ack's system - end of round 1
- Thread starter ack
- Start date
Just called Goodwins and the guy in charge of those demos is no longer there and the current staff does not remember which amp was used for which speaker. Perhaps they used Boulders for both because the explanation I remember was not about the load or impedance curve but rather the size of the room. I guess we will have to disagree about our recollections. But it does not really matter. The point is that you don't think the M3 has sufficient (quality or quantity?) bass in that room at Goodwins. I can understand that knowing the room as I do. Paul invited me to come to hear the M3s anytime. He suggested the smaller room which is more like my room anyway which is what I would prefer. I've always preferred the bass of my Mini II and that of the Q and M series to that of the S series, but I have not heard the newer S II series.
I will contact Myles when I am next in NYC. I don't get the scratching my head comment. I do look forward to someday hearing what seems like a remarkable collection of music.
So I would agree with what Alon said, with respect to his products *back then*. Right now, I find the S5 Mk II's bass quite refined, and as Marty said, in Myles's room, it's spectacular. So I would not extrapolate what people say about the products at the time of writing, and judge newer products based on those old comments. Frankly, he's changed the sound of the original S5 in the new MkII, and it's now one damn good speaker.
As it turns out, you are RIGHT about the Q3/Boulder demo, and Ian and I are not remembering well - in fact, here's Ian's own blurb on that Q3/Boulder demo https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/magico-q3-s-at-goodwin-s-high-end so QED. By contrast, I wrote up the Q5 demo here http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?599-Magico-Q5-demo-at-Goodwin-s and that was using Spectral. Sorry about all this confusion.
Regarding the scratching the head comment: after you listen to both speakers, you may be scratching your head as to why the S5II's bass is better than the M3's; but maybe you won't. I know I am scratching my own head. I'd love to figure this out, even if it means the Spectral amps just can't drive the M3s properly... which is why I want to go back to listen with the Q7s, before I make any final conclusions
I am going to take the liberty and quote an M3 owner's own observations about the bass, on Myles's M3 thread here https://www.audionirvana.org/forum/...he-magico-m3-speaker-thread?p=35379#post35379 and these observations come after he brought in Jim Smith to tune his M3s:
That's basically what I am also talking about.
That's basically what I am also talking about.
Tasos, how clever to go back and search for the reports of that demo. Thank you for catching the details. Yes, it seems it was the Q3 with the Boulders and the issue was the size of the room. What fun to go back and reread one's old impressions and Ian's very positive report. I still have very fond memories of the Q3 and I've always loved the black monolithic look of them. And I will make an effort to hear both the S5II at Myles' and the M3 at some point.
Back now to your system thread.
Back now to your system thread.
Do you think that 20-25dB suckout in freq. response is a result of the room dimensions/physics, or is it a flaw in the design of the speaker? I would tend to think that it is the former. In my experience with Magico speakers, they tend to be extremely coherent and measure well. Some are more extended than others based mostly on driver compliment, but I have not heard one of their speakers with such a dip in low frequency response. It is much more likely, IMO, that it is room related.
Paul at Goodwins told me that the M3 in their middle room has no bass issues and sounds incredible. That is where I intend to hear it with ancillary gear as close to mine as possible, just as I auditioned the Magico V2. Goodwins even reoriented the layout and put the speakers on the long wall to better match the conditions of my room. I appreciate their approach.
I hope the speaker fares better in the small room, because I am about to use the B word - broken
Most probably a room problem due to room cancellation - a characteristic of rooms with very solid and rigid walls, having no bass absorption. A good friend has such problem - it was impossible to have bass in the room with the speakers placed at positions that could have stereo imaging. A solution can be found placing subs far from the main speakers.
I tend to think you are right. Because of the compromise between placement for optimal soundstage and placement for optimal bass, in many -- if not most -- cases subs seem to be advisable also for speakers designed to be full range.
If I remember correctly, Jim Smith likes to have subs available for system set-up in order to have freedom regarding placement for optimal soundstage.
This is precisely what was done in Goodwin's large room during the S7 demo. Two S subs were placed in the front corners far away from the main speaker position. The sound was very coherent and extended and I was very impressed with the bass performance.
Tasos, my point about what Alon stated to me wasn’t really referencing specific speakers in his line up, but more about his overall philosophy. This I doubt has really changed over the time. That philosophy is to do with the delineation of the line as one goes up the line, and how Alon views the specific audience based on the price point.
This is how I interpreted his comments also. When I was at the factory, they told me that the different lines are specifically targeted toward what they think the buyer wants/expects within those budget constraints. They added that the Q and now the M line are the best speakers they know how to make. Alon always said that the bass performance in their top of the line speakers is about bass quality not bass quantity. It has to do with cabinet shape and rigidity, as well as the quality of the drivers and crossovers.
I agree that nothing that I have read makes me think that Wolf has changed his philosophy. I look forward to hearing the S5II and M3. I wonder what the latter would sound like in Myles' room.
Last Saturday Ack invited me over to hear his system again and to show the effects of the digital volume control on the Berkeley Alpha DAC at different settings. After demonstrating some differences in triangles on Mahler 2, 1st mvmt., between setting 54.1 and 55.5 (his preferred setting at the time, scale 0-60) on the Berkeley, I suggested that probably this was enough for comparisons, and Ack agreed. Little did we know how much we would compare again later. -- The digital volume control was set to 55.5 for the subsequent music.
We proceeded to listen to the James Bond brass ensemble CD (Proteus 7), followed by some Stockhausen piano music. A very well recorded piano CD that had sounded phenomenal in Madfloyd's system. I knew that it produced some uncannily clean and life-like transients there, including on hard hit notes in the extreme treble register, the most challenging to reproduce. Ack's system compared on this aspect favorably, also producing very clean transients, with great dynamics. So much for alleged 'transient blur' of Redbook CD.
We then heard a jazz piano CD where the cymbals from the drum kit again sounded sensational -- I always enjoy at how good the Spectral amps are here, well comparable to tube amps that usually shine on these sounds. We also listened to the Pepe Romero flamenco CD where, as always, the nylon-stringed acoustic guitar sounded stunning (again, kudos to the Spectral amps) and dynamics were explosive. An organ CD on the Dorian label with Bach's Toccata sounded great too.
Then it was time to listen to some solo violin on a CD that I brought, Arturo Delmoni playing Bach's Partita # 2. It is a fantastic sounding CD, and the highest price that I ever paid for a single CD, $ 50 from Audiophile USA, but well worth it. To my disappointment it did not sound very good on Ack's system, with a somewhat synthetic, 'plasticky' tone that seemed like a 'smear' laid over the music. I then mentioned that I had thought the brass on the James Bond CD played earlier also had a synthetic edge and 'smear', unlike what I remembered from previous visits.
Ack then suggested we listen at the previous digital volume setting of the Berkeley, 54.1, which I had heard in the past as well. Now the violin sounded much more natural, more like what I hear at home. The brass on the James Bond CD also sounded again more natural. The piano, on the other hand, showed a bit of blur on the transients, instead of being clean as before.
So there appears to be a trade-off. While some artifacts disappear at a given digital volume setting on the Berkeley, there are others that appear. We played with a compromise setting between 54.1 and 55.5, at 54.5, which seemed to work rather well on most of the material.
Now I understands why Ack says that digital volume controls suck (see post #411). I couldn't believe that the differences were so clear. Honestly, I thought that Ack had exaggerated when talking about minutiae of digital volume control, but I heard it myself. Issues here appear to involve linearity, noise and quantization errors at different settings. We briefly tried also setting 60 (full volume), but it sounded euphonic like Ack had claimed it does, with comparatively a bloated, yet at the same time somewhat hollow sounding, lower midrange.
When I still listened to the Berkeley, I used it as the volume control in my system, with settings between 30 and 50, depending on the CD. I never heard those problems, but then I wasn't experimenting with fixed settings in the volume range 54 to 60, using an analog control to adjust listening volume. It can also be that Ack's system particularly reveals artifacts, as it acts as a microscope on the recording.
Certainly that was a very interesting listening session! Thanks, Ack, I enjoyed the experience and learned a lot.
We proceeded to listen to the James Bond brass ensemble CD (Proteus 7), followed by some Stockhausen piano music. A very well recorded piano CD that had sounded phenomenal in Madfloyd's system. I knew that it produced some uncannily clean and life-like transients there, including on hard hit notes in the extreme treble register, the most challenging to reproduce. Ack's system compared on this aspect favorably, also producing very clean transients, with great dynamics. So much for alleged 'transient blur' of Redbook CD.
We then heard a jazz piano CD where the cymbals from the drum kit again sounded sensational -- I always enjoy at how good the Spectral amps are here, well comparable to tube amps that usually shine on these sounds. We also listened to the Pepe Romero flamenco CD where, as always, the nylon-stringed acoustic guitar sounded stunning (again, kudos to the Spectral amps) and dynamics were explosive. An organ CD on the Dorian label with Bach's Toccata sounded great too.
Then it was time to listen to some solo violin on a CD that I brought, Arturo Delmoni playing Bach's Partita # 2. It is a fantastic sounding CD, and the highest price that I ever paid for a single CD, $ 50 from Audiophile USA, but well worth it. To my disappointment it did not sound very good on Ack's system, with a somewhat synthetic, 'plasticky' tone that seemed like a 'smear' laid over the music. I then mentioned that I had thought the brass on the James Bond CD played earlier also had a synthetic edge and 'smear', unlike what I remembered from previous visits.
Ack then suggested we listen at the previous digital volume setting of the Berkeley, 54.1, which I had heard in the past as well. Now the violin sounded much more natural, more like what I hear at home. The brass on the James Bond CD also sounded again more natural. The piano, on the other hand, showed a bit of blur on the transients, instead of being clean as before.
So there appears to be a trade-off. While some artifacts disappear at a given digital volume setting on the Berkeley, there are others that appear. We played with a compromise setting between 54.1 and 55.5, at 54.5, which seemed to work rather well on most of the material.
Now I understands why Ack says that digital volume controls suck (see post #411). I couldn't believe that the differences were so clear. Honestly, I thought that Ack had exaggerated when talking about minutiae of digital volume control, but I heard it myself. Issues here appear to involve linearity, noise and quantization errors at different settings. We briefly tried also setting 60 (full volume), but it sounded euphonic like Ack had claimed it does, with comparatively a bloated, yet at the same time somewhat hollow sounding, lower midrange.
When I still listened to the Berkeley, I used it as the volume control in my system, with settings between 30 and 50, depending on the CD. I never heard those problems, but then I wasn't experimenting with fixed settings in the volume range 54 to 60, using an analog control to adjust listening volume. It can also be that Ack's system particularly reveals artifacts, as it acts as a microscope on the recording.
Certainly that was a very interesting listening session! Thanks, Ack, I enjoyed the experience and learned a lot.
Thanks Al, interesting indeed. When I had the Vivaldi 2.0 in here, I did also notice how slightly better it sounded at max volume, and I believe I had selected the 2V output; and how a little softer it sounded with lower volume settings. The Vivaldi at max volume clearly outclassed this Alpha at any "optimal" setting I may have used for it; but the unit had to go back to its owner before I was able to form a well-rounded opinion. Too bad, because I may have bought it. This also proved to me that a high output voltage does not overload the 30SV preamp, so what we hear with the Alpha cannot be attributed to preamp overload either.
I think the behavior we heard is probably attributed to variations in the analog section's linearity, much less noise, quantization errors, et al, but I can't be sure. I can tell you, though, that in talking with the Berkeley folks about all this, they are telling me their volume control is exceptionally linear, unlike any other they have seen in the industry - don't know, and from this vantage point, I cannot corroborate their claims.
What I do continue to claim is, again, that digital volume controls just suck.
I think the behavior we heard is probably attributed to variations in the analog section's linearity, much less noise, quantization errors, et al, but I can't be sure. I can tell you, though, that in talking with the Berkeley folks about all this, they are telling me their volume control is exceptionally linear, unlike any other they have seen in the industry - don't know, and from this vantage point, I cannot corroborate their claims.
What I do continue to claim is, again, that digital volume controls just suck.
There's a possibility that the issues you've reported are a function of the DAC rather than related to the digital volume control. S-D DACs have noise modulation issues which are level-dependent. Some of these issues were explored by ESS in their RMAF presentation from 4 or 5 years back.
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |