To go balance or not

[nsgarch]

Let's not be too dismissive of the O-C audiophiles Jeff. They often belong to a rare breed these days: the knowledgable consumer, along with that almost extinct breed: the knowledgable reviewer Maybe "passionate" would be a kinder, gentler word.

And what of the designers and manufacturers? I never met one who wasn't a dedicated and knowledgable audiophile. In fact, I think hi-end audio (and also the Lexus automobile) owes its very existance to their passionate (obsessive?) pursuit of perfection . 'Trial and error' though inefficient, can be a useful tool, even in science, when knowledge is unavailable. :bowdown:

 

[jjay]

Which is why McIntosh is so successful -- it's one of hi-end's few truly plug and play alternatives. I hope you didn't think I was dissing McIntosh. My MC275 is the best amp I ever paired with my CLS IIz's And it's monoblock mode is parallel, not "bridged": a truly balanced circuit design!

No problem. I knew you were a McIntosh advocate also. I just wanted a system like you mentioned: Plug and Play. Yes, plug and play with great sound without the constant upgrade my preamp- I hear glare, upgrade my amplifier- Not enough bass, upgrade my cd player - too dull etc. I don't have to worry about this any longer with McIntosh equipment and can concentrate on the end result: Music - Great sounding music.
Jim

 

[nsgarch]

plug and play with great sound

That's what folks have to pay the big bucks for And there aren't that many choices, are there?
Sometimes, I wish I still had "big bucks", but I don't (Most of my system was purchased years ago )
I'll probably go crazy with lust when/if the CLX comes out!

 

[jjay]

In the end, you have a great approach!

It's not that big of a diff either way. If you are the obsessed audiophile type and want to wring every last bit of performance out of your system, that's fine, but otherwise you are still getting great sound out of your system.

I've used all of those components and they are a very good match for a set of Vantages.

Sit back and enjoy!

Thanks, Jeff. Your review on the McIntosh 220 preamplifier got me to visit my local dealer. I didn't intend to buy all 3 McIntosh units but my girlfriend listened to the MC252 amplifier and the MC201 sacd player and said buy it. (It didn't take much of a push for me to buy them).I am very happy with all 3 Mac units with the ML Vantage speakers.
Jim

 

[David Matz]

When you take a little time to understand the half dozen basic approaches to amplification, you'll understand why Roger Sanders (the brains behind Innersound) now makes the most electostat-friendly ss amp, while other highly praised and excellent ss amps (Goldmund, Spectral, and the latest Pass design) are not at their best with stats, due to their unique design approach(es).

Can you please say a bit more why you don't believe the brands you mention above are as good with stats.

Thanks

 

[nsgarch]

It's not my personal belief or conclusion.

After speaking directly with a number of manufacturers (tube and ss) when I was looking for a new amp, certain ones were very candid (thank you!) about the inadvisability of using their product(s) with stats. Different designs are good/bad/marginal for different reasons. Usually if there's a problem, it's with the very low impedance of some stats at certain frequencies. With Goldmund, the JOB circuits don't work with stats (I did know why, but forgot) Spectral can be modified (but why bother?) Spectral was the amp of choice for the Apogees however. The new Pass model was discouraged, although the previous model(s) were recommended -- again, circuit changes. In any case, always ask why something is so if you don't understand, and ask them to explain if you don't understand their answer. And there were others in the 'not recommended' category, those were just meant as a sample.

Do your homework and make a short list based on your own system/desires/budget) I had certain requirements like: no monoblocks, tube if possible, XLR inputs, 100W/ch min., etc. Then start making calls. On the whole, manufacturers are willing to spend time with you. They're proud of their products, but generally won't overhype them. Most important, they know WAY more than the folks that sell their stuff! You'll learn a lot -- and be able to ask the next manufacturer even better questions!

Can you please say a bit more why you don't believe the brands you mention above are as good with stats. Thanks

 

[tonepub]

Let's not be too dismissive of the O-C audiophiles Jeff. They often belong to a rare breed these days: the knowledgable consumer, along with that almost extinct breed: the knowledgable reviewer Maybe "passionate" would be a kinder, gentler word.

I consider myself to be an obsessive audiophile/music lover, so I'm talking about my own issues there.

However, many people do not share the depth of my obsession/passion/whatever you want to call it. That's why there are plenty of ways to get the sound you want....

That's why the Mac stuff is great. It's not the last word in detail or resolution, but it sounds great, works well together and is built by a great company that stands behind their product.

I can't say that I've ever heard a BAD system based on their gear.

 

[risabet]

Can you please say a bit more why you don't believe the brands you mention above are as good with stats.

Thanks

It is unlikely that you'll know without a listen if any choice in amps is a good match based on topology or class. The best, w/o peer, amp I have ever heard with Quad ESL 63s was a PS Audio IIC+. One would have never guessed that it was a match made in heaven but it was. The amp simply locked in with that speaker and was truly amazing. Go Figure!

 

[jjay]

I consider myself to be an obsessive audiophile/music lover, so I'm talking about my own issues there.

However, many people do not share the depth of my obsession/passion/whatever you want to call it. That's why there are plenty of ways to get the sound you want....

That's why the Mac stuff is great. It's not the last word in detail or resolution, but it sounds great, works well together and is built by a great company that stands behind their product.

I can't say that I've ever heard a BAD system based on their gear.[/QUOTE

This was my goal. All I heard was faults with my previous gear. I heard the Martin Logan Vantages with other manufacturers amps and knew something was not right with my setup. I did not know enough about high end equipment. With advice from this site, the McIntosh Forum, Steve Hoffman's site etc., reviews from High end magazines, Jeff's reviews, and help from all of you people who have a vast amount of experience I wised up fast. At this time I wish to enjoy the McIntosh based system I currently have and enjoy the music. The goal for me is the music...with great sound.
Thanks everyone.
Jim

 

[Brad225]

Thanks for all your responses.

I spoke with Leonard at ARC again today. He confirmed that they would remove the phase inverters inside the 120's replace the RCA with XLR and they would run as true balanced circuitry. The inverted signal would come from the balanced outputs of my LS-25 preamp.

I have one set of XLR's the same as my current RCA's on their way so I will look for another set to finish it off. In the mean time I will try them between CDP and pre to see if there is any change even though everything won't be balanced until I send the amps off to ARC.

Thanks
Brad

 

[nsgarch]

Then please explain why if there is an absolute way to do this, why it's still pretty much split down the middle... The mfrs that use balanced exclusively have plenty of reasons why their approach is the best and vice versa. I've spent plenty of time talking to the biggest brains in the industry and it's still a draw. And after reviewing a couple hundred components, it's still a draw. Some components sound better balanced, some sound better single ended and some that offer both don't sound all that much different hooked up either way. Theres a lot more to it than impedance and there is no best anything... So your condescending attitude doesn't solve the problem....

Advising people to educate themselves is NEVER condescending! I admire your consistency though, planted as you are at all times, firmly in the middle of the road! There's just too little candor in audio journalism today, and too much waffling -- is it lack of knowledge, or are the pundits afraid of driving eyeballs away from their publication's advertisers?

I just ran across this post, on another forum, in response to someone asking why J. Gordon Holt had become such a bitter old man:

"Perhaps it's the frustration of spending decades trying to reproduce live sound and finding out that no one cares. Audio has become the ultimate perversion of democracy. Everyone is correct even if everyone is different. That's fine for any individual and the death of high fidelity."

I can totally relate!

 

[Rich]

Advising people to educate themselves is NEVER condescending! I admire your consistency though, planted as you are at all times, firmly in the middle of the road! There's just too little candor in audio journalism today, and too much waffling -- is it lack of knowledge, or are the pundits afraid of driving eyeballs away from their publication's advertisers?

I just ran across this post, on another forum, in response to someone asking why J. Gordon Holt had become such a bitter old man:

"Perhaps it's the frustration of spending decades trying to reproduce live sound and finding out that no one cares. Audio has become the ultimate perversion of democracy. Everyone is correct even if everyone is different. That's fine for any individual and the death of high fidelity."

I can totally relate!

That quote seems ridiculous to me. "Ultimate perversion of democracy"???? "the death of High Fidelity"??? Give me a break. How melodramatic can we get? We are not engaging in world-changing politics here, we are enjoying a hobby. We are simply listening to music and satisfying our gear-head urges putting together an electronics system. Of course "everyone is correct even if everyone is different." Because all that really matters in this hobby is that the person spending the time and effort and money enjoys listening to his system. All the other opinions of what is "correct" don't really matter except to the extent that person wants to consider them.

And it is all mostly subjective. No matter what science and engineering theories say "should" sound the best, I may like something different. I may prefer solid state over tubes, cds over vinyl, or even single ended over balanced, because it is what subjectively sounds better to me. Because anyone else holds a different opinion doesn't make it right. With my system, my opinion is the only one that really matters in the end.

Remember that the audio magazines have a large and diverse audience and do well to show a little acceptance for diversity of opinion and an understanding of the subjective nature of this hobby. It is the know-it-all "my way is the only correct way" types that will run readers away from a magazine quicker than anything.

Enjoy the Music!

 

[edwinr]

My system is balanced from CD player to preamp to power amp using Nordost cables. I can't comment on whether single ended sounds better/worse in my system because each component is optmised for balanced operation. What I can say is that I experience a completely noise free sound - no hiss, buzz nor hum. I guess based on my experience, a fully balanced system is a good option.

 

[nsgarch]

Rich, enjoying the music is always the goal. Some people can do that with a table radio. It's a matter of degree I guess. I think what the poster meant by "perversion of democracy" (with respect to audio journalism) was that in an effort not to offend anyone's personal likes/dislikes, or not to make a reader feel excluded (for example, because of a limited budget) today's audio writers/reviewers have adopted a kind of (and I'm exaggerating, OK?) "all products are good, and there's no correct way to assemble a system, except whatever sounds good to you."

That approach is 180 degrees from how this hobby began almost 50 years ago. True, back then publications could survive on subscriptions alone, and I do appreciate those who still make the effort. 10 Audio and The Audio Perfectionist are two great ones. Positive Feedback Online, though not commercial-free makes a real effort to keep advertisers and reviewers well separated (read their mission statement.) It's hard to avoid the current business model of supplying the most eyeballs to the publication's advertisers. Look at the sad state of television news!

ToneAUDIO, for example, has the absolute best photographs and layout of any audio magazine. Jeff is an excellent commercial photographer. Yet, as with most magazines, I rarely find its content edifying. (I like the music reviews though.)

I long for the days when reviewers were both knowledgable and feisty enough to speak their minds. (Also making it easy to understand their personal biases ) I almost never agreed with J. Gordon Holt's conclusions, but he really knows audio and was fun to read (if curmudgeons make you laugh ) and I learned so much about how to listen, and what were good/bad practices in equipment design and system assembly. When today you occasionally find that kind of information in audio publications, it's often incorrect. In his turntable setup DVD, Michael Fremer is still discussing VTA -- a meaningless concept if ever there was one!

As for the "death of High Fidelity" remark, I think he was referring to the hobby of High Fidelity, in which the lasting satisfaction of really learning about the art and craft, has been replaced by the fleeting rewards of consumerism.

I think everyone would enjoy listening to Steve Hoffman's recent (and enjoyable) lecture on mastering, now available online at:
http://www.eqfuentes.com/englishsite/contentseng/technologycontentszoneeng/hoffman.html
The story about Ray Charles buying a Walkman at the 'Good Guys' is hysterical!

 

[edwinr]

I long for the days when reviewers were both knowledgable and feisty enough to speak their minds. (Also making it easy to understand their personal biases ) I almost never agreed with J. Gordon Holt's conclusions, but he really knows audio and was fun to read (if curmudgeons make you laugh )...

I enjoy reading reviews from those that are obviously opinionated. I also enjoy positive reviews relating to very expensive gear that I have just purchased . I also think it's good there's enough passion left in this hobby for fellow enthusiasts to trade 'blows'... As long as we can all have a quite drink afterwards and 'enjoy the music' :food12:

In saying that, we can read all we like and spend hours pouring over specs, but nothing will replace hands on experience when considering what amplifier will go with what speakers, or what cable will slot into this or that. I have tried a number of prospective high end brands in my system and have been disappointed in some, and quite impressed with others. My current power amplifer, a Pass Labs X150.5 has proved a much greater success in my Summit based system than my previous, much more expensive and 'better' spec'd Mark Levinson No. 432. The X150.5 is quieter, smoother, more dynamic and it doesn't switch itself off during heavy listening sessions...

 

[Rich]

Neil, I appreciate what you are saying. And I think it is true that where this hobby began was very different than where we are today. I think back then there were a lot less people into hi fi and most of the people interested in high end had a lot more knowledge of electronics in general and just understood a lot more about the technology than most folks do today. High end audio has gotten much more mass market and most folks that get into it probably don't know that much about electronics. And most of the magazines then have to try to appeal to that mass market of less informed folks without alienating them. I guess that's where forums like this come in and pick up the slack. We can be opinionated and debate our opinions and at the same time teach some of those who are new to the hobby.

