ack's system - end of round 1
- Thread starter ack
- Start date
Al, thanks for coming down and for the honest feedback. And thanks to madfloyd and Peter. The last 3 months have been intense in trying to finely tune the system, but at the same time, very rewarding. Your comments from the previous visit steered me in the right direction.
A few thoughts:
1) Timbre: Yes, timbrally my digital can further improve; we'll see how the 4000SV performs again in here, in the upcoming weeks, during another round of evaluations.
2) Digital volume controls: From a fidelity point of view, I don't see how digital volume controls fit into the high end audio picture. Beyond the tonal balance shift I have described in the past, I experimented a little more after you left, going back to 54.5 which is where I was listening to for years, and the timbral shift towards the worst was quite obvious and dramatic. Therefore, again, see #1
3) Beautiful string tone from digital? Yes, I think this is possible, but only with HDCD and higher. Irrespective of how spectacular redbook digital can sound nowadays, it is only through HDCD (and of course, hi rez 24 PCM) that string tones can truly compete against an analog source. I would love to understand why. The lack of HDCD decoding is a deal killer for me, at this point.
4) Treble performance: an exceptionally difficult feat to achieve in the solid state domain, and when it comes to amplification, Spectral crossed into the 'realistic' five years ago when they released these amps. That non-HDCD CD track you played, where we heard and FELT the cymbals resonate in front of us with such metallic purity, vibrato and decay is something to behold - what track was this again??? At the same time, another wall has come crashing down: that RBCD cannot do treble properly (something I have also claimed myself). A big part of properly assessing Spectral is the speakers you pair them with - I have not heard such treble purity at the dealers here and New York (especially the latter, where the Avalons just can't get treble right).
5) Dynamics: if I were to bring the amps to shut down, it would probably be around 108dB, where the speakers would still not budge. Interestingly enough, you'd think that this much volume would feed back to the turntable and affect the sound; no such feedback was obvious to me. At the same time, these Spectral amps never lose their sonic character and control under any conditions, which is an exrtaordinary achievement. We'll see how the 500s behave in here...
6) New speakers??? I have yet to convince myself that any sub-$100K (or even more) speaker system would be able to compete favorably in here, and I know some at $100K that won't, like the Rockport Altair II, and any Avalon that I have heard in the last 20 years. The Q3 would come close, but as I recall, it offers a recessed midrange.
7) RR-11, Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique: Despite the fact direct-to-disc is in general the king in dynamics, this tape-sourced LP is the most dynamic piece of music I have in my collection. A couple of years ago when I heard the Symphonie at the BSO, I was shaking my head at the end at the explosive and frightening dynamics I was hearing - probably around 110 to 115dB - and I have come to shake my head in here as well. This and the effortlessness is a personal achievement.
8) Analog performance: what you heard was the result of a number of things: first and foremost, lowering the arm by 3mm and resetting all other parameters; then, increasing the arm's mass and stiffness with copper tape; decreasing the XP-25's noise by at least 20dB than what came out of the factory; the magnetic arm stabilization (though this is not new); white lithium grease at the arm's pivot point; the tiny Sorbothane film between cart and headshell; and shielding of the tonearm cable sticking out of the arm. I would love to hear what an SAT arm would do in here, if I could only afford it.
Regarding the arm height/SRA/VTA adjustment, one aspect that is not talked about is the increase in transient speed, which has a direct effect on everything, including the expansion of the soundstage. To give you an example, the bells on the Fantastique are always rendered on the left channel on all systems I have heard it, including mine. What we heard yesterday was the bells resonating in the hall and rendered first on the left channel and then the right - this soundstage expansion (which I consider immense) came about as a direct result of adjusting the arm.
9) Transients: Well, I am glad you are also making this a priority of yours. Not only are microdynamics improved, but watching a system go from silent to 105dB in a few milliseconds is just exhilarating.
10) Linearity: there are many paths to sonic bliss, but I've always thought linearity is a sure and less painful path. And in here, it all starts with that remarkable cartridge in my avatar; I have not yet heard any other as linear as the A90, and I regret having taken so long to get it to really sing. I also get the impression your goal is also linearity.
Thanks again
Last edited:
Tasos, that is a nice list of characteristics and explanations. I highlighted two comments. I don't remember seeing measurements of the Q3 showing a recessed midrange, nor have I heard it in the three systems in which I evaluated the Q3. The speakers actually sounded very linear in all three systems. On what do you base your opinion? Was it on a variety of recordings in different rooms with various amps and sources?
Your comments about the bells on the Fantastique are interesting. I now can't remember how they were rendered in your system when you played this recording for me, but I recently listened to it on my system and the bells do not appear to come out of either channel, but rather near the center of the stage. The first strike was at center, the next bell was just to the left of center and these alternate for a while and then there are some bells far off in the distance to the rear right of the soundstage. Yes, they resonate within the hall acoustic. They are very vivid and present on the recording, incredibly dynamic and convincing. The soundstage is very large filling the entire front wall and beyond, completely divorced from the speakers.
What modifications to your system do you think are responsible for this new and different presentation of the bells that you are now hearing? Are you saying it is a direct result of arm height adjustments that affect transient speed and placement of images within the soundstage and not from anything else you have done recently to the system? Proper arm height will certainly reduce distortion rendering the sound more natural and convincing, but if you always heard the bells from the left channel on all other systems, do you think they had improper SRA?
With every Q3 demo I have heard, I felt the presentation was recessed, and I've said this for years, for example see http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...end-of-round-1&p=308239&viewfull=1#post308239
<<I agree with madfloyd that there is more depth through the Magicos, but I also find the Q3s' entire presentation more recessed - beautiful in itself... And yes, these Spectrals have tremendous clean treble energy.>>
Al and I discussed this, and he seemed to agree the presentation is recessed. The M5s are also like that. Maybe it was from an era when Magico favored this type of presentation.
Yes, this was a direct result of SRA adjustment.
ack said:
Tasos, I apologize. I think I misunderstood what you wrote. I took "a recessed midrange" to mean a discontinuity between drivers, or a reference to the speakers tonal balance favoring the low and high frequencies over the middle frequencies. I heard this once with a pair of horn speakers when listening near field. Solo cello had a recessed midrange. It was very odd and unnatural sounding: incoherent and discombobulated. Al seems to be talking about the spatial presentation of the music in the soundstage. If this is the case, then that is a different matter.
I found that during the set up phase of my Q3s, I could dramatically alter the spatial perspective presented to the listener. When I move the speakers closer to the listening seat, the sound is much more up front and immediate - more like Al's system. Perhaps more like yours, but I am now not confident of what you system sounds like with all the changes. Moving the Q3s further away by just 3" gives the impression that the listener has moved from the edge of the stage back about 25 rows. I settled for a speaker position in the middle, giving me a perspective of about the 15th row center orchestra on classical music and jazz and pretty close up on string trios, vocals and solo instruments. I usually sit in the 7th row at the BSO. On the larger scale classical recordings with the Q3, it is as though I am sitting just slightly further back, perhaps the 12th or 15th row, center. The soundstage usually now fills the front of my room, wall to wall, floor to ceiling. It really is remarkable.
Now you and Al may disagree with this part. This listening perspective is distinct from the amount of energy filling the room and whether the sound is relaxed, or the listener is relaxed. The sound is both highly resolving and dynamic, but I, the listener, am relaxed. I discussed this with Al too. By "relaxed", I mean that I, the listener, feels relaxed when listening because the sound is natural with few artifacts calling attention to themselves. The music is not relaxed as in soft or less dynamic. It is just as dynamic and resolving and present, but I am not feeling on edge or a bit tense as I sometimes am when the music is too bright, or something is amiss. Perhaps you and Al are referring to a relaxed musical presentation, which to me implies a somewhat soft and subdued experience. I don't hear it that way, and I do not hear the midrange driver as distinct from the other drivers in the Q3.
