Why so expensive to overcome limitations of Electrostats? Why so few speakers beat ol' Quad 57?

[NorthStar]

I'm getting back to this discussion after a day or so. Ack, What do you mean by "adjust your own records"? I have been discussing adjusting tonearm height to better match SRA/VTA for different cutting angles and/or record thicknesses. I happen to listen for timing errors, or I suppose distortion, and the relationship between the fundamental of a note and its harmonics. I adjust the tonearm height accordingly to what sounds best for each LP and record the setting so that I can refer to it for later playings.

It is self evident that if you do not adjust the arm height for different LPs, then the overhang and VTF will change if the LP being played is of a different thickness (height) than the one used when originally aligning the cartridge. In other words, a thin LP will give a particular arm a different effective length and overhang as well as a different VTF than will a thicker LP, if the arm is at a fixed height. So just playing different thickness LPs will change the set up parameters of the arm/cartridge. One is simply finding the best compromise of the various parameter settings when he uses his alignment jig and sets up the cartridge.

The overhang, VTF, and SRA/VTA are set for a particular alignment jig at a particular height above the platter surface. How high is the platform on the scale when measuring VTF? Is it the same height as all of the records in one's collection? Surely not. I set my VTF by setting up the measuring platform of my scale at the same height as the average LP in my collection. That is a compromise, simply because some LPs are thicker or thinner than the average. When I play ones different from the average, VTF will be different unless I move the arm up or down to compensate. If one does adjust the height of the arm for different LP thicknesses, or more properly, for different original cutting angles, then at least the parameters of VTF and and SRA/VTA will remain the same. That is because as LP thickness goes up and one raises the arm by the same amount, the angle of the arm remains constant, so SRA/VTA remains constant, and VTF remains constant. Overhang should remain the same also if the angle of the arm remains constant.

I would argue that by not changing arm height, you are actually creating more intermodulation distortion every time you play an LP which is of a different thickness than your test LP which you used to set up your arm/cartridge by listening for intermodulation distortion. Of course, that is your choice, as it is inconvenient to constantly change the arm height for different LPs. But if one's goal is to reproduce accurately the information on the recording with as little distortion as possible, one would be well served by adjusting the height of his tonearm for different cutting angles and/or LP thicknesses. The proof is in the listening, as Al M. has experienced. One does not need to own a vinyl source to hear this and appreciate what it does for a more accurate rendition of the recording.

Tomorrow when Al visits you to hear your system, you should play for him a thin LP like Beethoven's Appassionata, D2D 45 rpm on RCA and a thicker reissue like Heifetz' "Kreutzer" Sonata or the Janaki Trio. Let us know if you hear the same lack of intermodulation distortion on each LP without changing the arm height. VTF, VTA, SRA, and overhang will all change when you play these two LPs and don't change the arm height, simply because they are different thicknesses, and the tonearm angle, relative to the surface of the LP, will necessarily be different for each one.

Happy Easter Peter,

There is plenty of good useful info in your above quote, thank you for dedicating your time and passion.

A simple remark; in the paragraph preceding the last, the last sentence:
"One does not need to own a vinyl source to hear this and appreciate what it does for a more accurate rendition of the recording."

 

[PeterA]

Happy Easter Peter,

There is plenty of good useful info in your above quote, thank you for dedicating your time and passion.

A simple remark; in the paragraph preceding the last, the last sentence:
"One does not need to own a vinyl source to hear this and appreciate what it does for a more accurate rendition of the recording."

Thank you very much, Bob. I wish you a Happy Easter too. I should clarify a couple of points. When one uses an alignment jig and a specific scale for measuring VTF, the results are dependant upon certain factors: the thickness of the jig and height of the scale platform on which one places the stylus. Those should be approximately the same height off of the platter surface as height of the average LPs most listened to in one's collection. This helps to reduce the variance caused by different thickness LPs. Imagine if the alignment jig is a thin piece of paper? If the overhang is set to a null point or arc, it will change as soon as one puts that stylus on a 1.5 mm thick LP. Same with VTF. If one is truly interested in the accuracy of the arm/cartridge set up, one should make every effort to optimize the use of the tools. Ack is correct in observing that the tiniest variances matter and are often audible. These tools serve as a starting point and later final adjustments by ear can improve things further. These comments are only based on my own experience with set up in my own system and based on what I have read.

 

[PeterA]

Nonsensical questions. You use the test records to train your ear to IMD, so that you can then adjust your own records. So frustrating to deal with you sometimes, reminds me of the Isodamp discussions

Thank you for clarifying this for me, Tasos. I misunderstood how you were using the test LP. I had thought you used it while adjusting your arm height to that specific LP and listening for lowest distortion. If it is an ear training tool, that makes sense. You then must adjust by ear the arm height while listening to a different record for the lowest level of distortion which you learned by hearing the test LP. This LP becomes the reference for your collection. This makes sense. So now, perhaps we are on the same page. I think, essentially, we do the same thing. The only difference is that you do it for one LP (not the test LP), and I do it for most of the LPs in my collection so as to reduce the variance of VTF, SRA/VTA, and overhang resulting from a fixed arm height.

 

[PeterA]

I have started a new thread discussing my ideas about cartridge/arm set up. I apologize for derailing this thread with my off topic posts. If interested, here is a link to the new thread: http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...s-on-cartridge-arm-set-up&p=502775#post502775

 

[MtnHam]

I have started a new thread discussing my ideas about cartridge/arm set up. I apologize for derailing this thread with my off topic posts. If interested, here is a link to the new thread: http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...s-on-cartridge-arm-set-up&p=502775#post502775

Thank you Peter. As a vinyl enthusiast with a library of nearly 5,000 LP's, I appreciate the opportunity to learn more about achieving the best.

As an electrostatic speaker enthusiast, I would like to see more discussion of the original topic.

 

[NorthStar]

I too realized that I was off topic when I replied to one of Peter's posts, my apologies.
It is another great subject, and Peter have started a new thread on this, thank you.

It would be easy (maybe not) to transfer the last few posts in Peter's new thread; a positive suggestion if Steve or Ron or Lee or Tom is reading this.
* It would have to start with post #12 ... #12 to #66 ... all of them inclusive (make that 55 posts total).
That's when the subject of turntable's adjustment took precedence/started.

Post #12 (Peter's post in reply to the preceding post #11):
• http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...eat-ol-Quad-57&p=502400&viewfull=1#post502400

 

[Al M.]

As an electrostatic speaker enthusiast, I would like to see more discussion of the original topic.

Here we go:

It depends on the pressing, cartridge, phono et al, but yes. The loudest trumpets are either on For Duke - really ear piercing - and Armstrong + Ellington's Black and Tan Fantasy. More than that, there is real body and presence. The loudest transient is actually with Mahler's 6th hammer strikes, on an HDCD Keith Johnson recording that marty posted here years ago - total jump factor. The electrostatic driver is not the problem, the amps that need to drive 1ohm loads or less is.

Having heard Ack's system with his modified Martin Logan speakers, I can fully confirm this. On the 'For Duke' LP the trumpets and sax sound both incredibly dynamic and with lots of body. Especially the body of the sax that I had heard was just astounding, it had balls . Combined with the excellent dynamics, a potent and intoxicating combination.

I say all this as an observer who is dispassionate in the sense that I don't have electrostats myself and am pretty committed to cone speakers, in a system that all visitors to my place, no exception, have called very dynamic (so it's not that my standards in this regard are anemic in any way). I have no skin in this game.

Tom, I would not be surprised if, with the right source and amplification, the Soundlab speakers that you described in #9 would have similar dynamics and body in the midrange.

I know, many people think electrostats cannot reproduce dynamics, especially macrodynamics, well. I know of one reviewer, Myles Astor, who apparently switched to cone speakers from electrostats precisely for that reason. But it doesn't have to be that way.

 

[LL21]

...Tom, I would not be surprised if, with the right source and amplification, the Soundlab speakers that you described in #9 would have similar dynamics and body in the midrange.

I know, many people think electrostats cannot reproduce dynamics, especially macrodynamics, well. I know of one reviewer, Myles Astor, who apparently switched to cone speakers from electrostats precisely for that reason. But it doesn't have to be that way.

I would be interested in Micro's perspective here, since he owned/owns big Soundlabs and [i believe] has found exactly this.

 

[microstrip]

Here we go:



Having heard Ack's system with his modified Martin Logan speakers, I can fully confirm this. On the 'For Duke' LP the trumpets and sax sound both incredibly dynamic and with lots of body. Especially the body of the sax that I had heard was just astounding, it had balls . Combined with the excellent dynamics, a potent and intoxicating combination.