 

[tonepub]

Always love having my lifes work insulted, carry on...

We all talk about our personal biases. I'm the panel guy on the staff.
We have one guy that loves minimonitors, another likes big cone speakers,
etc. etc.

If I recall, J Gordon Holt liked his Sound Labs.

Nsgarch keeps harping about being knowledgeable. Please explain your background
in audio that gives you the right and credentials to pass judgement on all of us and
deem we aren't as worthy as J Gordon Holt (who I used to really enjoy reading as well).

We have a EEE and a PhD in physics on the staff, who has done consulting work for
almost all of the major companies in the high end, so I think we've got the technical
end covered.

If you took a little time to actually read the magazine, you'd have caught that. Being
as technically correct as possible was very important to us when we started TONE.

And I guess considering that after a little over two short years we have as many readers
as TAS and Stereophile combined, we must have done something right..

 

[edwinr]

We all talk about our personal biases. I'm the panel guy on the staff. We have one guy that loves minimonitors, another likes big cone speakers, etc. etc.

It's okay for reviewers to voice their bias from time to time. I reckon it gives the reviews a bit of flavor. But borrowing from this thread's topic - it's all about balance. It sounds like you guys from Tone have that...

 

[tonepub]

Seriously, if there were only one way to get great sound, this would all be a lot easier!

Then, if everyone heard things the same and all the software was recorded and mastered to the same high level of quality, that would be even easier.

I think what the hardest part of reviewing gear is to stay as objective as possible and to try and take into account as many variables as we can. It would be very easy to proclaim what "the best" is all the time, however it's just not a fit for everyone.

While I've assembled a few decent systems here for my own use, the goal for us is always to help our readers find gear that will work in THEIR environments, budgets and personal taste. It has nothing to do with having the guts to speak my mind...

We all make the choices we do for personal reasons. If you want to have a beer at CES, I'll be more than happy to tell you what I think the best this or that is.

On most levels, though it's pretty irrelevant. This isn't a car race, it's about putting a musically satisfying system in your room.

 

[nsgarch]

Always love having my lifes work insulted, carry on...
Oh Jeff, lighten up for heaven's sake ;-)

We all talk about our personal biases. I'm the panel guy on the staff. We have one guy that loves minimonitors, another likes big cone speakers, etc.
Those are preferences. Biases are a little more insideous, and a lot more fun to figure out :devil:

Nsgarch keeps harping about being knowledgeable. Please explain your background in audio that gives you the right and credentials to pass judgement on all of us.
I'll PM you on the credentials. Only because I think it's poor form to be name-dropping in a public forum I do admit to expressing my displeasure with the current state of affairs in audio journalism, but if you regard that as a personal attack, I think you're being a little over-sensitive.

We have a EEE and a PhD in physics on the staff, who has done consulting work for almost all of the major companies in the high end, so I think we've got the technical end covered.
That would be great if it translated into content with 'teeth', but unfortunately that doesn't sit well with advertisers. Listen, most of us with any experience know how very difficult it is to evaluate hardware fairly -- look at the lengths to which a publication like PFO goes to level the playing field. And they won't even review something that doesn't give goosebumps to at least two of their reviewers, and then only after living with it for two months, IIRC.

If you took a little time to actually read the magazine, you'd have caught that.
I read every issue. Well, OK, I've stopped reading every article. But who can't look at all those gorgeous pictures -- they're like salted peanuts I read the equipment articles in TONE for descriptions of the hardware, features, etc., but I feel that in-depth performance evaluation can only be truly candid (not necessarily unbiased, mind you!) in reader supported publications -- unfortunately, they're dwindling. I liked edwinr's comments a couple posts back; opinionated reviewers can often be entertaining; and a strong point of view gives perspective to the audio landscape, even if one doesn't agree with it. That's what I miss today. I wish there were (the equivalent of) people like Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich (of the NYT) in audio. Boy would that be fun!

And I guess considering that after a little over two short years we have as many readers as TAS and Stereophile combined, we must have done something right.
One thing you're doing "right" is not charging readers for a subscription, in large part made possible by paperless publishing. And God bless those advertisers :bowdown: