Philadelphia Area Audio Group Meeting at Overture A/V in Delaware

[marty]

I really got a kick out of this thread. i would however like to make several comments, in no particular order. First, I too, am under the impression that SACD ain't goin' nowhere fast. I wish it were untrue as I have a Meitner XDS-1 that I love and just wish software was on the increase, not the wane as it seems to be. Second, I have known Terry for 30 years and generally find him to be a honest,competent and accommodating dealer. I spent several hours at his shop last year listening extensively to a Steinway-Lyngdorf system that I had no intention of purchasing and never felt uncomfortable. Does he like to be an advocate for the products he sells? Sure, don't all dealers? So I can't begrudge him for his enthusiasm about some products. That's why we all use our ears at these sorts of demos. Finally, I have heard the vaunted Q7's at least a half dozen times under very well set-up private as well as show configurations. I am in total agreement with most others. You can fry eggs on those tweeters. I ask again, for the umpteenth time, why does any manufacturer have the arrogance to sell at 175K loudspeaker without any consideration for the room the user might be using? Is it so damn hard to put in a tweeter level control such as Wilson, Focal, Vandersteen and many other top manufacturers do? It need not be an adjustable potentiometer for goodness sake!. But how about a fixed resistor that can be changed? Jeez, what the hell is wrong with these guys that they think all rooms will be perfectly damped for their tweeter the way it is set from the factory? Oh well, I guess that's why there's vanilla, chocolate and strawberry. You pays yer money and you takes yer choice.

 

[asiufy]

Alex:

I agree with you but I can only judge based on what was presented to me. I don't feel that anyone should have to make an apology for a $185,000 speaker. Even with the Spectral gear I should have been, to some degree, knocked on my ass.

Perhaps in a different room with different electronics I would be mesmerized. Sadly it didn't happen the other day.

Ken

Well Ken, you did say there were some redeeming qualities there, even some "best in class" performances, like in ambiance, bass, etc. Isn't that enough to tell you that there might be gold at the end?

I lost all trust in dealer demos when I read that a well-known and respected NYC dealer presented darTZeel with Nordost cabling (a no-no), and an unknown UK speaker. Of course nobody liked it, or even talked about it. This sort of thing drives me mad, because I know the gear is able to do much more, yet dealers shoot themselves in the foot by not pairing things properly. It happens, all the time.



alexandre

 

[Steve Williams]

Well Ken, you did say there were some redeeming qualities there, even some "best in class" performances, like in ambiance, bass, etc. Isn't that enough to tell you that there might be gold at the end?

I lost all trust in dealer demos when I read that a well-known and respected NYC dealer presented darTZeel with Nordost cabling (a no-no), and an unknown UK speaker. Of course nobody liked it, or even talked about it. This sort of thing drives me mad, because I know the gear is able to do much more, yet dealers shoot themselves in the foot by not pairing things properly. It happens, all the time.



alexandre

what issue(s) do you have with Spectral driving the Q7 Alexandre

 

[asiufy]

Steve,

It was Ken that attended the presentation. I've only heard the Q7 with Soulution, Constellation and darTZeel. In 2 out these 3, it was wonderful
I was just voicing that sometimes dealer demos and showrooms are not exactly perfect, as ack has reported in a separate thread.


alexandre

 

[ack]

Is it so damn hard to put in a tweeter level control such as Wilson, Focal, Vandersteen and many other top manufacturers do? It need not be an adjustable potentiometer for goodness sake!. But how about a fixed resistor that can be changed?

I am in complete agreement with you here, and would add bass too. A speaker-room relationship is not dissimilar to marriage - adjustments have to be made from both parties for harmony. One of the reasons all the speakers I have ever owned were bi-wireable is the ability to insert a resistor network between the posts to adjust the bass, as I have currently done with the MLs I use; and I loved the ribbon resistor capability on the Maggies, the value of which would be greatly dependent on the listening distance.

 

[lasercd]

Well Ken, you did say there were some redeeming qualities there, even some "best in class" performances, like in ambiance, bass, etc. Isn't that enough to tell you that there might be gold at the end?

I lost all trust in dealer demos when I read that a well-known and respected NYC dealer presented darTZeel with Nordost cabling (a no-no), and an unknown UK speaker. Of course nobody liked it, or even talked about it. This sort of thing drives me mad, because I know the gear is able to do much more, yet dealers shoot themselves in the foot by not pairing things properly. It happens, all the time.



alexandre

It is not uncommon (within the NYC audio retail community) for dealers to intentionally demo products in an unfavorable light so they can push a different product line. That's a conversation for another thread.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Bruce, I am quite surprised you need to ask.

-claiming the redbook cd was equal in resolution to the RR masters done 176.4 Khz: ABSURD
-claiming HDCD is "better" than SACD.: ABSURD
-claiming SACD is a 'dead format": ABSURD

These are the claims of a carnival barker.

Like lasercd said, check please.

That's not exactly what Terry said. What Terry said was that Keith Johnson has optimized his machine for redbook/HDCD playback and that he [Keith] feels right now that's the best sound. And who should know better than Keith who has recorded in many different formats including 176.4.

Second Keith (one of the inventors of HDCD) feels his format is better. Again that is his opinion but none of us that I know of have had Keith's recording experience using many different different formats. Personally, I think Keith's analog tape recordings are/were his best period.

Third, why is SACD superior? It's not DSD. It's DSD converted to PCM. So why should that be any better? Another way to look at it is that just SACD is stamped on the cover doesn't mean it's great. I've heard some high rez recordings I wouldn't give you a nickel for and some older redbook CDs that shocked me how much better they sound with today's gear than back when the CDs were originally released.

 

[Andre Marc]

That's not exactly what Terry said. What Terry said was that Keith Johnson has optimized his machine for redbook/HDCD playback and that he [Keith] feels right now that's the best sound. And who should know better than Keith who has recorded in many different formats including 176.4.

Second Keith (one of the inventors of HDCD) feels his format is better. Again that is his opinion but none of us that I know of have had Keith's recording experience using many different different formats. Personally, I think Keith's analog tape recordings are/were his best period.

Third, why is SACD superior? It's not DSD. It's DSD converted to PCM. So why should that be any better? Another way to look at it is that just SACD is stamped on the cover doesn't mean it's great. I've heard some high rez recordings I wouldn't give you a nickel for and some older redbook CDs that shocked me how much better they sound with today's gear than back when the CDs were originally released.

If I take what lasercd said in his post, as it was written, that is NOT what you are saying.

-Having heard many RR 176.4 recordings AND the corresponding HDCD, there was no comparison. Period.
-Keith may "feel" HDCD is "better" but it is not. DSD is superior technically, and subjectively. HDCD is STILL 44.1/16.

What do you mean SACD is not DSD? Huh? An SACD, played back on a decent SACD player is DSD ALL the way unit the analog outputs.
SACDs done correctly are the best digital there is. We are not talking about upsampled PCM and all that other nonsense.

I agree that the sample rate, bit depth, and format of a recording is TOTALLY secondary to the care taken in the mastering.

Have you heard Analogue Productions, Audio Fidelity, MoFi, and most of Gus Skinas's SACDs? I'm thinking not.

 

[Andre Marc]

That's not exactly what Terry said. What Terry said was that Keith Johnson has optimized his machine for redbook/HDCD playback and that he [Keith] feels right now that's the best sound. And who should know better than Keith who has recorded in many different formats including 176.4.

Second Keith (one of the inventors of HDCD) feels his format is better. Again that is his opinion but none of us that I know of have had Keith's recording experience using many different different formats. Personally, I think Keith's analog tape recordings are/were his best period.

Third, why is SACD superior? It's not DSD. It's DSD converted to PCM. So why should that be any better? Another way to look at it is that just SACD is stamped on the cover doesn't mean it's great. I've heard some high rez recordings I wouldn't give you a nickel for and some older redbook CDs that shocked me how much better they sound with today's gear than back when the CDs were originally released.

Another point is I have sat through countless demos where a blowhard dealer proclaims that a PCM DAC they sell "blows away" SACD.

These guys did not know DSD from DDD from AARP..where they actually belonged.

 

[mep]

Careful Andre. Aren't you almost eligible for AARP membership?

 

[Andre Marc]

Careful Andre. Aren't you almost eligible for AARP membership?

You are off by over 20 years mep.

 

[mep]

You have to be 50 to join. Are you really in your late 20s?

 

[Andre Marc]

You have to be 50 to join. Are you really in your late 20s?

Ah! I thought you had to be 65...my mistake!

 

[lasercd]

One other thing that Terry said was that Spectral is run as a non-profit and therefore they are able to keep the price of their equipment lower. First off I never thought of Spectral gear as inexpensive. Is this really true? Is Spectral run as a non-profit organization?

 

[Andre Marc]

One other thing that Terry said was that Spectral is run as a non-profit and therefore they are able to keep the price of their equipment lower. First off I never thought of Spectral gear as inexpensive. Is this really true? Is Spectral run as a non-profit organization?

He may be spinning it but it is somewhat true. According to the interview they gave with Robert Harley they seem themselves
as a "research lab" rather than an entity that seeks to maximize profits.

 

[MylesBAstor]

OK, I'm going to give you some slightly impressions of Saturdays demo of the Magico Q7/Spectral/MIT system at Overture.