I say all this as an observer who is dispassionate in the sense that I don't have electrostats myself and am pretty committed to cone speakers, in a system that all visitors to my place, no exception, have called very dynamic (so it's not that my standards in this regard are anemic in any way). I have no skin in this game.

Tom, I would not be surprised if, with the right source and amplification, the Soundlab speakers that you described in #9 would have similar dynamics and body in the midrange.

I know, many people think electrostats cannot reproduce dynamics, especially macrodynamics, well. I know of one reviewer, Myles Astor, who apparently switched to cone speakers from electrostats precisely for that reason. But it doesn't have to be that way.

We should remember that Ack's speakers are Martin Logan Odysseus, hybrid electrostatics that he has extensively and carefully modified to suit his room and system. Although as far as I remember - I never owned the Odysseus , in my Martin Logan phase I jumped from SL3 to Odysseus big cousin, the Prodigy, the panel is crossed rather high, around 250 Hz - it includes some capacitors of tens of microfarad in series with the step up transformer. I think the dynamics concerns presented by most people are about full range electrostatics.

For example the Mark Levinson HQD system, that used double Quad ESL57 crossed around 100 and 6000 Hz had great dynamics.

And sorry, no miracles are possible. No way an Odysseus panel can have the dynamic range and body of a large SoundLab in a medium/large room. But they can surely sound great, much better than people expect.

Again, IMHO single instruments are not a good indicator of dynamic range. I have seen systems that have great dynamic capabilities with drums and brass, and are not able to keep the dynamics of a full orchestra. As usual YMMV.

 

[microstrip]

I would be interested in Micro's perspective here, since he owned/owns big Soundlabs and [i believe] has found exactly this.

LLoyd,

I just answered to some of your points before reading your post

Curiously, YMHO, the champion of micro-dynamics and detail are the ESL63, not the SoundLab's. But detail on the SoundLab's can be more spectacular and they have higher dynamic rance, so we can play them louder and for that fact we can think we notice more detail.

I would love to try the ESL 63 using the SoundLabs as subs - now that I have a JL Audio CR1 it would be possible. But for the moment it stays in the long list of audio projects to be carried after retiring.

 

[ack]

Listening to the Magico M3s again, with focus on how they compare with electrostatics

@Peter, Al: we are cool. We all need to be careful what we write and how we write it. I will respond to your new thread Peter soon.

Meantime, I spent another 3 hours listening to the Magico M3s, driven by the Spectral DMA-500s, 4000SV and Vivialdi 2.0 stack, 30SV preamp and requisite MIT ACC169/MA-X cables. This time, I brought with me more than a dozen CDs for a full assessment. While my goal was to establish truth of timbre and verify against what I hear at home, given this thread's discussion, I also paid closer attention to dynamics.

4000SV, Vivaldi: The 4000SV is much more together than the Vivaldi, while the latter exhibited the same euphonic character that I came to realize at madfloyd's recently. This makes the Vivaldi sound bigger, which can be pleasing, but... The Spectral tends to be more precise and literal. Personally, I no longer care for the dCS sound, because of that euphonic nature, also present with the Rossini.

Dynamics: The 4000SV is not as dynamic as the Vivaldi, and the system as a whole did not really match what I have at home, and what I recently heard at Al's with that Rihm drum DC (see his thread). In fact, there wasn't as much visceral impact as I heard in his, and I will refrain from comments on my own system until he's had a chance to hear the CD over here. Interestingly enough, the 500s shut down a number of times on me, while going full bore - disappointing. I brought with me Mahler's 2nd and 6th, and the hammer strikes with the 6th were nowhere near as loud or visceral as I have at home, with no real jump factor. On the other hand, all combinations plus my home system render the symphonies with ease. I hope people will put to rest the so-called "issue" of dynamics with electrostatics; it's all about the system. I would assume that bigger electrostatics can sound even more dynamic, like Soundlabs. Folks should really take a listen to a properly set up pair of electrostatics to get a feeling of what some of us have been talking about in this thread.

M3s: I have written a number of times that I am not a fan. This time around, they were set up in the same room but closer together and further away from me - it was claimed this was the recommended set up by Magico. In the past, I also wrote that I have not been able to put a finger on what is bothering me about this speaker, but this time I came away with a full understanding. What I am hearing is not due to the 30SV or the cables, and being able to use two sources, I came to the conclusion that some of it is due to the Vivaldi, but most of what bothers me is anywhere from the amps downstream. If the issues I am about to describe are due to the amps, I will be very disappointed. If it's the M3s, then it's another kind of disappointment, but I don't really care.

Sound: So here's exactly what bothers me every time I hear the M3s: first of all, they still need subs, and the low end is lacking - that much I have established before. Whatever bass they have is fast, and slightly faster than what I am used to, but it could also be the new 500 amps. But there is also a serious euphonic coloration in the midrange, which actually makes strings sound very nice; however, when I focused on timbre and specifically timpani and french horns, the euphonic character was overwhelming, exaggerated by the Vivaldi but also present to a lesser degree with 4000SV. When I played solo timpani, the sound was simply fake. Fake Sound. Timpani sound nowhere near that. When I played wind instruments, the sound was just unbearable, and fake as well. Piano was not as good or realistic as I have at home, and some notes rang bad and bright, more so with the Vivaldi. With the Mahler symphonies, I got the same problems I've heard every time in the past in there: fake midrange, at least from I am used to at home and at the BSO - frankly, nothing sounds like this in real life. However, some folks may find this type of sound pleasing because it's rather big, but it ain't even approaching reality.

Dynamics again: Focusing on midrange dynamics, I played the Proteus 7 Dorian aka James Bond CD, and micro- and macro-dynamics where nowhere near what I get at home, and I am quite serious about this. I got a nice big sound from the Vivaldi, more focused from the Spectral, and none gave me the same visceral impact I am used to. In fact, they did not match Al's either.

Timbre: This was really the focus of this visit, and I came out shaking my head in disappointment. When I played the Paganini Dorian, violin sounded like a viola with the Vivaldi, though quite good with the Spectral. This system is not for the true-to-the-recording kind of audiophile, so I really don't care about what I heard today AT ALL, and this says a lot. I never said that about the Q3s, Q5s, Q7sd or Rockports in the same room driven by some Spectral/MIT combination. Overall, a major disappointment for the money and personal tastes, which left me unable yet again to assess the DMA-500 amps, and they have to come home for a proper assessment.

Bottom line: I would pick Al's new system over this any day of the week, twice on Sunday, even if it can't do large symphonies; and I would never give up mine for this one either. My speakers should not be considered "Martin Logan" - they are really an ode to the electrostatic panel more than anything else, which Sanders engineered.

 

[PeterA]

Thank you Ack for yet another well written and detailed report about an audition at Goodwin's. I have always found this dealership extremely accommodating to visitors, and I like the relaxed atmosphere especially when I am left alone to simply play my music on a given system. I had been under the impression from reading your past reports that you might try two things differently this time: hear the M3s in the much smaller middle room, and try to listen to the vinyl source with your LPs. The M3s were set up in the middle room last Wednesday. Why did you not try to hear them in that room?

I was impressed with the M3 as you know, but I listened to the Basis turntable and arm and the Benz cartridge. I also did not listen to demanding recordings like you did. I had a visitor to my system last week. Prior to arriving at my house to hear my new Q3s, he had spent the afternoon at Goodwins auditioning the M3 in that middle room with his own CDs on the Rossini. I think the electronics were from Moon. He told me he really liked the M3s. I asked him how they compared to his own S3s and to my Q3s. He said that the S3 sounded warmer and had less resolution. It is just not of the caliber of the other two much more expensive Magicos. He thinks the M3 sounds more like a real instruments in space while the Q3, in my system, sounds like what one would hear in a recording studio. He also said that the Q3 in my system told him exactly what is on his recordings. He is a musician and engineer and seemed to have a lot of experience with the sound of real instruments in a space and at a recording studio. Anyway, your comment about the Goodwin's system being "not for the true-to-the-recording kind of audiophile" reminded me of his comments. The more I get to know my new speakers, the more differences I hear from my recordings compared to my Mini IIs. This was extremely evident on Jesus Christ Superstar today. The Q3 is extremely transparent, revealing, and ultra low in distortion.

I agree with your assessment of dynamics on your system. They are very impressive, so no disagreement here. Are you thinking about these Spectral 500 amps or possibly a new pair of speakers? What is the reason for these frequent auditions at Goodwin's? Have you considered a used pair of Q3s? In my opinion, they represent an extraordinary value right now, and they are certainly dynamic. However, I do not know if you have sufficient distance from your seating position to the speakers in your room for the Q3s. My ears are 9'-10.5" from each tweeter. I just played Holst's Planets tonight for Al M. I continue to make progress with fine tuning speaker position, and I will say that the Q3 is an incredibly dynamic speaker with my amplifiers in my small, sealed room. Al and I really enjoyed the music.

 

[Al M.]

Interesting report, thanks Ack. I am wondering how much of the dynamics issue is due to the speakers playing in that big room. How far did you sit away? I suspect for this room you need really large speakers to fully energize it and to get visceral impact, and the M3 are not that big. Perhaps they might play better in the middle room.


Edit: While I wrote this, Peter posted similar thoughts on the room, and then much more. Yes, Peter's system played very well tonight, and the orchestral sound was impressive. I really enjoyed it, thanks, Peter.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Nice review s .
Interesting , sounds indeed like a Nice dealership where you can Just relax and compare
We had a place like that in Holland.
Mijn hifi in Nijmegen.
Thats where i started loving high end , Avalon driven by Mark levinson ref series.
I also listened to several Martin logans there, those panel woofer combinations, although transparant i could definetively hear where the panel stopped and the woofer came in .
Also it sounded as if the panel would get into self resonance if pushed a bit harder

 

[ack]

Thank you Ack for yet another well written and detailed report about an audition at Goodwin's. I have always found this dealership extremely accommodating to visitors, and I like the relaxed atmosphere especially when I am left alone to simply play my music on a given system. I had been under the impression from reading your past reports that you might try two things differently this time: hear the M3s in the much smaller middle room, and try to listen to the vinyl source with your LPs. The M3s were set up in the middle room last Wednesday. Why did you not try to hear them in that room?

I was impressed with the M3 as you know, but I listened to the Basis turntable and arm and the Benz cartridge. I also did not listen to demanding recordings like you did. I had a visitor to my system last week. Prior to arriving at my house to hear my new Q3s, he had spent the afternoon at Goodwins auditioning the M3 in that middle room with his own CDs on the Rossini. I think the electronics were from Moon. He told me he really liked the M3s. I asked him how they compared to his own S3s and to my Q3s. He said that the S3 sounded warmer and had less resolution. It is just not of the caliber of the other two much more expensive Magicos. He thinks the M3 sounds more like a real instruments in space while the Q3, in my system, sounds like what one would hear in a recording studio. He also said that the Q3 in my system told him exactly what is on his recordings. He is a musician and engineer and seemed to have a lot of experience with the sound of real instruments in a space and at a recording studio. Anyway, your comment about the Goodwin's system being "not for the true-to-the-recording kind of audiophile" reminded me of his comments. The more I get to know my new speakers, the more differences I hear from my recordings compared to my Mini IIs. This was extremely evident on Jesus Christ Superstar today. The Q3 is extremely transparent, revealing, and ultra low in distortion.

I agree with your assessment of dynamics on your system. They are very impressive, so no disagreement here. Are you thinking about these Spectral 500 amps or possibly a new pair of speakers? What is the reason for these frequent auditions at Goodwin's? Have you considered a used pair of Q3s? In my opinion, they represent an extraordinary value right now, and they are certainly dynamic. However, I do not know if you have sufficient distance from your seating position to the speakers in your room for the Q3s. My ears are 9'-10.5" from each tweeter. I just played Holst's Planets tonight for Al M. I continue to make progress with fine tuning speaker position, and I will say that the Q3 is an incredibly dynamic speaker with my amplifiers in my small, sealed room. Al and I really enjoyed the music.

So I like listening to speakers in the big room because that's where I have really assessed about 100 different pairs over the last 25 years, including mine. Bass issues I can deal with subs, so that doesn't bother me as much. The big room is so well designed and treated, that it shows a speaker's true character, and it certainly won't add a euphonic midrange. The goal of these visits is to assess the 500s, which are going to be in limited quantities, and once they are gone, they gone. Knowing the history of Spectral's sound fairly well, I doubt it's the amps that are rendering such a horribly euphonic midrange, or these would then be the worst amps in their history and by a wide margin. By the same token, if it's the M3s, they would qualify in my book as the worst speaker in Magico's history.

