Thanks. Yes I am using the tape loop, and built an A/B switch between the tape decks, as there is only one tape loop in the preamp.
ack's system - end of round 1
- Thread starter ack
- Start date
Glad to hear that you are able to access good FM broadcasts in Boston Ack.
We are so blessed here in the UK with the BBC and the commercial station Classic FM is also very good.
I have steadily progressed up the MD ladder and last year replaced the 108T with a 109. So much better and a really good upgrade.
MD have some good trade ins including 109s at good prices
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Co-Owner, Administrator
That's great! We rarely speak about Magnum Dynalab here; I am looking at the 90SE with the 105 audio upgrade option - case size an issue for me.
Linearity
A few words about Linearity... I have often said the A90 is the most linear cartridge I have ever heard, and recently noticed a thread about alleged "PCM glare", with observations that some recordings have it while others don't. I don't believe there is such a thing as "PCM glare", and it's either all in the analog domain or a byproduct of jitter. 'Analog domain' refers to ADC's analog input, the DAC's output section, and any other analog stage in between. Specifically to DACs, I strongly believe there is a narrow area of gain where the output section operates at maximum linearity, and this is one of the reasons I don't like running DACs directly to amplifiers - I believe most DACs need a fixed output. Case in point my Alpha DAC 1, where the manual says setting the volume to '55' (out of '60.x' possible settings) is the best setting. Alas, I have found it to add glare to the sound, quite evident with strings and large orchestral (especially horns). After painstaking efforts, I settled on '54' a couple of weeks ago, for best balance between linearity and dynamics, and for example, '53' is a tiny more linear but dynamically dead, while '55' not only adds glare but bloats bass as well, and '56' and above is just horrible. Then just yesterday I happened to have looked up the Alpha DAC 2's manual just for kicks, and it now says best setting is '54'... Great, Berkeley and I now agree.
I started investigating this after recently auditioning the $65K Rockport Cygnus, driven by my 400RS/30SV combo, more expensive MIT cabling and the dCS Vivaldi stack. Two main things struck me: how linear the sound was, and also how far behind my speakers the Cygnus still is, in terms of timbre and resolution (in the entire spectrum). For one thing, ever since first listening to the Vivaldi a couple of years ago I was awe-struck by its purity, and this impression has not changed. Part of this purity is its linearity, and to this day it remains the most linear DAC I have ever heard - which means, no glare of any kind.
The other sort of unexpected benefit of operating my DAC at a more linear volume setting is actually enhanced resolution, in the sense that I now hear more clearly things that were somewhat obscured by it, because the ear was apparently distracted by the glare. So I would encourage people to experiment with strings and brass at various volume settings in their DACs and see what they think...
A few words about Linearity... I have often said the A90 is the most linear cartridge I have ever heard, and recently noticed a thread about alleged "PCM glare", with observations that some recordings have it while others don't. I don't believe there is such a thing as "PCM glare", and it's either all in the analog domain or a byproduct of jitter. 'Analog domain' refers to ADC's analog input, the DAC's output section, and any other analog stage in between. Specifically to DACs, I strongly believe there is a narrow area of gain where the output section operates at maximum linearity, and this is one of the reasons I don't like running DACs directly to amplifiers - I believe most DACs need a fixed output. Case in point my Alpha DAC 1, where the manual says setting the volume to '55' (out of '60.x' possible settings) is the best setting. Alas, I have found it to add glare to the sound, quite evident with strings and large orchestral (especially horns). After painstaking efforts, I settled on '54' a couple of weeks ago, for best balance between linearity and dynamics, and for example, '53' is a tiny more linear but dynamically dead, while '55' not only adds glare but bloats bass as well, and '56' and above is just horrible. Then just yesterday I happened to have looked up the Alpha DAC 2's manual just for kicks, and it now says best setting is '54'... Great, Berkeley and I now agree.
I started investigating this after recently auditioning the $65K Rockport Cygnus, driven by my 400RS/30SV combo, more expensive MIT cabling and the dCS Vivaldi stack. Two main things struck me: how linear the sound was, and also how far behind my speakers the Cygnus still is, in terms of timbre and resolution (in the entire spectrum). For one thing, ever since first listening to the Vivaldi a couple of years ago I was awe-struck by its purity, and this impression has not changed. Part of this purity is its linearity, and to this day it remains the most linear DAC I have ever heard - which means, no glare of any kind.
