?

Why do you say that? On the contrary. I've never tried "converting" or ridiculing those who have found no benefit. To each his own. I share the benefit of my experience and let folks draw their own conclusions. You will never find me make equivalent comments to these:

You will here (sic) no improvement in sound quality by using more expensive interconnects/cables/connectors....

People just "think" they can hear a difference.

rw

[Resident Loser]

...per omnia secula seculorum....as have all the rest...

Cables are inconsequential...arguing against the promulgation of certain "mythologies" isn't...

jimHJJ(...two-cents deposited...)

[musicoverall]

So if some of us have used costly cables and wires and could not hear or see any difference to warrant the price,we are nuts because you can?

See E-Stat's response above. He wasn't saying that and neither was I. I was saying, as I believe E-Stat was, that if we couldn't cost justify cables with sonics, we wouldn't feel the need to discuss it as it would be pointless. Nothing to discuss.

[E-Stat]

(...two-cents deposited...)

Big surprise. May you enjoy(?) your effort.

rw

[E-Stat]

Nothing to discuss.

Unless of course, you find the need to "save" people from their own senses with derogatory comments.

rw

[magictooth]

Quite honestly, I don't know exactly to what you are referring. I did a search and reread several interchanges between us. My guess is that you are either misreading my comments or reading something into them that is not there. I will be happy to respond to any specifics.

rw

E-Stat, OK here it is again. I wonder if you've ever done blind testing on your own system? I feel that there is a lot of garbage as well as a lot of good science in the audio business. The only thing that I feel very strongly about is the use of blind testing.

I previously related a story about a patient who swore that this cold medicine that could be bought in the US was the absolute best stuff and that Neo-Citran (the Canadian brand) did absolutely nothing. The last time he went down, he loaded up on the stuff. When we compared the labels, there was EXACTLY THE SAME ingredients. They were probably manufactured in the same plant, but labeled differently for the two separate markets. On another note, I can't even begin to remember how many people have told me that Advil takes away their pain, but Motrin doesn't do a thing (and vice versa). These two cases are clear examples of people deluding themselves by SEEING instead of EXPERIENCING.

When the yeasayers present their audio experiences as "truth" or "fact" - which is indeed what they are saying when they say, "high end cables make a difference end of story....", I have to question whether they've actually done any real testing of their equipment. If you are so confident that there is a difference let alone an improvement, then what do you have to fear with a simple blind test? I went into blind testing of my audio equipment with an open mind and was extremely surprised at the results. For people who have so much time and money invested in the hobby I find it astonishing that they won't even take the time to set up a proper test/audtion.

[E-Stat]

E-Stat, OK here it is again.

Here is what again?

I wonder if you've ever done blind testing on your own system?

No.

If you are so confident that there is a difference let alone an improvement, then what do you have to fear with a simple blind test?

Nothing. I am neither a reviewer nor presently in the market for cables. If I were to conduct such a test, it would be for an extended period of time, not for two minute snippets. Neither would I introduce any additional components into the signal path not presently used in my system.

Not to dismay, though. Last month a friend brought over his Kimber Palladian power cords for a listen. Through (sighted) tests, I could detect a small difference in soundstage and articulation. He offered to leave them with me for a while. I told him I would like to do so after I get my new speakers which should be at the end of this month. I'll give you an honest appraisal then.

rw

[musicoverall]

Unless of course, you find the need to "save" people from their own senses with derogatory comments.

rw

I haven't felt that need lately!

BTW, I'm also a Maggie man. I had the luck of... of... well, someone who's REALLY lucky when I found a used pair of 20.1's at a price I could afford. I, too, would love to wire them up with Valhallas but I just can't afford to. The really sad news is that the Valhallas spoiled me for the rest of their line, including the SPM. So I'm still auditioning at this point. Sorry to say I'm not going to engage in any double blind testing - too much of a PITA. I'll just have to rely on my own fallible senses.

[musicoverall]

Ah, a good question..I will start with an optical example for clarity.