First of all, Terry (and his staff) did a top notch job with the presentation and were extremely gracious hosts. As Marty intimated, Terry has been in the business now for probably over 20 years and that speaks tons as far as customer satisfaction. Terry carefully selects all the gear that his store represents and then goes the extra mile to make sure customers are happy with their purchase (being in Delaware doesn't hurt either when it comes to customer satisfaction!). Terry pointed out, that it doesn't help his customers for him to rep companies that will go out of business in a couple of years and leave the consumer with essentially a boat anchor. To that point, Overture has represented lines like Avalon, Spectral, Magnepan, MIT for many, many years. In fact, Terry installs every Spectral component in his customers homes (especially when it comes to grounding), making sure that these somewhat touchy electronics work perfectly.

Now, I've never particularly been a Spectral fan, finding their older gear somewhat representative of what was once described as the "CA sound." Very analytical and cold, at times verging on icy. Magico, I've heard mostly at shows with the the exception of the Q1s that I heard at Ears Nova in NYC. So far, I remain unimpressed; but one has to be acutely aware that having one day to set up a 175K speaker in a room that was never meant for sound, much less delivering any amount of current, is pure insanity.

So it's with that in mind that I went down to hear this circa 300K system at Terry's store. If there was anyone I knew (and I don't know Goodwins that Peter frequents), it was Terry who would get these beasts humming along in unison. So how did the system sound? Well first of all, I think that Terry was successful in meeting his primary objectives with this combo: The system was very quiet eg. low noise, effortless and pretty darn neutral. Did it move me? That's another story.

And there are many other issues that I'll briefly address as how does one ascribe culpability to any one component (or even the room) in the systme when they are completely unfamiliar with any of the components? Also, I don't think this room is the Magicos final resting place;Terry was expecting to have his new high-end room finished in time but the room the room wasn't ready in time due to unforeseen construction problems, .

I too was slightly disappointed that Terry didn't play any vinyl. I don't know if that was because he was expecting to have the new Basis tonearm and the table was awaiting that piece. As far as the music goes, Ken pretty much described the software of which a couple of tunes were taken from RR recordings (the new McLeod as well as the Rutter Requiem), a couple of selections from Terry's friend who owns Turtle Records in Holland and then some other assorted music such as the Lyle Lovett that Ken mentioned.

So not knowing any of the components, I thought the system's strengths were clean and detailed bass, nice soundstaging, good ambience retrieval and excellent low level resolution. On the other side of the coin, I was puzzled especially but the system's portrayal of the recording venue. Pretty much every recording sounded the same. Moreso, there was good ambience retrieval (perhaps it was added to the recording???) but little or no sense of the room the musicians were playing in. Also, I thought that instruments weren't as 3D as I would have liked them. I just always wanted to hear some more instrumental body to even solo artists like Doug Mcleod. Perhaps some further tuning of the MIT cables might have brought some better focus to the instruments as well as bit more midrange.

Like Ken I heard the hardness he spoke of but I don't know if that was the gear of simply the digital process (that's why I would have liked to hear the Basis table). I also felt that the while the system wasn't cold, it was a bit on the dry sound. More to the point, it again comes down whether one likes the sound of tubes vs. transistors. Tubes will give you more instrumental harmonics while ss gives you more of the instrument's initial fundamental.

So in summary, I'd say the system is still a work in progress. As with any great, high resolution, state-of-the-art speaker, it's only as good as the upstream components. Perhaps with a little more tweaking or a different room, the Magico system will meet its rather lofty expectations.

 

[mep]

One other thing that Terry said was that Spectral is run as a non-profit and therefore they are able to keep the price of their equipment lower. First off I never thought of Spectral gear as inexpensive. Is this really true? Is Spectral run as a non-profit organization?

I find that a very interesting comment. I have never seen a manufacturer of retail goods being listed as a non-profit corporation.

 

[Andre Marc]

I find that a very interesting comment. I have never seen a manufacturer of retail goods being listed as a non-profit corporation.

It not "listed" as a non profit.

 

[edorr]

One other thing that Terry said was that Spectral is run as a non-profit and therefore they are able to keep the price of their equipment lower. First off I never thought of Spectral gear as inexpensive. Is this really true? Is Spectral run as a non-profit organization?

An owner operated business pays its owners a salary and what is left at the end of the year is profit that is also paid to the owners (or retained in the corporation). So more salary is less profit and vice versa, but this is strictly an accounting issue with tax implications. Even if profit maximization (or more precisely maximization of the income of the owners) is not the goal of the business, this does not mean it is a "non-profit organization" from a legal and taxation standpoint.

 

[MylesBAstor]

I fail to see how one could be impressed given this setup, with some sitting so close to the speakers or the center of the stage, and others obstructed by folks sitting in front of them... when similar demos are done here, people are asked to rotate, there are no more than two rows of chairs, and set far from the speakers

I did get to hear them before the bulk of the club showed up

And people did switch seats every so often.