The other sort of unexpected benefit of operating my DAC at a more linear volume setting is actually enhanced resolution, in the sense that I now hear more clearly things that were somewhat obscured by it, because the ear was apparently distracted by the glare. So I would encourage people to experiment with strings and brass at various volume settings in their DACs and see what they think...
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Co-Owner, Administrator
I would strongly agree with this - I have an audio friend who uses a simple digital device for source input, and he has experimented for years with this type of adjusting; he has found most times there is a balance between the ideal for the digital, and what output level allows the following stage to work at its optimum.
Interesting - thank you.
Can I ask then, with respect to your A90 (luurvelly cart) do you find any similar issues? (logically one would think not, but then again...it is hi fi).
I don't have such issues... but... Often, when we put down digital vs analog (including myself), we neglect to disclose equipment level actually involved. In my case, for example, there is roughly $40K in analog investment vs $12K or so for digital. Apples and oranges. My analog is highly tweaked and modified (excerpt for the cartridge) with carefully selected low-capacitance wiring and so many other things, all ending up with a great $10K modified phono... So for $40K plus tweaks it'd better not have any glare.
Essentially, what I am saying is that we expect too much out of cheap or moderate digital, and such equipment level cannot possibly offer the best digital sound... and glare is one of the issues, due to jitter and the analog stages involved, sez me; b yextension, the recordings themselves can also be at fault. Overall, the issue of linearity extends to preamps and amplifiers as well. I am sure all of us have heard SOME systems where, as you turn the volume up, things begin to go wrong very quickly; similarly the other way, when the volume is too low. Therefore, a lot of systems sound their best within a very narrow band of gain, if we are to leave room interactions out. I have experienced this in my system as well, and frankly, these Spectral amps and preamp are the only ones I've ever had that sound incredibly linear from low to high volume - a rare achievement.
The issue of glare in my digital has bothered me for a while, and I decided to do something about it - effectively, to find the DAC's optimal gain, given that jitter from my transport is allegedly extremely low, and impedances perfectly matched (which avoid reflections, eliminating jitter on the interface)
Certainly my experience as well, Spectral amps aside which I haven't heard (they are rare down here). I thought a Devialet 200 I heard /owned linear as well in its drive. And incredibly transparent. Not for me, ultimately, but good. Very good as a one box solution. It did run very hot however.
I have found many speakers (mine included) lose the plot when operating outside a fairly narrow audio band. For instance at volume my 30.1's get more than a little untidy, and start exciting room nodes (or perhaps more accurately you begin to hear their expression). On the other hand they sound remarkable at lower volume, where most of my listening is, within their range of operation. The blending of macro and micro detail is exceptional in my humble opinion.
I can't tell you the number of speakers I have heard that sound..broken..unless and until they reach a certain volume level. I am instinctively drawn to systems that sound effortless and captivating no matter what their volume level. A friends TW Acustic + Shindo + Cessaro horn system is that sound - effortless but very very engaging. I think he runs and Etna or Atlas, which is similar I think to the A90??
40k of tweaks? Goodness me. I bet your system is very carefully tuned indeed to you ear. How wonderful. Enjoy in good health.
ps the Boston boys report very good things about the dCS Rossini, and I understand consider it superior in many ways to the Merging Nadac. You have me wondering now if the volume control in the Nadac was/is in fact an optimal way of fine tuning its output to influence system matching. Hmmm. @Madfloyd.
Pleasure.
Oh yes - silly me - I just checked out your system. How lovely. I was listening to some ML's a couple of weeks ago driven my Gryphon. It was lovely. VPI front end as well. How is your bass integration? Its a tough one with ML. Looks like you have put alot of work into it.
Gosh a liquid floating platter. That is interesting. I have never heard of that before. I agree entirely incidentally - isolation is so important with analogue. The cartridge I use has an "isolator" attached to it - basically a small block of foam from what I can tell - which certainly helps. Arm has an oil damper as well. My cart looks horrible but sounds great btw. But it is a bear to set up correctly - long contact point with the record so VTA and azimuth definitely has a "sweet spot" which can be difficult to find.
The next 5k I spend will be on a Minus K platform for under my deck. I have witnessed one go under a SG2 deck +arm (Air Tight PC3) into a Wavac Phono stage and the before and after was an amazing experience. It literally was like a component change after the Minus K went in.
Oh yes - silly me - I just checked out your system. How lovely. I was listening to some ML's a couple of weeks ago driven my Gryphon. It was lovely. VPI front end as well. How is your bass integration? Its a tough one with ML. Looks like you have put alot of work into it.
Gosh a liquid floating platter. That is interesting. I have never heard of that before. I agree entirely incidentally - isolation is so important with analogue. The cartridge I use has an "isolator" attached to it - basically a small block of foam from what I can tell - which certainly helps. Arm has an oil damper as well. My cart looks horrible but sounds great btw. But it is a bear to set up correctly - long contact point with the record so VTA and azimuth definitely has a "sweet spot" which can be difficult to find.
The next 5k I spend will be on a Minus K platform for under my deck. I have witnessed one go under a SG2 deck +arm (Air Tight PC3) into a Wavac Phono stage and the before and after was an amazing experience. It literally was like a component change after the Minus K went in.
These Logans have very little to do with what came out of the factory - the panel, power supply and outer shell, and that's it (not even the binding posts, which are Mundorf as well). I find the bass integration the best of any hybrid Logan I have heard so far; it's really fast and articulate, but not as articulate as a Q Magico.
I have to look up Minus K... On the Rossini, I can't remember what we all auditioned the Magico S7s back in December with, but it was either the Rossini or Vivaldi; whatever it was, the sound was excellent... I am just critical of the S7's performance for the asking price, and it doesn't match the Q series in performance... The other folks mentioned recently they think the Q1 is a better speaker than the S7, and I would say, any Q is better than the S7. And if I am so critical of the S7 for the price, I should be even more critical of the Cygnus, at an even higher price; on the other hand, Rockports are always nice to listen to all day long, with their softer character.
Thanks for your comments...
I have to look up Minus K... On the Rossini, I can't remember what we all auditioned the Magico S7s back in December with, but it was either the Rossini or Vivaldi; whatever it was, the sound was excellent... I am just critical of the S7's performance for the asking price, and it doesn't match the Q series in performance... The other folks mentioned recently they think the Q1 is a better speaker than the S7, and I would say, any Q is better than the S7. And if I am so critical of the S7 for the price, I should be even more critical of the Cygnus, at an even higher price; on the other hand, Rockports are always nice to listen to all day long, with their softer character.
Thanks for your comments...
DAC linearity
BTW, DAC Linearity is a much-discussed, researched and documented issue. The following excerpt from Analog Devices http://www.analog.com/library/analogDialogue/archives/39-06/Chapter%205%20Testing%20Converters%20F.pdf sums it up really well
On DNL, and in layman's terms, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_nonlinearity
and they include a simplistic graph on deviation from linearity (DNL) OF AN *Analog to Digital Converter* - in a DAC, the axes would look similar, but the point is the same
There are all kinds of articles one can read on INL and DNL, and the point being again that a DAC (and an ADC) has a very specific and narrow band of linear operation, and part of it is its output section.
BTW, DAC Linearity is a much-discussed, researched and documented issue. The following excerpt from Analog Devices http://www.analog.com/library/analogDialogue/archives/39-06/Chapter%205%20Testing%20Converters%20F.pdf sums it up really well
On DNL, and in layman's terms, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_nonlinearity
and they include a simplistic graph on deviation from linearity (DNL) OF AN *Analog to Digital Converter* - in a DAC, the axes would look similar, but the point is the same
There are all kinds of articles one can read on INL and DNL, and the point being again that a DAC (and an ADC) has a very specific and narrow band of linear operation, and part of it is its output section.
Today is a very special day... Attending the spectacular, sad but also very dramatic Mahler 9 at the BSO, with the entire family... it must have been 9-12 months or so ago that I bought tickets of my favorite seats, and finally the wait is over; I expect this to be one exhilarating, unforgettable performance... The repeating leitmotif employed in this symphony is one of the things that make it so special, and as this page says "Mahler uses as a leitmotif to represent one of the fundamental emotions explored by this symphony: the yearning or longing for completion that contemplation of death evokes."
Mahler, having been diagnosed with a serious heart condition the year before starting on this symphony and shortly after losing his 5-year old daughter (from which he never really recovered), is now facing his own mortality; and this symphony is viewed by some as his eternal farewell. Weird as it may sound, one of the things I am really looking forward to are the final, long fading notes of the Adagio, which slowly extinguish rather unceremoniously like life itself, and where the audience is expected to hold its breath, before we break out into the anticipated roar and standing ovation. This should be awesome, and let's see if my wife can hold her emotions! Having listened to all his symphonies so many times at home, it is no surprise to me that Schoenberg, who attended Mahler's funeral, wrote on his wreath "The Holy Gustav Mahler".
Pictures to follow tomorrow...
Mahler, having been diagnosed with a serious heart condition the year before starting on this symphony and shortly after losing his 5-year old daughter (from which he never really recovered), is now facing his own mortality; and this symphony is viewed by some as his eternal farewell. Weird as it may sound, one of the things I am really looking forward to are the final, long fading notes of the Adagio, which slowly extinguish rather unceremoniously like life itself, and where the audience is expected to hold its breath, before we break out into the anticipated roar and standing ovation. This should be awesome, and let's see if my wife can hold her emotions! Having listened to all his symphonies so many times at home, it is no surprise to me that Schoenberg, who attended Mahler's funeral, wrote on his wreath "The Holy Gustav Mahler".
Pictures to follow tomorrow...
Our friend Al M pinged me about my thoughts on the 9th, and I have to admit I've been lazy posting about it... Here are his own thoughts on it to me:
Al:
The weekend before the 9th, we attended the BSO playing Mozart and Bruckner's #3 - powerful, tremendous. Mozart doesn't necessarily rock my boat, though I do enjoy the melodies; I like drama. And for drama, I turn to Bruckner and Mahler. Real drama has complexity, evokes emotions, is unpredictable... and oftentimes has elements of betrayal. Such is the case, I think, with the 9th. We all have our favorites, and to me, the 2nd and the 9th stand at the very top, for the very sharp contrasting messages.
They both render hope (and BTW, the 9th's opening movement is considered Mahler's strongest symphonic achievement), but at varying degrees. Whereas the 2nd is all about hope despite its opening Funeral Rites movement, and culminates in a message of hope for resurrection ("What was created must perish, What has perished must rise again") in an ultra-dramatic finale which makes audiences roar, the 9th's message of hope quickly turns to sorrow, ending in that beautiful Adagio which slowly drifts away, with virtually no signs of hope, and it seems like the composer is succumbing to the grim reality of eventual perishment - the "dying" as Al said.
The younger Mahler in his 2nd reads like all of us in a younger age, full of hope and with a strong sense of invincibility; but as we age, and after having experienced one tragedy after another, fears set it. What we will all think of death toward the end of our lives will come in due time, but Mahler makes it clear what he thinks in his 9th. To me, there is a sense of betrayal in that Adagio, as if God abandons him and his family, a lack of hope, perhaps desperation.
The audience always roars at the conclusion of his glorious 2nd, and fortunately so did we a couple of weekends ago, as the orchestra's playing conveyed ALL of that to me and many others like me. It was that dramatic.
What about the sound... Well, forget about the concert hall - it's always PERFECT. On the other hand, let me touch upon a bit upon the sound at home. My wife and I have not attended together a Mahler symphony for over 15 years; last time, after the 2nd's conclusion she said "your system doesn't sound like anything like this"; very true. This time she asked me to play the 9th one more time at home the next day, and I also played the 2nd in full swing (walls crumbling down type of sound level, LOL). While she was impressed, all I can say right now is, THANK YOU SPECTRAL - what a performance these current electronics are capable of; so pure and clean, and with all the treble energy I hear in the Hall; OK let's not forget about the sources either. Overall, not exactly _like_ Symphony Hall if I may be so blunt, but the point is that you get the *meaning* of the music, the drama, which evokes emotions, free of distortions that destroy one's focus and sense of pleasure (and ticks and pops are the kinds of distortions I ignore - unlike the coughing lady behind me... ugh). That is what it's all about, to me.
Finally, a little bit more about "distortions"... Our friend PeterA posted a rather refreshing quip recently here and the following struck me as rather true in fact: "what you think you heard was far removed from what was originally in Mahler's head as he imagined the composition". Frequently, the original scores are distorted. Mahler's 2nd calls for a 5-minute silence between the first and second movements - hardly anyone observes that, but von Dohnanyi and Kaplan do (or did). The 9th calls for one harp, yet Bruno Walter introduced a second one and split their duties, and everyone has been following that ever since then. So there... distortions begin with the conductor and the orchestra. And yes, this is ALSO in jest!