1. Build a half wall of translucent white glass. Make it 10 feet wide, 3 feet tall, on top of a 3 foot half wall of sheetrock.
2. Sit on one side of the glass, 10 feet away. Arrange it so your eyes are exactly 3 feet off the ground.
3. Darken the room.
4. Put a 1000 watt floodlight on the other side of the wall. Arrange the setup so the bulb is two feet off the ground. This arrangement allows you to see only the light incident on the glass, the vector from your eyes to the bulb goes through the sheetrock, so you cannot tell where the light actually is with respect to the wall.

OK.

First, put the light 20 feet away. You will ascribe a specific brightness to the white spot on the wall.

Now, move the light closer, with it aimed at the center of the glass wall. As the bulb gets closer and closer, the wall becomes....brighter, and apparently more focussed.

If you were to measure the optical intensity and plot it, you would find that as the light gets closer to the wall, the peak goes up, the sigma goes down, but yet, the integral (area under the curve) remains the same..there is no change in energy total. And yet, one would state that the image is brighter because it's peak is higher..

Now, consider the acoustical equivalent.

We use lateralization to determine the location of the sound. What happens if the acoustical virtual image of an instrument is laterally affected by the electronics? Consider the equation for magnetic loop coupling...it scales with frequency..more precisely, increases in direct proportion to frequency. The worst part of that is, the induced error term is a cosine term, lags the main by 90 degrees. And this term is the most difficult one to measure, as the main effect of a cosine additive term to a sinusoid is the time shift of the zero crossing, NOT the ampitude. Hence the incredible difficulty in measuring it using standard parts, test setups, etc...FFT's are not sensitive to it either..

Next...why would one consider error induced time lag to be insensitive to frequency? It will be quite frequency sensitive. I have experienced lateralization errors affecting the virtual imaging in my stereo..because I have an 11 band eq (home brew), I do not have the ability to set it exact channel to channel. Phase and amplitude are hugely non repeatable. It is rather weird, trying to get a monophonic signal, female vocal, to image in the exact center of the speaker field. By level adjust, I can get the bulk of the vocal smack dab in the center of the field, but I am not able to get the sibilance to be exactly with the vocal..it was to the right. Using the eq, I could get the sibilance to move, but trust me, the overall sound was not a pretty "sight".

So, for me, I consider detail as follows: The ability of the system to accurately place an instrument or voice at a specific angular location within the virtually constructed soundfield, and that all of the frequency components of that instrument appear to come from the same location in space. And, it is my contention, that if a system is changed such that it brings the virtual image together with respect to frequency, that the image is interpreted as being "brighter".

In excess of two years ago, I lamented online about the lack of scientifically engineered definitions for all this..this is one case.

For your perusal...the attached graph shows the nefarious nature of cos based summation..the blue line is sine theta..the red line is cos theta..the resultant summation is the yellow one..note that even though the cos term is 10 percent of the origional, you see that the peak value did not increase much at all..but yet, the waveform now clearly lags the origional signal..Note also that all measurements of the yellow signal will show ZERO harmonic distortion...nada thing...

But if this happens to only one channel, we will "see" that time shift.

At this point in time, there is no measurement technique established to even attempt to look at this...yet..I will change that.

Cheers, John

No one could possibly compete with this. I'm completely amazed. Thank you for sharing this.

[E-Stat]

I haven't felt that need lately!

BTW, I'm also a Maggie man. I had the luck of... of... well, someone who's REALLY lucky when I found a used pair of 20.1's at a price I could afford. I, too, would love to wire them up with Valhallas but I just can't afford to. The really sad news is that the Valhallas spoiled me for the rest of their line, including the SPM. So I'm still auditioning at this point. Sorry to say I'm not going to engage in any double blind testing - too much of a PITA. I'll just have to rely on my own fallible senses.

Sweet. The 20.1s were my second choice behind Sound Labs U-1s. As for me, I use JPS Labs Superconductor + cables. Far more affordable than Valhallas. But then again, what you heard was simply your imagination run wild.

rw

[Beckman]

For your perusal...the attached graph shows the nefarious nature of cos based summation..the blue line is sine theta..the red line is cos theta..the resultant summation is the yellow one..note that even though the cos term is 10 percent of the origional, you see that the peak value did not increase much at all..but yet, the waveform now clearly lags the origional signal..Note also that all measurements of the yellow signal will show ZERO harmonic distortion...nada thing...

