Alexx V arrive in NJ

[andromedaaudio]

Come on guys , marty is a long time audiophile and i m sure elliot knows a thing or 2 about speaker set up as well .
Otherwise your not 40+ years in the high end bizz

 

[PeterA]

I agree. It took some ??s to express some dissatisfaction with these ultra amps on a big forum. Kudos to Marty.

I wonder if one is expected to bring in the Wilson set up guys to fine tune each module when auditioning any upstream changes or swap out resisters. If the owner does not exhaust every set up parameter, will he ever truly know?

 

[matakana]

I agree. It took some ??s to express some dissatisfaction with these ultra amps on a big forum. Kudos to Marty.

I wonder if one is expected to bring in the Wilson set up guys to fine tune each module when auditioning any upstream changes or swap out resisters. If the owner does not exhaust every set up parameter, will he ever truly know?

Well LL21 is ! and at this expense you have to.

 

[PeterA]

Well LL21 is ! and at this expense you have to.

I think Lloyd is doing it after he made his amp comparison and decision, and he is now doing it for fine tuning and discovering if there are still more gains to be had. That seems somehow different to me than what Marty did.

 

[LL21]

I think Lloyd is doing it after he made his amp comparison and decision, and he is now doing it for fine tuning and discovering if there are still more gains to be had. That seems somehow different to me than what Marty did.

Yes, that is correct. I emphasize, in the practical world, most components operate within pretty tight tolerances, and most audiophiles should ask/be informed about when a piece of equipment needs 'special attention' (eg, asking about trying a beautiful 3-watt SET amp when you own a pair of Apogee Divas). So drop-in DOES make the most sense to start. And the tweaking should be just that post-establishment of that main base line.

Furthermore, far be for me to even think about debating with Marty with his approach which I intuitively feel is almost certainly far more rigorous than my own based on the description of the exhaustive work he does in evaluating equipment. I am particular in my own way, but not that particular. So if Marty found himself dissatisfied, and in the exact same system found THREE amps that worked really well...I am personally perfectly happy to put that as an extremely important datapoint when considering my own instincts about an amp.

Not the only data point...others have also weighed in here based on their own experience...but certainly a very important one to me because I respect Marty's attention to detail, ear and meticulous approach.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

i think we always will have the concerns and disagreements regarding what is optimized, and what is not optimized, and relevant degrees of such, when judging gear. speaker positioning and amplifier performance is fair game in this question. just like preamp choices with amplifiers. 3 years ago i bought Lamm ML3's to enjoy after admiring them previously when i heard them, but also to see if it might be a choice for me. had them for 4 months. ultimately i decided they were not as optimal (for me) as my darts. but i was second guessed that i needed the Lamm preamp to really hear the ML3's at their best. that i never heard the ML3's be as dynamic as they could be.

and it's true i never took the trouble to try the Lamm preamp, so i cannot answer that question. and speaker set-up affecting amplifier bass performance is also an open ended question. i felt that a preamp change would not be significant enough to make much difference in my perceptions. and so i can relate to Marty's similar perspective. but neither of us really know since we (to my knowledge in Marty's case) did not try these things.

i have not second guessed myself, and respect that Marty has not either.

 

[ddk]

Hi Marty, thanks for the considered response. While the practice of a reviewer running a reference system, and reviewing on a simple product replacement basis is widespread, it doesn't make it right. The same thing applies in dealers, where product auditions generally follow the same path. Why? Because it's easy and it at least appears to limit the variables. However, when I receive a product for review I have always considered it my first responsibility to achieve that product's maximum possible performance. In the case of a speaker, that demands a full set up, possibly in more than one room, the use with a number of different driving amplifiers and source components, with adjustments along the way. An amplifier will typically be used with a range of different pre-amps (unless a matching unit has been supplied) as well as several different speakers. Of course, when an amp is first installed, it will be with the existing speaker set up, so whether or not the system benefits from repositioning the speakers is pretty obvious.
Over the course of a year I receive a large number of both amplifiers and speakers. Being in the fortunate position of having a large listening room with roll-in access, those often tend to be the largest and heaviest units. The wider the bandwidth of the speaker, the more critical is its positioning, the more necessary its adjustment to accommodate different amp(s) or cable combinations. So, you see, I have done the experiment - many, many times.
I merely offered this perspective in the spirit of possibly explaining your experience - an experience which certainly seems singular as regards the M10. Do I believe that there is something toxic in the M10/Alexx V combination, something that's absent from (the even more demanding) M10/XVX pairing? No. Do I believe that, had you experimented with speaker positioning, your M10 experience would have been significantly improved? Yes. Do I believe that individually adjusting the speaker positioning to suit the Mephisto, JC1+ and Soulution amps would have elevated the performance in each case? Absolutely. And isn't performance what this is all about? You can't listen to a product, no matter how hard you try. You can only listen to a system. If the system works better with a speaker adjustment to accommodate a new amp, I for one am not going to leave the speakers where they were, on the basis that moving them might offend some narrow, pseudo-scientific diktat. The notion of sticking to a single variable might be laudable in theory, but when it comes down to it, in the context of a hi-fi system it is virtually impossible to achieve, for the reasons that I and others have explained. Any 'experimental protocol' that involves a pair of speakers, a room and a set of ears to do the measuring is flawed at best, but proper observational techniques and strict methodology go some way towards compensating. Those who have experienced a system performance (rather than individual product) focussed approach have generally been surprised and impressed by both the results and the accuracy/transferability of the conclusions reached. I just wonder what might have been achieved in your set up with this approach?