Specific to the 500s, the goal was to assess timbral accuracy, as I wrote, after experimenting more with my DAC's volume control and focusing on IMD at various levels. Here's the thing: you may not like treble energy, but if you were to put yourself where a mic would be, there would be plenty, if not overwhelming, treble energy, and where appropriate, it would also be "piercing" as folks mention elsewhere in this thread; ditto for the midrange. I came to the conclusion recently that some of the treble energy and detail I get in my system is unnatural, and the result of excessive IMD, hence my continued experimentation with the volume control. I think you would agree that some of that treble energy is unnatural. But more on IMD in my system thread, in a few days. For now, suffice it to say that, using RR LPs as a reference, I've gotten the DAC to sound virtually exactly the same with the equivalent HDCDs, though my analog still has more precise and hefty bottom end - or perhaps the masterings are different.

I attribute the [lack of the ultimate] dynamic headroom behavior and euphonic midrange of the M3 system to the focus on rendering a big sound sound, rather than accuracy, but I could be wrong. I felt the speakers are trying to mimic their big brothers, the MPros, in a small package, but fall flat on their face in terms of accuracy, unlike their big brother. This was not the case with many other speakers in the same room, as I wrote. When I played an organ piece, the big sound was quite obvious, but god, organ sounds nothing like this either. Moreover, you've heard organ in here, and the bottom weight and taughtness is quite evident; not with the M3s.

Currently I am not thinking of new speakers, I am thinking of ordering new panels from Martin Logan, though I have no idea if they can still make them. I can also tell you I played with the ML Renaissance 11A they had on display, and that panel feels and looks fake: much less metal mass for a more visually transparent effect, but man, when I tapped it, it felt like I was tapping tin foil; I could probably easily deform and damage it with a little bit of pressure. I won't accept anything like that as a potential replacement for my panels - Sanders built a beautiful transducer before his departure. I'd rather go find another Odyssey and cannibalize it.

If I were to get new speakers, your Q3 would still be at the top of my list - timbrally they are very accurate. The S5 MkII would be another.

 

[andromedaaudio]

I think magico on ss sounds dry period , magico needs tubes to sound natural .imo

 

[ack]

Interesting report, thanks Ack. I am wondering how much of the dynamics issue is due to the speakers playing in that big room. How far did you sit away? I suspect for this room you need really large speakers to fully energize it and to get visceral impact, and the M3 are not that big. Perhaps they might play better in the middle room.

It felt like the distance was at least 9ft. Perhaps you are right about needing larger speakers for visceral impact, in that room. However, I never noticed such issues with the Q3.

 

[Kingsrule]

The fact that the 500's were shutting down is troublesome and put a question on this whole last visit to Goodwins. Maybe the M3's have an issue that is causing the amps to quit. And thus they might have sonic issues not representative of the speaker

 

[PeterA]

It felt like the distance was at least 9ft. Perhaps you are right about needing larger speakers for visceral impact, in that room. However, I never noticed such issues with the Q3.

Tasos, we both attended that first audition of the Q3s at Goodwin's hosted by Alon Wolf. I think we were equally impressed by that demo. Part of the performance, I believe, was due to the fact that those Boulder amps had 1000 watts of power at their disposal and the music I recall hearing was not as demanding as the Mahler that you are throwing at the M3. I also wonder about the 500s shutting down. Did you mention this to Paul? I'm also curious as to why you did not play some of your LPs on that Basis table. That would also inform you about different sources and perhaps, only perhaps, help diagnose some of the issues that you are hearing.

I was extremely impressed with the M3 when I heard it, however, it was a very brief audition, and you have had much more time listening to the speakers. I defer to your opinion about their performance. It seems that I will try to hear them again.

 

[ack]

Tasos, we both attended that first audition of the Q3s at Goodwin's hosted by Alon Wolf. I think we were equally impressed by that demo. Part of the performance, I believe, was due to the fact that those Boulder amps had 1000 watts of power at their disposal and the music I recall hearing was not as demanding as the Mahler that you are throwing at the M3. I also wonder about the 500s shutting down. Did you mention this to Paul? I'm also curious as to why you did not play some of your LPs on that Basis table. That would also inform you about different sources and perhaps, only perhaps, help diagnose some of the issues that you are hearing.

I was extremely impressed with the M3 when I heard it, however, it was a very brief audition, and you have had much more time listening to the speakers. I defer to your opinion about their performance. It seems that I will try to hear them again.

I told Paul about the shutdown, he's never seen it before. Nonetheless, the overall sonic picture didn't change from any of the prior four auditions with 4000SV, though this time I honed in on the actual problems. I also wanted to compare the 4000SV vs the Vivaldi, so next time I'll play analog. But the 4000SV never sounded euphonic in here, so the sources are not the real source of the problem. As I said, the problems are from the amps downstream.