But if this happens to only one channel, we will "see" that time shift.

At this point in time, there is no measurement technique established to even attempt to look at this...yet..I will change that.

WOW!
So you are basicly saying that it is not just the frequency response of a system, but the phase response, and the frequency response with respect to the phase response that causes these affects in sound quality that are not allways clearly descirbed. I would still think that (and I am sure you and others would agree), amplifier and speaker qualities have the biggest effect on this and upgrading or changing speakers, or an amplifier is the best way to improve sound quality.

[risabet]

http://cgi.audioasylum.com/systems/1606.html

[sacrasm mode]
I certainly hope this meets your approval.
[/sacrasm mode]

Not a question of approval, knowing what you listen to helps me evaluate the comments you make. No judgement is attached to my knowing!

[musicoverall]

Sweet. The 20.1s were my second choice behind Sound Labs U-1s. As for me, I use JPS Labs Superconductor + cables. Far more affordable than Valhallas. But then again, what you heard was simply your imagination run wild.

rw

Do JPS Labs cables make decent reins for my runaway imagination? I'll have to check those out. As for the Valhallas, they deserve every compliment ever written about them. Naturally, they cost more than my amp! Grrrrrr.......

P.S The 20.1's would have been far down my list had they not been relatively cheap, being used models. Not familiar with the Sound Labs so your full report is eagerly anticipated... several months after you get them so you'll have time to optimize their placement. My biggest complaint with planars!

[E-Stat]

Do JPS Labs cables make decent reins for my runaway imagination? I'll have to check those out. As for the Valhallas, they deserve every compliment ever written about them. Naturally, they cost more than my amp! Grrrrrr.......

I'd love to compare the two directly in my system. Perhaps I can cajole HP to bring a short pair with him on one of his Atlanta visits to JWC. The Superconductors make very good reins as they are incredibly stiff ! - the result of the shield being a solid copper tube around the conductors. Bend them to a shape and they stay that way ! Because of that I had to ballast my dainty attenuator box with sand or it would tend to stand up. They use locking WBT connectors for a tight fit. As for sonics, the first thing that comes to mind is blackness. At first listen, they sound dark. Almost as if they are rolled off at the top. But they're not. With extended listening (not two minute quick comparisons), I find that the lack of grain allows more detail to shine through. Upper percussion is sweeter with more apparent decay. Triangles and xylophones linger more. I found a similar benefit, albeit at the other end of the frequency spectrum, with the use of bass traps in my room (I use eight). At first, there seemed to be less bass. Actually, there was less in the way of peaky upper bass. With those tamed, I could more clearly hear the lower fundamentals. Naturally, YMMV.

P.S The 20.1's would have been far down my list had they not been relatively cheap, being used models. Not familiar with the Sound Labs so your full report is eagerly anticipated... several months after you get them so you'll have time to optimize their placement. My biggest complaint with planars!

Well, I believe the 20.1s are one of the truly great speakers around. Sound Labs, like my Acoustats are full range electrostatics but are designed very differently. Whereas my speakers are made up of multiple flat panels, the SLs use a single curved diaphragm. Their approach to taming the natural resonance issue is by using multiple, differently sized sections that control the diaphragm. Since they are of a newer design, they use toroidal trannies. Likewise, I would not have considered the U-1s had a deal on a refurbished pair not surfaced. Actually, the only original part of them that will remain is their massive steel frame. At this level of speaker performance, one has to pick nits to find fault with the 20.1s. As with all Maggies, they sound their best at higher levels. The Soundlabs hold their resolution better at lower levels. Since they are a full range design, I find them be somewhat more coherent. There is no apparent difference in sonic character as you find between the ultra fast ribbons and the more massive magne-planar mid and bass drivers. Here again, I would be most happy with the 20.1s.

http://www.soundlab-speakers.com/u1.htm

rw

[musicoverall]

I'm still auditioning cables and I'll check those out. My venerable Audioquests certainly aren't slouches but I've listened to rather a lot of cables that do more things better.

I do tend to listen to music loud and you're correct - the Maggies really shine with a bit of judicious volume boost. They really do deserve some Valhallas. Who knows - perhaps I'll find a used pair someday at a price I can live with. So far, no one seems to be selling. I guess their imaginations have run away for good!

[magictooth]

Nothing. I am neither a reviewer nor presently in the market for cables. If I were to conduct such a test, it would be for an extended period of time, not for two minute snippets. Neither would I introduce any additional components into the signal path not presently used in my system.

Not to dismay, though. Last month a friend brought over his Kimber Palladian power cords for a listen. Through (sighted) tests, I could detect a small difference in soundstage and articulation. He offered to leave them with me for a while. I told him I would like to do so after I get my new speakers which should be at the end of this month. I'll give you an honest appraisal then.

rw

markw had a suggestion that is easy for you to do and that would not introduce any additional components. He had a friend come over everyday and this friend changed the power cords or left them the same. He then tried to see if any difference could be heard. Why don't you try the same? I think that this method overcomes all of your objections listed above. There are no extra components, and you can listen to that part of your system for as long as you like. If one day is too short a time frame you can ask your friend to swap out cords every week instead. It simply remains for you to follow through with the blind test.

I hate to be so blunt, but an honest SIGHTED appraisal is completely meaningless. All the honesty in the world will not help if it based on a foundation of misinformation and lies. I hope that you will follow through with a blind test of the above power cord.

[jneutron]

WOW!
So you are basicly saying that it is not just the frequency response of a system, but the phase response, and the frequency response with respect to the phase response that causes these affects in sound quality that are not allways clearly descirbed. I would still think that (and I am sure you and others would agree), amplifier and speaker qualities have the biggest effect on this and upgrading or changing speakers, or an amplifier is the best way to improve sound quality.

I personally, do not worry about the soundstage my system presents..I worry about simple distortion, frequency response, how loud I can play it, how durable it is, and how light and small I can make the cabinets without being hugely detrimental to sound.

So for me, SOTA in measurement and design is entirely sufficient..and what you say is entirely correct for my use.

If I spent my listening time looking for the virtual imaging of the system, I would consider all amp design as crap, all speaker wire design as crap, all test equipment as crap, and certainly, all the speakers I've made...

SOTA in audio test does not address the problems of lateralization, and as far as I know, all the amp design guys are just tossing "crap" against the wall, and hoping something sticks..they are randomly tweaking...tweaking...tweaking...identifiable by the term "I listen with my ears"...they believe they are understanding the problem, but they don't.

I detailed a bit more at AH, so I won't repeat here...but what is needed is for the designers to actually learn what it is we hear in stereo. The engineers and designers aren't stupid, they just don't understand the problem. Once they learn it, they will fix it..

This situation reminds me of the episode of MASH, where everyone is looking for the chopper on the horizon, and it arrives behind them...

Oh, BTW...the light model I described?...Think of it this way: on the other side, instead of one white bulb, use two spots...a green one, and a red one..when they are side by side, the spot is yellow. But if you move the green sideways, the image we see stops being yellow, and developes a distinct red side and a distinct green side, with yellow in the middle..we visually interpret the image as blurring, or de-focussing, but easily visible is the differing color fringes. Now convert this visual to an acoustic one...color denoting frequency..you can see that the virtual origion of the source has become, to use some buzz words, de-focussed, blurred, less musical detail. And all it takes to do this acoustically, is tens of microseconds of interchannel sloppiness.

WE DON'T LOOK FOR THAT TIMEFRAME...WE DON'T EVEN KNOW IT EXISTS, because we concentrate on 20Khz fidelity, on a per channel basis.....

My goodness, if we were that shoddy at my place of work, there'd be no superconducting accelerator machines...I'm just happy to be here, to see the level of accuracy they use here....I am learning so much..

Cheers, John