No, I don't disagree with what you are saying, Peter. The system sounds very dynamic, with the energy of the sound filling the room, but the listening perspective and presentation is relaxed. That's how I perceive it too when I listen to your system.
Thanks for having had me over, this was exciting.
There are presumably better digital volume controls out there than on the Berkeley DAC. But I can see how some manufacturers, like Spectral, are categorically against them. Strange, I would have bought the Yggdrasil DAC (Yggy) a few months earlier than I did, had I not initially been turned off by the lack of digital volume control, which forced me to buy the Pass B1 preamp first (and, fortunately, upgrade my interconnects simply because they were not long enough!). Well, you never stop learning.
I think it's the Janaki recording rather than the fact that it's HDCD. I get that beautiful string tone with the Yggy as well, which does not do HDCD decoding. Or perhaps not, you'll tell me next time. You also liked the string tone on the Mozart string quartet recording (Quatuor Mosaiques, KV 387 and KV 421), which was Redbook, but encoded with a Linn Numerik A/D converter (label Auvidis).
That track was Rihm Trios 1969-1994 (label Kairos), track 6, around 3:30 -- "Paraphrase" for cello, percussion and piano.
Neither was it to me. You must have stabilized the vinyl set-up very successfully, which is probably also reflected in the precision of sound that I had not yet heard before.
In your situation I wouldn't look for other speakers either. What you have accomplished here is amazing, and you have tuned the speakers to your room, which is not possible with most other speakers. As I suggested, upgrading your digital is what I would be looking for.
Yes, transients and linearity have become specific priorities of mine too. I guess the latter is encompassed in the broader theme of "tone" which has always been important to me.
Thanks for the explanation, Al. I now understand what you and Tasos are describing. I think you were at my house when I moved the speakers forward and backward a few inches. If I recall, you commented that the sound became more up-front and immediate when the speakers were moved toward the listener, and more like the sound of your system. "Exciting" may be another way to describe it. The Q3s, and perhaps many speakers, reveal very clearly differences in position/location within the room. We discussed preferences, and I think we each prefer a slightly different listening perspective, just as we do at the BSO, and as Tasos does way back and up in the front of the first balcony. I find that moving the speakers slightly back adds some depth to the soundstage, and expands the image which I like for larger scale classical music. I think on smaller scale music like the string trios, and vocals, the listening perspective is pretty similar between our two systems. And on some music, like that drum CD that you and Tasos like, the drums are way back on the stage in your system. The sound is alive and vivid, but more recessed.
You and Tasos are seated closer to your speakers. I am after a sound, at least on classical, which more closely resembles what I experience in my prefered listening seats at concerts. As you say, there is no right or wrong.
Interestingly, I gather that MikeL also has an extremely immediate, up-front presentation in his near-field listening position.
Yes, Al and I are talking about the same thing: recessed spatial presentation (my description was not as good as his, sorry).
My spatial presentation has not changed - up front when the recording is close-mic'd, distant as the recording dictates, but never too distant (a potential flaw???)
That's fascinating! I may have heard the same thing with the M3s the last time around, them being set up further away from the listener. Interesting.
Nope, not a soft and subdued experience, just set further back which is more relaxing than in-your-face. Sometimes I keep going back and forth on this, when it comes to large-scale classical. But nonetheless, as long as all the information is there - detail and timbral accuracy, all well articulated - then spatial presentation becomes much less of a factor. I would say that, in that respect, what then matters is the size of instruments, and for example, I would hate to hear timpani sound small, when I know they can even overpower the orchestra sometimes. That was indeed one of the problems with previous iterations of my system, many moons ago.
Ah yes, I recall now - when you put on that CD I was in the kitchen, and despite it being straight RBCD, it jumped at me as if someone was playing a real violin in the other room. Yes, I have to agree now, RBCD can do natural string tone as well. In fact, I am listening to Shostakovich with the BSO right now on DG, and strings sound so beautiful. We also discussed A/D converters at length, and you may want to write up in your system thread about the differences between early vs late Naxos, et al... I have to get that CD and the Rihm Trios - truly fascinating recordings.