A picture from our typical seats; runtime was about 90 mins, and my son required constant reassurance that time is actually always moving, and moving forward; says he after 20 minutes: "Are we still in the first movement?"
PS: A little factoid: Nelsons had his BSO debut at Carnegie conducting this 9th, as an emergency substitute conductor, in 2011 as I recall.
PPS: The next big event for me comes next October, when they play the Brahms German Requiem - a must-attend, if you are in the area
Al:
The weekend before the 9th, we attended the BSO playing Mozart and Bruckner's #3 - powerful, tremendous. Mozart doesn't necessarily rock my boat, though I do enjoy the melodies; I like drama. And for drama, I turn to Bruckner and Mahler. Real drama has complexity, evokes emotions, is unpredictable... and oftentimes has elements of betrayal. Such is the case, I think, with the 9th. We all have our favorites, and to me, the 2nd and the 9th stand at the very top, for the very sharp contrasting messages.
They both render hope (and BTW, the 9th's opening movement is considered Mahler's strongest symphonic achievement), but at varying degrees. Whereas the 2nd is all about hope despite its opening Funeral Rites movement, and culminates in a message of hope for resurrection ("What was created must perish, What has perished must rise again") in an ultra-dramatic finale which makes audiences roar, the 9th's message of hope quickly turns to sorrow, ending in that beautiful Adagio which slowly drifts away, with virtually no signs of hope, and it seems like the composer is succumbing to the grim reality of eventual perishment - the "dying" as Al said.
The younger Mahler in his 2nd reads like all of us in a younger age, full of hope and with a strong sense of invincibility; but as we age, and after having experienced one tragedy after another, fears set it. What we will all think of death toward the end of our lives will come in due time, but Mahler makes it clear what he thinks in his 9th. To me, there is a sense of betrayal in that Adagio, as if God abandons him and his family, a lack of hope, perhaps desperation.
The audience always roars at the conclusion of his glorious 2nd, and fortunately so did we a couple of weekends ago, as the orchestra's playing conveyed ALL of that to me and many others like me. It was that dramatic.
What about the sound... Well, forget about the concert hall - it's always PERFECT. On the other hand, let me touch upon a bit upon the sound at home. My wife and I have not attended together a Mahler symphony for over 15 years; last time, after the 2nd's conclusion she said "your system doesn't sound like anything like this"; very true. This time she asked me to play the 9th one more time at home the next day, and I also played the 2nd in full swing (walls crumbling down type of sound level, LOL). While she was impressed, all I can say right now is, THANK YOU SPECTRAL - what a performance these current electronics are capable of; so pure and clean, and with all the treble energy I hear in the Hall; OK let's not forget about the sources either. Overall, not exactly _like_ Symphony Hall if I may be so blunt, but the point is that you get the *meaning* of the music, the drama, which evokes emotions, free of distortions that destroy one's focus and sense of pleasure (and ticks and pops are the kinds of distortions I ignore - unlike the coughing lady behind me... ugh). That is what it's all about, to me.
Finally, a little bit more about "distortions"... Our friend PeterA posted a rather refreshing quip recently here and the following struck me as rather true in fact: "what you think you heard was far removed from what was originally in Mahler's head as he imagined the composition". Frequently, the original scores are distorted. Mahler's 2nd calls for a 5-minute silence between the first and second movements - hardly anyone observes that, but von Dohnanyi and Kaplan do (or did). The 9th calls for one harp, yet Bruno Walter introduced a second one and split their duties, and everyone has been following that ever since then. So there... distortions begin with the conductor and the orchestra. And yes, this is ALSO in jest!
A picture from our typical seats; runtime was about 90 mins, and my son required constant reassurance that time is actually always moving, and moving forward; says he after 20 minutes: "Are we still in the first movement?"
PS: A little factoid: Nelsons had his BSO debut at Carnegie conducting this 9th, as an emergency substitute conductor, in 2011 as I recall.
PPS: The next big event for me comes next October, when they play the Brahms German Requiem - a must-attend, if you are in the area
Last edited:
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |