Jeff's Getting a New Stereo System

PeterA said:

Bonzo, I've gone back and forth on how I view resolution. I have thought about it only in terms of information retrieval, that is how much information from the software gets read and later heard by the listener. But at other times, I think that attributes like soundstage, openness, "presence", are completely dependent upon the resolution of the component or system. I'm more of the latter opinion these days. As the resolution in my own system improves, most attributes like imaging, soundstage, presence, tone, and dynamics improve as well. They all seem to be related to resolution or more precisely, clarity, as was mentioned a few posts ago. Clarity is the one word that to me most distinguishes live orchestral sound from reproduced sound and it is what I most remember when thinking about what I hear at the BSO. And clarity is what increases when distortions, noise floor, artifacts diminish allowing one to hear more of what is imbedded in the grooves or pits or bits of our media.

I don't know how resolution will relate to Jeff's new system, but there we are. It's an interesting topic, perhaps deserving of its own thread.

Click to expand...

++1

morricab said:

The best Ref 3As I have heard to date were my own Master Control MMC (the true progenitor of this new Reflector) with Be upgrade and the Royal Virtuoso with normal soft dome tweeter and corian box. Both were significantly better than a standard MM daCapo i. No doubt the Reflector soil be good but 12k good??

Click to expand...

If you read the link it seems clear that the Reflector is a major advance in technology with respect to inertness of cabinet structure compared to any earlier Ref 3A speaker. -- My MM De Capo BE speakers are a significant development beyond the standard MM deCapo i, both in terms of drivers and in terms of cabinet.

rockitman said:

When buying halo gear...especially speakers...buy them used. Let the first purchaser eat the 10's of thousands in depreciation. Same goes for cables.

Click to expand...

Great article Jeff

I am not convinced either that top of tree price wise is best investment in sound quality

Having heard soulution with a Sonja I was disappointed that it wasn't the end of days system I had hoped

I don't get accommodation prices anymore, and try to buy quality second hand after depreciation

I was also interested in a comparison I made last week between my Meitner DAC8 and my Emm labs DA2

Honestly I could have lived with either and in some ways I preferred the dac8 musically

One I bought new, the other from Sony Europe

The difference was a factor of ten difference in price which is not shown in th SQ

There are so many midprixed units with High SQ such as the new run of r to r dacs from Holo etc

One wonders what the uber dacs offer more

I own cartridges between 500 and 5000 dollars but spend much of my time listening to a DL 103 and second hand Carnegie one both of which I enjoy immensely

Good luck and will follow with keen interest

Al M. said:

If you read the link it seems clear that the Reflector is a major advance in technology with respect to inertness of cabinet structure compared to any earlier Ref 3A speaker. -- My MM De Capo BE speakers are a significant development beyond the standard MM deCapo i, both in terms of drivers and in terms of cabinet.

Click to expand...

Yes, I read the blah blah marketing hype. Sounds a lot like other companies hype...

RogerD said:

++1

Click to expand...

Totally agree

I put some new aes cables in the system, straight away I was struck how much much better the timbre was, and more micro detail but presented more naturally
Soundstage, instrument separation, and spacial relations even to the depth of the piano across the soundstage were all enhanced, instruments had depth

Was truly a breakthrough moment for me

morricab said:

Yes, I read the blah blah marketing hype. Sounds a lot like other companies hype...

Click to expand...

If that's your opinion, I have nothing else to say.

Al M. said:

If that's your opinion, I have nothing else to say.

Click to expand...

You don't get it Al, it is not my opinion, it is their opinion about their design. Do they have any measurements to back up the claim that this new cabinet is much "quieter" than old ones where they made "heroic" efforts? Honestly, it is not rocket science to think up a constrained layer cabinet concept...or crossmembers to make the panels flex less. It probably even works but if it works better than previous efforts how do they know this? If they measured something, how hard is it to post that on their website to show that at least technically, if not sonically, they made a step forward? Without that it is hyperbole. Maybe right and maybe not. Lots of companies claim lots of things only to be shown in Stereophile or Soundstage that it is not what they claim (Audio Note's claim of very high sensitivity in their speakers showed they were off by more than 4db, for example). I have seen impulse plots of some of the Ref 3as from the past and they are pretty much time coherent...if you sit on the right axis and at more or less the right distance...so that claim can be taken as true. The old ones also measured close to the claimed 92db...however, Soundstage showed the new Be one with significantly lower sensitivity. Surprised me.

http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/in...&catid=77:loudspeaker-measurements&Itemid=153

It shows them at only 87db and minimum impedance is around 6 ohms...so it is a true 8 ohm speaker. Phase shift is low...as expected for a time coherent speaker.

Compare this with the older de Capo I

"The MM de Capo i's voltage sensitivity was above average, at an estimated 91dB(B)/2.83V/m, which is slightly but inconsequentially less than specified. Its impedance (fig.1) was reasonably benign, dropping below 6 ohms only in the lower midrange and the high treble. (The speaker is thus both sensitive and efficient.) The minimum value was 5.1 ohms at 10kHz, and the electrical phase angle was generally mild.
Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/reference-mm-de-capo-i-loudspeaker-measurements#OS0VMKwWsGc6Z2q5.99"

What happened? Did they change the mass of the driver substantially? Perhaps to get deeper bass? 87db is not super tube friendly although the impedance and phase are very tube friendly.

My old L'Integrales were measured at nearly 92db and my old MMCs sounded just as loud at the same input level (no actual measurements available).

Based on the ongoing deception and misleading information given out by a lot of companies, I don't accept any of them at face value.

morricab said:

You don't get it Al,

Click to expand...

Oh I do get where you come from, Brad, don't worry.

The old ones also measured close to the claimed 92db...however, Soundstage showed the new Be one with significantly lower sensitivity. Surprised me.

http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/in...&catid=77:loudspeaker-measurements&Itemid=153

It shows them at only 87db and minimum impedance is around 6 ohms...so it is a true 8 ohm speaker. Phase shift is low...as expected for a time coherent speaker.

Click to expand...

I find those measurements extremely hard to believe. My old speakers (Ensemble Reference) had a sensitivity of 90 dB, and with the allegedly "only 87 dB" new Ref 3A speakers I had to lower the digital volume level on my Berkeley DAC consistently around 1.5 to 2 points (more often the latter, depending on recording) on a scale of 0-60 (-60 dB to 0 dB) in order to get the same in-room loudness (measured by SPL meter *)). What is that consistent with? You guess it, a claimed 92 dB sensitivity.

_________________

*) I didn't even really need an SPL meter for that. My ears were "bleeding" with the new speakers at the old volume settings on the DAC.

Al M. said:

Oh I do get where you come from, Brad, don't worry.



I find those measurements extremely hard to believe. My old speakers (Ensemble Reference) had a sensitivity of 90 dB, and with the allegedly "only 87 dB" new Ref 3A speakers I had to lower the digital volume level on my Berkeley DAC consistently around 1.5 to 2 points (more often the latter, depending on recording) on a scale of 0-60 (-60 dB to 0 dB) in order to get the same in-room loudness (measured by SPL meter *)). What is that consistent with? You guess it, a claimed 92 dB sensitivity.

_________________

*) I didn't even really need an SPL meter for that. My ears were "bleeding" with the new speakers at the old volume settings on the DAC.

Click to expand...

Well, then you should write a letter to complain to Soundstage about misrepresenting the sensitivity of this speaker. It was a surprise to me as well because the previous model was at 91 db according to Stereophile.

morricab said:

Well, then you should write a letter to complain to Soundstage about misrepresenting the sensitivity of this speaker. It was a surprise to me as well because the previous model was at 91 db according to Stereophile.

Click to expand...

I have said it before - the sensitivity number is usually measured on axis in a single measurement and obtained in anechoic conditions at 2m and scaled to 1m. It does not contain any information on dispersion and can be very misleading for accurate ranking of speaker sensitivity in room, due to real room reflections. BTW, our soundmeters weight measurements in a very different way of our ears - they are prepared to measure noise levels, not music! And our ears are very unreliable to evaluate sound levels - most people report real difference sound levels when changing speaker, IC and even power cables - something that does not exist, except for a few exceptional well documented and understood cases !

I would not expect Soundstage to make such a technical error - they have done tens of measurements and would easily detect it when carrying the measurements. Only a novice or newcommer would do such a mistake without noticing it. 4dB is a lot!

Al M. said:

to be extremely resolving for a lot less money, price $ 12 K. Distribution: direct. Marketing: none that I have seen.

Click to expand...

well, this is a bit circular - Tosh doesn't have many dealers honestly because he will sell direct. they have advertised in Stereophile for a long time iirc

I've read some (not all) of the postings. It is amazing that Jeff's posting generated 150 responses (to date) in anticipation to his new quest.

When is Jeff going to contribute to his own thread?

spiritofmusic said:

When is Jeff going to contribute to his own thread?

Click to expand...

+1!

spiritofmusic said:

When is Jeff going to contribute to his own thread?

Click to expand...

When he buys a new system

Ron Resnick said:

+1!

Click to expand...

+ another 1

Ked, your response reminds me of the NYC subway driver, who apologised for the late running of the train by saying his train was running late

Just my take – when one keeps experimenting in one’s own system and room, even as a reviewer, they get stuck in their own path. Improvement usually happens in the same direction, not a radically different direction. If you have Magicos and Gryphon for example like Jeff did, Soulution, Burmester, Devialet, will all have differences in a similar direction, up or down. As opposed to a completely new direction like MCH, SET Horn, Planar, in somebody else’ room and system, with analog. Question is did Jeff go more by what he heard in another system or his own – maybe he can give us a clue there

Ron Resnick said:

+1!

Click to expand...

Ditto.

To be honest, I think it's a little rude or standoffish at least for Jeff not to reply to any comments left on his thread
Not expecting any concrete info, but at least some discourse and replies to ideas put fwds
It's his thread, but seems a bit egotistical to not even join in
Ho-hum