The timpani does at times overpower the orchestra in the Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique 45 RPM LP on Reference Recordings. I was just listening to this the other day and the thunderous pounding of those deep drums is astonishing. On Beethoven's Violin Concerto, on the other hand, the timpani can be small and much less impactful. It depends on how it is played and interpreted by the conductor. The important thing is that the low bass is clean, clear, and articulate as it is in reality in a good hall. The recording quality and capabilities of the system are paramount here.
My earlier post may have implied a non changing presentation. That is not the case. It does depend on the recording, and the system is transparent enough to allow differences in mic position to come through. Too distant a perspective on all recordings would indeed indicate a problem.
When I heard the M3s, and the Q3s, in the big room at Goodwin's, there was usually quite a distance between listener and speaker, giving it a more recessed presentation, so I can see how you would conclude that this is a characteristic of those speakers. However, I think these speakers lack what we typically think of as "character". They are a window onto the recording, if the room and system are well sorted out. Have you had a chance to hear the M3 in the middle room yet? Goodwin's tells me that they do many demos in that room and people are generally very impressed. Perhaps the volume in that big room is just too muich for these moderate 44" speakers with their 3 X 7" woofers.
Here's the thing - the M3s are ALWAYS already set up in the big room when I go in, I actually never asked to listen to them in there. So they must like them in the big room... Not sure what they told you, it doesn't jive with what I see. And if the M3s woofers can't fill the room, well the Q3s did with the 400RS amps. So something is not adding up.
Yes, I know what you are saying, and I agree up to a point. The Q3s did fill up the big room when I heard them with the 1000W Boulder amps. I don't know if I ever heard them with the Spectrals. We disagree about the M3s. Though I have only heard them once, and with limited music, I really liked them in the big room. You have more time with them, so I will remain open minded about their about abilities, knowing full well that others rave about them. When fellow member JimmyS came to hear my system a few weeks ago, he had just left Goodwin's where he had heard the M3s in their middle, smaller room. Paul mentioned to me that a few clients have requested to audition them in the smaller middle room and then bought them, so I can only go by what I have been told. Perhaps they think the M3s are their best Magico speaker, so they keep it set up in the big room with the fancy equipment. They have no plans to get the M6s in the store.
I do think it would be interesting for you to try to hear them in the other room so that you can compare the sound to the big room which you don't like very much. You keep going back to hear them despite your reservations, I guess because you are also assessing the new Spectral amps. I suspect that in the smaller room, the speakers will perform better as there is less volume to pressurize. My concern is that one sit far enough away, perhaps 9' or more, for the drivers to fully integrate. I would also listen to them with your vinyl the way I did to give you yet another perspective.
Tasos, Have you heard the new Magico A3s? They might sound excellent in the smaller room at Goodwins. Myles just posted his extremely favorable impressions after hearing them at Expona. How do you think these or the S5 II or S3 II would sound compared to your modified MLs? Perhaps no contest, but I'm curious about what you think. Didn't you really like the S5 in Myles' system?
Last edited:
I have not heard the A3 - I don't get the impression the S3 or A3 would compare favorably with my speakers. But as I've told you, the S5II is one remarkable speaker. Question is, do I need it. I have not convinced myself that I do; perhaps the bass is a little more articulate, but can't tell for sure. I really don't like spending money on this hobby for marginal gains. I gotta also tell you that I am pretty much an electrostatic and ribbon guy. I'd like the group here to try to listen to some ribbon hybrids one day, you jaw may just drop.
I think there is a very interesting question imbeded here in this thread as to what should a speaker be: laid back (recessed) or forward. It seems both Ack and Al M. are saying their systems are somewhat forward and that the Q3 is recessed. From what I see from Q3s measurements it is not recessed in the conventional sense where there is a dip in the presence region (a trick that was used by a lot of British speakers like B&W to make music less "in your face"). A dip in the presence region will give the perception of more depth and for classical music a more "you are there" distant perspective of sitting mid-hall. Since the Q3 doesn't have this dip really then we are talking about a different effect that is causing the perception of the sound being nearer or farther from the listener.
I will first point out something that should be obvious: If the majority of your recordings sound up front and forward or sound too distant then there is a flaw in your system. Your system should sound forward and present when the recording is done this way (this means a lot of pop/rock, some Jazz and some small ensemble classical can all be recorded and mixed "up close") and it should sound more distant and spacious with more naturally mic'd and mixed recordings. Music selection of course may impact the overall impression here but in a trial with a wide range of recording styles you should not see a trend other than what is on the recordings.
I have found that things can measure nearly perfectly and still sound forward or distant because of some of these traits: 1) Forward and somewhat flat sound comes from excessive HF energy, particularly high order harmonic distortion. High order harmonic distortion will give an "edge" to the sound (so it will also give perception of sharp transients) and will alter the perception of loudness at those frequencies, which in turn impacts the perception of depth. One way we gauge depth is the relationship between high frequencies and lower ones because this changes with distance and we interpret the sound as coming from somewhere far away if there is a significant HF content. A violin, for example, will sound quite lit up and perhaps rough up close but the same thing will sound sweet and somewhat mellow at 10 meters away. Another possbility is that the tweeter itself creates artifacts that lead to the same perception issues. If you are getting consistently forward sound from your system either your speaker tonal balance is really tilted upwards or have a look at your electronics chain because something is not as clean as you think. When my friend had his Octave monos (with SuperBB) on Thiel CS3.7s there was a consistent edge (brightness/glassiness) and forward sound on nearly all recordings and particuarly when the amps were pushed a bit. He changed the amps and it was gone and the Thiels gave great soundstage and 3d images...to be fair, the Thiels are very linear (perhaps too much in normal rooms) and can come across as "bright" but this was clearly exaccerbated by the amps.
2) If you are getting a somewhat recessed sound and yet the speaker measures flat then it is because of some reticence in the highs due either to the speakers and/or the electronics. This goes back to something that HP noticed over the years, a speaker can measure flat to 20Khz and still sound somewhat soft and distant. I have noticed this as well and it could be a dynamic reticence on the tweeter or perhaps that tweeter is very lacking in atrifice (see above for exaggerations of highs). However, we are talking about an issue where you are always perceiving sound at a distance and this would indicate a flaw. Electronics may also have some restriction in delivering HF with the same relative energy to the rest of the range (i.e. somewhat dark sounding). A dark sounding piece of gear will rarely sound very forward even with close mic'd "in yer face" recordings. This reticenence in the highs will then give a more distant perspective regardless of the recording.
Note: I am not talking about speakers or electronics with obvious defects that can cause these effects (bumps and dips in the speaker FR, for example).
IMO, these are both flaws as the music should "breathe" depending on the recoridng or even within some really good ones.
Thanks for your thought morricab. I feel that the crossover can also be voiced to give a certain type of presentation, as can upstream electronics (see your comment about amps). So hard to say for sure here. As yet another example, I was talking to the local Magico dealer yesterday about the Spectral 500/M3 issues that I have documented numerous times herein, and he confirms it's the speaker CABLES for the euphonic midrange that I am hearing, despite their Off setting on the boxes during the demos. In other words, he confirms that there is still a certain 2C3D effect with them, despite having turned that switch Off. Therefore, it takes a lot of experimentation to figure out what's really going on. At least now I can confirm yet again that I am not a fan of the super expensive MIT cables, as they appear to have taken the wrong turn somewhere.
What a pleasure to read this post. It confirms what I have observed for years. And it calls into question all of your negative comments about the M3 in specific contrast to the many very positive reports from those who have heard the speaker and own it. Did your dealer comment about the Spectral amps shutting down or if this issue with the cable is observed when the speakers are auditioned in the smaller room at Goodwins? I am not aware of any M3 owners using Spectral amps and MIT cables, but off hand, I only know of a few M3 owners.
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |