Whatever Davey. You already talked to Dave Gordon and he didn't give you the answer you wanted to hear. ARC is not going to change a balanced design to operate as an unbalanced design for someone who probably really isn't in the market for the amp anyway. Guys who buy CJ amps usually buy CJ preamps. Guys who buy CJ preamps usually buy CJ amps. There are still some people who like to mix and match components from different OEMs and I used to be one of them. After having had an all Krell system (phono pre, line stage, and power amp) and seeing/hearing the synergy that brings to the table, I'm done with the mix and match routine. For the here and now, I still have the Krell phono pre, but that will probably change at some point in the future.
Audio Research Ref system with SF Stradivari
- Thread starter Big Dog RJ
- Start date
Whatever Davey. You already talked to Dave Gordon and he didn't give you the answer you wanted to hear. ARC is not going to change a balanced design to operate as an unbalanced design for someone who probably really isn't in the market for the amp anyway. Guys who buy CJ amps usually buy CJ preamps. Guys who buy CJ preamps usually buy CJ amps. There are still some people who like to mix and match components from different OEMs and I used to be one of them. After having had an all Krell system (phono pre, line stage, and power amp) and seeing/hearing the synergy that brings to the table, I'm done with the mix and match routine. For the here and now, I still have the Krell phono pre, but that will probably change at some point in the future.
DaveyF,
Although I had both in the same room, many years and a very different system separated them. The Alexia's convey more energy to the performers than the Stradivari and have better microdynamics. Both had similar scale, but the Stradivari needed a fist control and much more power than the Alexia. Due to its imaging qualities the Stradivari could sound more like a large panel than the Alexia. The Stradivari was less forgiving and less detailed than the Alexia. Concerning bass the Alexia seem to be easier to position than the Stradivari - in my very long room I could easily have some bass heaviness that would make the last speaker fat.
Although I have very little experience with them I would love to listen to the Stradivari with the Constellation Audio - although I am guessing I bet it will be something special. Power, control, transparency and smoothness added to 3D sound!
Thanks, micro. I think the Strad's would probably sound great with the Constellation gear. I also think they would sound great with the big CAT amps and the ARC Ref 750's. I heard them with the Ref 250's and they were good but I think the aforementioned trio would be better.
Last edited:
I admit I was tempted to try to explain my own personal opinions of both, having owned the Strads and heard the Alexias on multiple occasions in the same room. But you did a much better job than I could. I recall each and all of your points about the Strads when I owned them and agree...and my observations of the Alexias are similar although I would not have the insight you have regarding their requirements for power.
It's interesting that both you and micro seem to agree that the Strads are less detailed than the Alexia. I would put that at the difference between tweeters. The new silk dome in the Alexia IMO would account for that.
I also don't think that was necessarily a top design target (ie, ultra detail), whereas I do think that is part of the design goal of a Wilson, Magico. Excellent detail of course at this level, just not quite as much a priority in its characteristics.
I do not think so - after the Stradivari left I got the Maxx3 and they also had more detail. However the Alexia's are more airy than any of them - and this is probably due to the tweeter. In all fairness, IMHO the tweeter of the Aida's surpassed the Alexia's in air and vocal sweetness, not in detail or energy.
I am curious, Micro...how would you rate/rank the Maxx 3 Tweeter? I am using a Focal tweeter which is same/similar in my X1s now after the originals started to have problems in one channel.
Micro, what would you attribute to the greater detail in the Maxx3 than the Strads? Were you using the same gear with the Maxx3's as the Strads?
Lloyd, I think I have made my opinion of the Focal based tweet in the older Wilson's well known, LOL...I guess that's why you didn't ask me and instead asked Micro--
I do agree that SF doesn't have "uber" detail in mind when they design their speakers ( or shall we say when Franco did), unlike Wilson and Magico....the sound of real instruments in a real 'Live" space is more paramount. Although "uber" detail is perhaps what most of us want to hear in our listening rooms. I'm personally torn between the two
It was a few years ago, and as you know I always find difficult to separate the contribution of the speaker units from the whole. The Maxx 3 had less "grain" than the Maxx2, but its treble need some careful matching with cables - the Maxx 3 was not forgiving in the treble.
Micro, what would you attribute to the greater detail in the Maxx3 than the Strads? Were you using the same gear with the Maxx3's as the Strads?
Lloyd, I think I have made my opinion of the Focal based tweet in the older Wilson's well known, LOL...I guess that's why you didn't ask me and instead asked Micro--
I do agree that SF doesn't have "uber" detail in mind when they design their speakers ( or shall we say when Franco did), unlike Wilson and Magico....the sound of real instruments in a real 'Live" space is more paramount. Although "uber" detail is perhaps what most of us want to hear in our listening rooms. I'm personally torn between the two
To be fair, DaveyF...in the context of 'compromises'...I would agree with your assessment of the tweeters...and also say that we have prioritized differently...and I have potentially mitigated some amount of those 'Focal Titanium compromises' with my front-end equipment and cabling.
Put another way, I cannot say, having owned the SF Guarneris and SF Strads that I disagree with your assessment of the treble performance of the speakers in question: X1, Maxx 3, (basically any Wilson/Focal titanium dome)...vs the big SFs.
That said, I have to admit (for me)...after the newer generation Focals went in...and I added Ultra 5s and Vibb Eaters and really really focused on the isolation of each component and the speakers...it has HELPED to deliver the cleanest and clearest possible treble with the minimal distortion that I could possibly get out of my system.
Doesn't mean I don't wish I could flip these into Arrakis or XLFs...but it DOES mean after all these years (3 to be exact) that I have owned the X1s...I finally do not miss any element of my beloved old Strads.
DaveyF is on record as saying that all Wilson speakers that use the Focal inverted dome tweeter ring and he can hear it on every Wilson speaker. Many people that own Wilson speakers have said they can't hear it. So if your tweeters are ringing LLoyd, it really wouldn't matter how much you dampen your speakers with footers or rats.
Actually, that is not true. The damping does lots of positive things that do not relate to the ringing. That is why for me they do matter...quite a lot in fact. Even if I got XLFs, my intention would be to use Ultra 5s...and I have seen one owner in Asia of XLFs who has already done exactly this. And i have seen several people do this with their X2s, Maxx3s and X1s. In my case, the upper modules do vibrate, and I note there is a pretty nice improvement in damping the upper modules. It helps still the images, improves detailing and definitely helps solidify the soundstaging because there is less waiver at the extreme edges of the soundstage which is an unexpected improvement and has taught me something.
Does damping help ringing which is a form of unwanted vibration? I am going to guess it [might] ameliorate it a teeny bit, but probably not much. That said, because it does not bother me...this is not why I did the damping in the first place. What did occur to me after learning what the Ultra 5s did for bass and upper bass to lower mids...was that properly approaching mechanical and cabinetry resonance/vibration can improve the sound. It did for me to my ears.
Actually, it is true. It's a function of the resonance of the tweeter and all of the external dampening in the world isn't going to affect or fix that.
Actually, it is NOT true...it is NOT true the damping does nothing...and the reason is because (as stated above), I am NOT using the damping to take care of the ringing of the tweeter which bothers Davey (and which generally doe snot bother me...mainly because my hearing stops at about 16khz or so anyway). I am using the damping materials to get rid of other vibrations/mechanical distortions from the movement of my upper modules.
Lloyd-You either aren't reading what I said or you are arguing for the sake of arguing. I didn't say your dampening does nothing. I said your dampening is not going to have an effect on the Focal tweeter ringing assuming it really does. And I say that because I have never personally heard a pair of the Wilson speakers that use the Focal inverted dome tweeter. And the truth of the matter is that supposedly the resonance of the Focal tweeter that some claim they hear as ringing is over 17 kHz which the vast majority of Wilson owners wouldn't be capable of hearing anyway. So if you are correct that your hearing stops at 16 kHz (which is still pretty damn good), it really doesn't matter if your tweeter is ringing.
Apologies...I thought you were suggesting something else...that the damping did 'nothing' because the ringing was the only problem. Yes, I agree...if we are trying to solve the titanium metal resonance thing, the damping of the chassis wont change anything. I could not hear a thing.
Amusingly, having heard frequencies at 16kz (which actually hurt my ears)...I am frankly just as happy not to hear things any higher. My wife got up to 18khz on one of those tests, and she grimaced when I played it.
Similar threads