Hi Roy,
There’s a missing component in your exchanges with Marty and that’s his taste and what he thinks of as quality bass. We’ve had private exchanges for years and visited one another as well so I somewhat know his requirements when it come bass and they’re very specific to him. I believe you’re looking at these components from your subjective viewpoint and your ideal of quality bass and Marty from his. You make valid points regarding overall setup and system performance but that’s a separate topic IMO.

david

 

[Carlos269]

Hi Marty, thanks for the considered response. While the practice of a reviewer running a reference system, and reviewing on a simple product replacement basis is widespread, it doesn't make it right. The same thing applies in dealers, where product auditions generally follow the same path. Why? Because it's easy and it at least appears to limit the variables. However, when I receive a product for review I have always considered it my first responsibility to achieve that product's maximum possible performance. In the case of a speaker, that demands a full set up, possibly in more than one room, the use with a number of different driving amplifiers and source components, with adjustments along the way. An amplifier will typically be used with a range of different pre-amps (unless a matching unit has been supplied) as well as several different speakers. Of course, when an amp is first installed, it will be with the existing speaker set up, so whether or not the system benefits from repositioning the speakers is pretty obvious.
Over the course of a year I receive a large number of both amplifiers and speakers. Being in the fortunate position of having a large listening room with roll-in access, those often tend to be the largest and heaviest units. The wider the bandwidth of the speaker, the more critical is its positioning, the more necessary its adjustment to accommodate different amp(s) or cable combinations. So, you see, I have done the experiment - many, many times.
I merely offered this perspective in the spirit of possibly explaining your experience - an experience which certainly seems singular as regards the M10. Do I believe that there is something toxic in the M10/Alexx V combination, something that's absent from (the even more demanding) M10/XVX pairing? No. Do I believe that, had you experimented with speaker positioning, your M10 experience would have been significantly improved? Yes. Do I believe that individually adjusting the speaker positioning to suit the Mephisto, JC1+ and Soulution amps would have elevated the performance in each case? Absolutely. And isn't performance what this is all about? You can't listen to a product, no matter how hard you try. You can only listen to a system. If the system works better with a speaker adjustment to accommodate a new amp, I for one am not going to leave the speakers where they were, on the basis that moving them might offend some narrow, pseudo-scientific diktat. The notion of sticking to a single variable might be laudable in theory, but when it comes down to it, in the context of a hi-fi system it is virtually impossible to achieve, for the reasons that I and others have explained. Any 'experimental protocol' that involves a pair of speakers, a room and a set of ears to do the measuring is flawed at best, but proper observational techniques and strict methodology go some way towards compensating. Those who have experienced a system performance (rather than individual product) focussed approach have generally been surprised and impressed by both the results and the accuracy/transferability of the conclusions reached. I just wonder what might have been achieved in your set up with this approach?

This is such a cop out for amplifiers costing over $200,000.00 where you have to attempt to aid their bass performance with additional room reenforcement; when the JC-1+ amps in the same system conditions did not require it. As much as the above and the previous posts say about the amplifiers in question, the evaluation methodology says much more about the reviewer. While most things in this hobby are highly subjective, and at time appear all arbitrary, the expectations are that evaluations by professionals should be carried out by methods that are framed within a control set of parameters. The anything goes approach, to try to achieve the “product's maximum possible performance”, detailed above does not lead anyone to possibly reach any meaningful conclusions. Let me repeat, in order to identify the “optimal” conditions all possible permutations need to be evaluated, logistically and fundamentally this is not possible, so for best analysis the test bed should be constrained to the evaluation of the changes that arise from one variable change at a time, in order to asses the relative performance differences between any two components under analysis. After all this is the whole point of reviewers maintaining a reference system.

 

[PeterA]

This is such a cop out for amplifiers costing over $200,000.00 where you have to attempt aid their bass performance with additional room reenforcement; when the JC-1+ amps in the same system conditions did not require it. As much as the above and the previous posts say about the amplifiers in question, the evaluation methodology says much more about the reviewer. While most things in this hobby are highly subjective, and at time appear all arbitrary, the expectations are that evaluations by professionals should be carried out by methods that are framed within a control set of parameters. The anything goes approach, to try to achieve the “product's maximum possible performance”, detailed above does not lead anyone to possibly reach any meaningful conclusions. Let me repeat, in order to identify the “optimal” conditions all possible permutations need to be evaluated, logistically and fundamentally this is not possible, so for best analysis the test bed should be constrained to the evaluation of the changes that arise from one variable change at a time, in order to asses the relative performance differences between any two components under analysis. After all this is the whole point of reviewers maintaining a reference system.

In my recent amplifier comparisons, I actually compared the Lamm amp/preamp combination to the Pass amp/preamp combination, keeping all other variables the same including the wires. I was comparing the electronic chain, not just the amps. The Lamm phono sounded better than the Pass phono in both cases.

 

[Steve Williams]

An interesting discussion indeed. I’ve known Marty for well over 20 years and am keenly aware how meticulous he is when evaluating any new piece of equipment. I too espouse changing only one thing at a time. I’ve owned countless amps over the years and never once have I done anything except put the new one where the old one once stood. Makes simple sense to me We can be sure Marty is putting the Gryphon through all the same evaluation process and a report will be forthcoming

 

[PeterA]

This is a good thread. Marty starts with the speakers and then finds the amp which is most of the discussion. It reminds me a bit about Keith's recent FYNE speakers and following amp search.

 

[K3RMIT]

Hey mike L any comments for here ??

 

[PeterA]

Hey mike L any comments for here ??

I can't remember now if Mike changed anything other than the three amplifiers during his evaluations. One wonders if they were all on the same isolation platforms. That would surely matter and affect the sonics.

 

[Carlos269]

Hey mike L any comments for here ??

See post #506.

 

[RoyGregory]

Hi Roy,
There’s a missing component in your exchanges with Marty and that’s his taste and what he thinks of as quality bass. We’ve had private exchanges for years and visited one another as well so I somewhat know his requirements when it come bass and they’re very specific to him. I believe you’re looking at these components from your subjective viewpoint and your ideal of quality bass and Marty from his. You make valid points regarding overall setup and system performance but that’s a separate topic IMO.

david

An excellent point and one with which I totally agree. If you go back to my original post, my first caveat in discussing this question is that there is no standardised measure (and precious little agreement) when it comes to bass quality. To each his own...

 

[marty]

So, you see, I have done the experiment - many, many times.

Roy, respectfully, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.

 

[K3RMIT]

Wow this is a true battle and if I’m judging there is truth on both sides here. was any level matching done lol. Im kidding.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I can't remember now if Mike changed anything other than the three amplifiers during his evaluations. One wonders if they were all on the same isolation platforms. That would surely matter and affect the sonics.

if anything, the Lamm ML3's had it the best as they sat on the SRA Virginia Class (or some sort of purpose built prototype) stands. the big VAC's sat on their power supplies directly on the floor. the darts sat on Box furniture amp stands as this was prior to adding the Herzan/Tana platforms. as it turned out later when i was doing some 'proof of concept' comparing; the floor turned out sounding better than the Box Furniture stands for the dart 458's.....the Herzan and later the Tana much better.

 

[KeithR]

This is a good thread. Marty starts with the speakers and then finds the amp which is most of the discussion. It reminds me a bit about Keith's recent FYNE speakers and following amp search.

one reason all the amps that have gone through my room have been on the ground with stock cords. i don't want to add other variables to the mix.

 

[K3RMIT]

A true writer is like acting your not sure what was meant until after the movie credits roll up. for me this stuff is way to exp to commit to any wrong doing.
I'm tapping out.