Live music, Tone and Presence: What most systems get wrong

[NorthStar]

Last night I went to a very nice house concert in a house in one of the nicest parts of Zürich. The house was of modern design and the room for concert was fairly large at about 6 x 10 meters (20 x 33 feet) with high ceilings. THe concert was a duo with two cellos. Both cellists were professionals from the Tonhalle Orchestra and so quite skilled if not at the uppermost levels of the soloist world. The pieces ranged from largely unknown to me to a final piece that was quite demanding from Paganinni (not sure if it was originally written for cello or transcripted).

Anyway, my wife and I sat in the front row, which was only 2.5 meters or so from the performers themselves but slightly "off-axis" from the center. The music ranged from light and playful to "hard and heavy" or deeply romantic. So, quite a wide variety of sound and styles and technical diffculty. It was clear that some of the pieces required an extreme amount of concentration whereas other pieces they were able to feed off of each other in a playful manner. Really great stuff!

Now, there were two really deep take home audiophile messages from this concert that had nothing to do with the musicians playing or the compositions but really the sound itself and the impact that sound created.

1) The tone of the two instruments was FAR richer sounding than 99% of the high end systems I have heard, either at people's homes or shows. This was driven home to me more than usual because we were sitting so close (I could easily hear the breathing of the cellist closeest to us). You expect a certain richness in a big hall when you sit in the middle to the back of the hall due to absoprtion of high frequencies. There was none of that here.

The other important point about tone was the disctinct and laughably easy differentiation between the two performers cellos. Now, this might also have to do with how they played their instruments but it seemed to be more the instrument (or bow) themselves. What do I mean? The cellist closest to us (by closer I mean about 50-75 cm closer) had a warmer tone that was also somehow less complex and more midrange centered. It also projected a bit more but was more tonally homogeneous and therefore somewhat less interesting. The other cello (ist) had more growl in the low notes with complex overtones in the lower strings and likewise a bit more "bite" in the upper frequencies, which were again more complex. It gave a more "hear into" quality on her solos. Mids were a bit less projected but still more interesting from the complexity of the tone.

Resolution was of course the real thing. Every nuance of their playing revealed, every squeak, squeal, fingering etc. all there without hardness.

This level of tonal differentiation is VERY difficult to get right with hifi. I have never heard a system with a SS amp get it right...ever. Very few tube systems get it right either though and none of the push/pull type from what I have heard so far.

So, next time you hear someone say that an all tube system sounds too rich for reality don't believe them in most cases because the reality for real instruments in a real space IS rich and harmonically complex...even up close where you get more high frequency "bite" to the sound. The problem with most tube systems is that the tonal richness often comes at the price of transparency and resolution of details. They get tone right but lose the nuance.

2) The presence of the music was THERE! It was in your lap, in your face and then fading back to the performers during quiet passages. It lived and breathed. It didn't sit back in space, it invaded your space but with all the richness and resolution without hardness described above. This palpability is nearly unprecedented in hifi playback. Of course you need a recording that is intimate (most small ensemble recordings are rather made this way). A big orchestra recording is often going to have a more distant perspective...just like when you sit mid-hall.

Small ensembles in the spaces they were designed for can generate powerful waves of music and it is immersive and present in the room with you. It is more visceral than going to a big concert I have found, unless you sit very close as well to the orchestra. For example, I was at a concert the week before at Tonhalle to hear Mussorgsky "Pictures at an Exhibition" and we sat in the mid-back of the hall. It was powerful sounding and moving but from a more distant perspective. The horns did not land in your lap.

I have heard very few systems that do the presence I heard last night even remotely close to that live performance. The closest thing it reminded me of was the Schubert Festival in London where we heard quartet and quintet in the home of a London doctor. That was equally visceral.

This presence is one of the things that horns seem to do better than dynamic speakers. Whether it is the sensitivity or the directivity of the speakers it is hard to say...probably a comination of these and other factors. The presence I heard last night I have never heard with a dynamic speaker but I did hear it from time to time with big electrostats. I have also never heard it with a system driven with SS electronics...they tend to paint a more distant perspective of the soundfield and lack the dynamic bursts to capture that pulsing sound.


It seems to me now that in some ways, there are many systems that have even more trouble getting this presence, dynamic "breathing" and tone right of a small, two instrument, ensemble than do to recreate a nice panoramic orchestral sound (not a lifelike SPL mind you). It is severe even because most fall down on both the tone and differentiation of tone as well as the presence and microdynamics. Most are flat and gray compared to what I heard sitting 2-3 meters from the performers.

I have seen many people argue that SETs make an unrealistic sound in terms of tone and "projection" of the sound...artifacts and distortion some people say. And yet, they get closer to the sound I heard yesterday (coupled with horns in particular) live than any other technology I have heard. I have laid out technical reasons why but the best is just listening and realizing what the real deal sounds like and which technology gets us closer to that.

Thank you for taking the time to share this live magic music experience.
It was a true joy to read you, with some tears in my eyes, heartfelt in depth...a reason to be alive and live for.

 

[morricab]

We disagree. From whatever I can calibrate your tastes are for your system, in your small room, and for chamber music at low volumes.

Time for you to have your analysis recalibrated, you would be wrong. I listen big works, small works, jazz, rock etc. and quite loud sometimes but the system reveals all at much lower volumes...a necessary prerequisite.

 

[YashN]

it is only the SETs that sound the most real, most present, most dynamic and with most muscially correct timing.

'musically correct timing' - this is one thing that is rarely mentioned but it's what I get with my SET Tube amp too as compared to my SS amp (which is rated about 10x more power-wise...).

When I first wrote about my listening impressions (might be over at Computeraudiophile), I believe I mentioned the power of the 'first kick' and then all other subsequent close attacks are perfectly and evenly rendered.

On a song like New Order's 'Blue Monday', where there are several exactly same sequenced (not played) kick drums in quick succession, the SS job does an OK job rendering the first kick, it appears to render the remaining kicks to a lesser extent than the first one.

My SET Tube amp, on the other hand, renders that first kick in a much more powerful way.

Then it renders each kick in that quick string of kicks with the same full power.

Then, when the other sounds come in, the kicks still are rendered with similar power.

That accuracy and timeliness can also be heard in other electronic sequences, good pop/funk/disco like Chic and any old Motown, the attacks of percussions and guitars, etc...

My SET Tube amp also renders slight vibratos and nuances in vocal passages in much more resolution than the SS amp.

The SET Tube amp has a simplicity in its circuit that approaches the ideal amplifier - a wire with gain, much more than many SS amp with their string of Opamps, or feedback or what not.

So much so that I'll be architecting my system around that low-power SET Tube amp, building high-efficiency speakers for it to let it shine through as best as we can possibly let in.

For those who love SET Tube amps, I highly recommend you try feeding it with high-rate DSD through a native DSD DAC or a chip-less DSD DAC - it's a great match!

Listening to electronic music on old analogue synths is quite amazing as well.

 

[the sound of Tao]

Morricab, that is a wonderfully written OP. You really describe well the sound and experience of listening to those two cellists up close in an intimate setting. It would be great to see a photo, if you happened to take one. I like the descriptions of how visceral it was, and the tonal density and sense of presence. The sound and music, filling the room. This is what live music in such a setting is all about. I marvel at the sheer vibrational energy resonating out of a cello. I, too, have never heard a system do that. However, I have heard a very small number of systems come pretty close to reproducing the tone, presence and energy of a cello, at least enough to be convincing and believable. Two were cones driven by SS. One particularly poor system was a pair of Altec horns driven by SETs. We all have different examples.

I was excited to read your opening post and had hoped this thread would encourage a discussion about "Live music, Tone and Presence." What are they and why are so many systems disappointing? We hear these things when listening to live acoustic music and we have heard some systems succeed and many fail at portraying these characteristics. There have been many posts in this fascinating thread in just one day, but sadly, they are mostly about the old topic of SS versus tube, or SET versus push-pull, or horns versus cones. Is this how you would like your thread to develop? I don't have a lot of experience listening to many different systems or component typologies, but I can say that I have heard tube, SS, cone and horn based systems convincingly portray "tone, presence, and dynamics", to quote Jim Smith's triumvirate.

I agree that many systems get these wrong, but I no longer think it is about typology. I think it is more about the quality of the design, and how the system and room are assembled and set up. I have learned to be increasingly open minded about what kind of components or system can produce a convincingly musical experience. Hearing those cellos as you did, gives you a good basis on which to judge a system's success. Thank you for sharing that listening experience with us.

Great sentiments Peter,

It would seem potentially valuable to discuss the elements that contribute to the amazing sense of presence in experiencing recorded music that is possible on some systems or perhaps even more importantly the factors in a system that may work to preclude the experience of presence. Maybe it's a range of different factors and so different typologies can in part deliver a sense of presence but not just by doing any one thing in particular.

Even for us to just get a consensus on defining what the sense of presence is would possibly be a rewarding bit of a challenge here. Would be great to expand the topic past amplifier types for sure.

 

[morricab]

Thank you for taking the time to share this live magic music experience.
It was a true joy to read you, with some tears in my eyes, heartfelt in depth...a reason to be alive and live for.

Thanks, it was a truly memorable experience and one that really got me thinking again on these topics.

 

[morricab]

Very nice post Morricab! You have cited the exact reasons why I have stuck to my Tannoys. Regarding amplification too, after trying all varieties (and with Tannoys all varieties of amps sounds good) it is only the SETs that sound the most real, most present, most dynamic and with most muscially correct timing. I attribute this to the basic fact that in an SET/SEP design there is no splitting of signals which maintains the signal integrity to the maximum. The slightly fuzzy, distant and restrained picture we get from push-pull and SS devices is a result of the distortion of the signal when it was split (at input) and when it was re-created (at output). Now, my only curiosity is when the master LP is cut, do they use a Single ended amp or a Push-pull amp for the cutter head ?

I know exactly what you mean. Thanks for the feedback (positive not negative ;-) )!

 

[cjfrbw]

Very nice OP, Brad, but I do wonder if your other hobby is stepping in hornet's nests.

I have always found from the old Apogee forum days that our thoughts, tastes, and general audio preferences tracked pretty closely. I do think that a lot of what passes for audiophilia, even amongst the absolute sound crowd, tends to be leading, bleeding edge and detail oriented as opposed to tone oriented, even if it is studio ersatz detail. I call it audiophile skeleton sound. I actually like some of this kind of sound, but only in limited doses, and not for my home systems.

I have heard the Ypsilon hybrids i.e. tube rectified, IDHT pentodes driving either single ended or push pull solid state many times at the audio shows, from "lesser" setups to massive, expensive piles and I generally have liked them but still found them to have that final SS essence that leaves something missing. Of the solid state stuff, I have generally like the Spectral amps driven by tubed electronics perhaps a bit more than the Ypsilon. The Dartzeel stuff sounds good, but certainly not like a good tube setup, at least what I have heard at shows.

I am also a sucker for tone, and would sacrifice other attributes of the sound system rather than the tone attributes. At the shows, I always breath a sigh of relief when I see those lovely SETs driving usually horn or compression type speakers.

With my Analysis Epsilon planars, I have serendipitously migrated to mercury vapor rectified directly heated triodes driving VFET amps from the 70's. The VFETs basically act as booster amps for the DHT driver stages, and this works out very well for the tone as well as the dynamics. To date, I just have never heard "regular" SS amps at any price level that seem to have the utter speed and tonal depth of the VFETs, and I have experimented with a few types over the years.

Audiophiles have always seemed to like my systems, from the days of Apogee Stage all tube with Wavac SETs, or they were too polite to say that it sucked. I even used to use 300b amps for surrounds.

Recently, an audiophile who lives close to me and with whom I have had a few shared sessions brought over a musician friend from the audiophile society a couple of weeks ago. I have to admit that I was a bit nervous. Audiophiles might fall for various candy coated sonic renditions, but a musician would have to be very critical of authenticity of tone, timing etc. He looked at the strange array of equipment and commented that you wouldn't find it at K Mart. I said, no, the tubes were 50 to 90 years old and the VFET amps 38 years old, and the phono cartridge from the early 90's.

He plays trumpet professionally, and his wife is a violinist who plays for various symphonies around the Bay Area. We listened to vinyl, and also some of his FLAC files that he brought on a USB chip. I was a little embarrassed because I didn't know how to play a USB chip, but finally got it to play on my mac mini by sending the signal to the Yamaha pre/pro over Airplay.

He listened very carefully and said he was impressed, and that the sound images were very large and lifelike. When he left, he gave me a very hard look, pointed at his face, and said "This, man, is the look of envy". I was flattered, since I have a raggedy Anne, hodgepodge system that has basically become my Frankenstein, don't care about cables etc. or the OC disorder stuff that much, but I took his favorable impressions as a good vote that the tone of the system works. I think the tone works, too, but in my experience so far only in solid state with the VFETs.

My second system at my Santa Cruz place with my old Apogee Stage speakers/Wavac SET/old Luxman PP/Accuphase active crossover also sounds great still, albeit in a much smaller room, but I never thought the "big rig" in Pleasanton would go SS even with the VFETs.

Anyway, I hope you enjoy the hornet's nest you have aroused, what else do audiophiles live for?

 

[Al M.]

'musically correct timing' - this is one thing that is rarely mentioned but it's what I get with my SET Tube amp too as compared to my SS amp (which is rated about 10x more power-wise...).

As we have seen in this thread, even SS proponents agree that in lower price ranges tube amps tend to be more musical than SS amps. I have heard great timing from SS amps, but they are in upper price ranges. I have rarely heard great sound from low or medium priced SS amps.

The SET Tube amp has a simplicity in its circuit that approaches the ideal amplifier - a wire with gain, much more than many SS amp with their string of Opamps, or feedback or what not.

As for simplicity of circuits, my push-pull triode amps are exemplary, and feature neither local nor global feedback. They have 'musically correct timing' to a fantastic degree, but so do some SS amps with much more complex circuits. We should not become dogmatic about typologies.

 

[bonzo75]

The same German magazine that rated NAT Transmitter as 1 rated Ypslion Aelius at 10. The D’Ag I think was 2, don’t remember.

I found the Luxman bridged M800 to be better than the Ypsilon Aelius on Vivid G1s. I have separately heard the whole Ypsilon set-ups on the Vivid G1 and Soundlab ultimates. They struggle on tough to drive speakers.

The Luxman was also more full bodied, better midbass, and more musical in that set-up. The Aelius are different from the new Ypsilon hybrids that were shown at Munich this year costing twice the price of the Aelius

The Analysis are easier to drive than the Apogee and the best I heard them driven with was NAT Transmitters, but most Analysis guys do not own high level SS anyway.

 

[cjfrbw]

Philip O'Hanlon was playing RtoR tapes at a local hi end audio parlor a few years ago using Luxman class A amps (60 watts/channel ??) with Wilson Alexandrias. Steve Williams had been playing some of the same tapes etc. a few days earlier with his own Alexandrias and his Lamm ML3s at one of the BAAS meetings at his home. Truth be told, the Luxmans sounded just OK on the big Wilsons, but didn't hold a candle to the Lamm ML3 SET/Lamm pre on the same speaker.

In my limited experience, Lamm ML3 SET with the Alexandrias is a pinnacle standard for tone, texture, detail, wrap around imaging etc. with a box speaker. I have just never heard any of the usual hi end SS do what the ML3s do. The ML3s make just about anything else sound like a partially rendered signal.

Wilson Maxx speakers with tubed pre and Spectral electronics came pretty close to good tone sonics at the California Audio Show a few years ago (best in show, I thought), but were still eclipsed handily by the Lamm ML3 SET/Alexandria combo at Steve's from what I heard.

 

[bonzo75]

Again, back to my main point - your's is not a comparison of SET vs SS. You are talking specifically of the ML3 on the Alexandria vs the m800 on the Alexandria. The ml3 on the Apogee vs a bridged m900 on the Apogee will be a different compare. Amps are only one part of the equation. Not only that, what you are doing is more than a comparison of a SET vs a SS amp, it is also a comparison of Lamm vs Luxman

My favorite amps on the Alexandrias are the D'Ag Momentums. And I have heard the XLFs on the Spectral DMA 400 and the VTL s400, and not at a show.

The other main point, like I previously stated, is what is the level of compromise in the system, because valves will provide more tone, decay, and body in a compromised system. I have heard NATs on the FR and on the Grands. They just cannot hold a candle to the 2KW of current that Henk powers into his Grands.

 

[morricab]

Morricab, that is a wonderfully written OP. You really describe well the sound and experience of listening to those two cellists up close in an intimate setting. It would be great to see a photo, if you happened to take one. I like the descriptions of how visceral it was, and the tonal density and sense of presence. The sound and music, filling the room. This is what live music in such a setting is all about. I marvel at the sheer vibrational energy resonating out of a cello. I, too, have never heard a system do that. However, I have heard a very small number of systems come pretty close to reproducing the tone, presence and energy of a cello, at least enough to be convincing and believable. Two were cones driven by SS. One particularly poor system was a pair of Altec horns driven by SETs. We all have different examples.

I was excited to read your opening post and had hoped this thread would encourage a discussion about "Live music, Tone and Presence." What are they and why are so many systems disappointing? We hear these things when listening to live acoustic music and we have heard some systems succeed and many fail at portraying these characteristics. There have been many posts in this fascinating thread in just one day, but sadly, they are mostly about the old topic of SS versus tube, or SET versus push-pull, or horns versus cones. Is this how you would like your thread to develop? I don't have a lot of experience listening to many different systems or component typologies, but I can say that I have heard tube, SS, cone and horn based systems convincingly portray "tone, presence, and dynamics", to quote Jim Smith's triumvirate.

I agree that many systems get these wrong, but I no longer think it is about typology. I think it is more about the quality of the design, and how the system and room are assembled and set up. I have learned to be increasingly open minded about what kind of components or system can produce a convincingly musical experience. Hearing those cellos as you did, gives you a good basis on which to judge a system's success. Thank you for sharing that listening experience with us.

Hi Peter, thanks and you are right, we all have our experiences but what I was conveying is that what I heard live is simply not replicated with the usual hifi gear. I can tell you where most systems fall down sonically and why I think that is the case but you may not like my answers. Counter examples can always be found due to poor execution but based on some fundamentals of human hearing and perception there should closer and further away approaches to the sound of the real thing. The closest approach I have heard to date is Living Voice Vox Olympian/Elyssian with Kondo gear. It might do it with other SETs but that is what they use every year in Munich.

It is not many systems that get the reproduction wrong it is nearly all of them. Nearly all. None are truly 100% successful but that is also a limitation of the recording and cannot be helped. As I said, the two things that struck me as fundamentally wrong with nearly all systems is tone and presence (wrap dynamics in with this as presence depends on it). Now, we can debate this but I have never, ever heard a SS amp deliver the tonal density along with the clarity that I heard sitting less than 3 meters from the performers on Sunday. Some SS amps sound rich (Vitus and BAT for example) in tone but lack the ultimate clarity and to a large degree the presence. Most have the clarity but not the tone or the presence. Most tube amps have the tone but also lack the clarity and to a lesser degree the presence. Mediocre SETs, have the presence and tone but often lack the clarity. OTLs have clarity and presence but often lack the proper tonal balance.

IMO, most SS amps are victims of their complexity. They have too many active parts, that all contribute to distortion and smearing of the signal. Push/pull, unless fully Class A also has zero crossing distortion and regardless of how small or insiginifcant the make claims it is, it is still an audible problem. Distortion patterns tell the story as well as anything. It is pretty clear from psychoacoustics that some patterns are worse than others. Since NO amplifier has zero distortion and no pattern, then the pattern of each piece in the electronics chain matters. Designers use negative feedback to clean it up and make pretty measurements but they exaccerbate the pattern problem. There is also a sonic phenomenon that I have yet to put a finger on why it is happening but it has to do with negative feedback and damping. It seems to rein in dynamic experession, particularly microdyanmics. This could be in part to what Crowhurst is referring to when he talks about a signal correlated noise floor obscurring low level signal. Maybe this has the perceptual effect of making dynamics seem lessened because the small stuff is not reproduced correctly.

These electronic artifacts are audible and are heard as subtly artificial in the reproduction. While Kondo may sound too soft on some systems (I hear that too) that gear has an amazing sense of tone and presence in the midband and simply a lack of hearing the artificial. There is very little out there that has that lack of artificial like Kondo, whatever it's other flaws may be. The Aries Cerat gear is also lacking in artifice and this makes for a more believable reproduction. However, it also has slam when called upon that Kondo seems to lack except with big horns. For all the other strengths I hear with some of the best SS gear, this lack of the artificial is not one of those strengths.

Only the best SETs I have heard capture both tone, presence along with transparency and inner resolution. It is STILL not what I heard live but goes in the right direction and that is what hit me while I was listening to that concert the other day. I didn't go "God that sounds just like Wilson XLFs with Spectral amps or Magico + Soulution"...I thought that sounds more like Living Voice/Kondo or even 1930s WE speakers with Silbatone gear than anything else. Or my own system, which is admittedly not as rich sounding but has great presence and clarity. It is hard to find electronics that can balance all these aspects as well as speakers that allow it to come through relatively unscathed.

You can debate these points but these are my observations and my analysis of what I heard and how I have placed this into the context of the hobby.

 

[bonzo75]

Very few of us would think that was Wilson or Magico with Soluution, so that is a red herring in the debate. For all our disagreements on SETs being mother's milk, we agree on the rest.

When I listen to orchestra at Barbican or opera at the Royal Opera House, it would be more like Musical Fidelity into Apogee Diva with an Acoustic Solid TT and a small local German phono I had never heard off. And that was an Apogee I did not even like much, unrestored. Way more real than the Vox though. And I am quite certain those MFs weren’t doing much.

 

[morricab]

Very few of us would think that was Wilson or Magico with Soluution, so that is a red herring in the debate. For all our disagreements on SETs being mother's milk, we agree on the rest.

When I listen to orchestra at Barbican or opera at the Royal Opera House, it would be more like Musical Fidelity into Apogee Diva with an Acoustic Solid TT and a small local German phono I had never heard off. And that was an Apogee I did not even like much, unrestored. Way more real than the Vox though. And I am quite certain those MFs weren’t doing much.

Actually, if you look around at the systems many of the responders have it is very much the Wlson, Magico and "reference" SS amp crowd. So, not really a red herring but relevant to the overall discourse.

We will just have to disagree about what you think of the Vox system becuase to me it is far more real sounding than anything you have mentioned. I am quite familiar with Divas, both unrestored and restorted, and even with far better electronics than the MF gear it still sounds a bit like really good hifi and is not totally convincing. Vox/kondo goes beyond hifi into virtual reality (maybe not quite as much this year but in 2014 and 2015 it was unbelieveable). If you cannot hear how it transcends what normal hifi is doing then I have to wonder about what you are taking from all your listening experience. It was a true eyeopener for me the first time I heard it...and I had been hearing Apogees of all sorts in all sorts of rooms and other planars and stats for more than a decade before that. I have been through many planars, including Apogees and most of my friends own or owned at least one pair over time. Scintillas, Divas, Grands, Studio Grands, Centaur Majors, Stages, Caliper signatures. Too many amps, Dacs and TTs to count. None of it did or does what Vox/Kondo did/does. I dragged my friends into that room and their faces said it all...they were gobsmacked! Just like I was the first time. It is the closest hifi equivalent to a Star Trek Holodeck.

Interestingly, a planar speaker that was far more realistic than any Apogee that I have heard, at least for smaller music, was the old AudioStatic ES series (ES100, ES300). I had ES100s and they had PRESENCE and transparency. It was pretty amazing really. They projected in front and behind with the best of them. What they didn't have was a very natural tonal balance. Later models were better balanced but a bit less present. Now, one could probably DSP them to behave but probably at a cost to sonic purity. They also had a bit of Venetian blind effect with high frequencies that was kind of annoying but they did holographic in a way Apogee cannot...or at least in 15 years of hearing Apogees I have not heard. The other speaker that could do this in an amazing way was the STAX ELS-F81. I had a pair for a while and they were the ultimate low level listening speaker. Totally transparent down to very low volumes and super present and coherent. BUT, they were limited in loudness and in bass.

I would probably consider one of those over an Apogee to be honest because for normal listening levels they are more present and alive...and as long as I had a smallish room. For a big room I would probably have to consider Soundlab speakers, which are the only currently made electrostats that really show what the technology can do.

Short of being able to afford such a system though the Diva with really good SET would be right up there on the list. Acoustat Spectras actually to me sound more natural than Apogees though...it is why I switched from Apogee to Acoustat about 12 years ago. Better coherence as well. Even better bass.

I get that you like this expansive and a bit distant sound like you would hear in Barbican (except up front...I sat third row for Lang Lang, Vadim Repin and Misha Maisky...wow). Apogees excel in projecting a huge and deep soundstage largely behind the speakers. They can also project forward but this depends a lot on the recording and electronics.

When was the last time you were in an intimate concert where you sat just a few meters from the performers? As I said, though, I like big concerts too. I was at Tonhalle the week before to hear Mussorgsky and Shostakovich and we were in the back third of the hall. It was also a somewhat distant and not too intimate sound...powerful but not nearly as present as you well might imagine.

 

[morricab]

Very nice OP, Brad, but I do wonder if your other hobby is stepping in hornet's nests.

I have always found from the old Apogee forum days that our thoughts, tastes, and general audio preferences tracked pretty closely. I do think that a lot of what passes for audiophilia, even amongst the absolute sound crowd, tends to be leading, bleeding edge and detail oriented as opposed to tone oriented, even if it is studio ersatz detail. I call it audiophile skeleton sound. I actually like some of this kind of sound, but only in limited doses, and not for my home systems.

I have heard the Ypsilon hybrids i.e. tube rectified, IDHT pentodes driving either single ended or push pull solid state many times at the audio shows, from "lesser" setups to massive, expensive piles and I generally have liked them but still found them to have that final SS essence that leaves something missing. Of the solid state stuff, I have generally like the Spectral amps driven by tubed electronics perhaps a bit more than the Ypsilon. The Dartzeel stuff sounds good, but certainly not like a good tube setup, at least what I have heard at shows.

I am also a sucker for tone, and would sacrifice other attributes of the sound system rather than the tone attributes. At the shows, I always breath a sigh of relief when I see those lovely SETs driving usually horn or compression type speakers.

With my Analysis Epsilon planars, I have serendipitously migrated to mercury vapor rectified directly heated triodes driving VFET amps from the 70's. The VFETs basically act as booster amps for the DHT driver stages, and this works out very well for the tone as well as the dynamics. To date, I just have never heard "regular" SS amps at any price level that seem to have the utter speed and tonal depth of the VFETs, and I have experimented with a few types over the years.

Audiophiles have always seemed to like my systems, from the days of Apogee Stage all tube with Wavac SETs, or they were too polite to say that it sucked. I even used to use 300b amps for surrounds.

Recently, an audiophile who lives close to me and with whom I have had a few shared sessions brought over a musician friend from the audiophile society a couple of weeks ago. I have to admit that I was a bit nervous. Audiophiles might fall for various candy coated sonic renditions, but a musician would have to be very critical of authenticity of tone, timing etc. He looked at the strange array of equipment and commented that you wouldn't find it at K Mart. I said, no, the tubes were 50 to 90 years old and the VFET amps 38 years old, and the phono cartridge from the early 90's.

He plays trumpet professionally, and his wife is a violinist who plays for various symphonies around the Bay Area. We listened to vinyl, and also some of his FLAC files that he brought on a USB chip. I was a little embarrassed because I didn't know how to play a USB chip, but finally got it to play on my mac mini by sending the signal to the Yamaha pre/pro over Airplay.

He listened very carefully and said he was impressed, and that the sound images were very large and lifelike. When he left, he gave me a very hard look, pointed at his face, and said "This, man, is the look of envy". I was flattered, since I have a raggedy Anne, hodgepodge system that has basically become my Frankenstein, don't care about cables etc. or the OC disorder stuff that much, but I took his favorable impressions as a good vote that the tone of the system works. I think the tone works, too, but in my experience so far only with the VFETs.

My second system at my Santa Cruz place with my old Apogee Stage speakers/Wavac SET/old Luxman PP/Accuphase active crossover also sounds great still, albeit in a much smaller room, but I never thought the "big rig" in Pleasanton would go SS even with the VFETs.

Anyway, I hope you enjoy the hornet's nest you have aroused, what else do audiophiles live for?

Interesting hybrid you have there. I was running for a while a NAT Symbiosis SE that was a SE(Transistor) hybrid. A most unique design. Tube input, tube driver and a single, big, industrial MOSFET for the output. No feedback and full regulated (it was mirrored by another equal MOSFET acting as a regulator). It sounded...really good once it had passed the 2hour warmup time. Problem was, I couldn't leave it on (800watts consumption...continuously) and then I had to wait every time for it to come on song...even then it was bettered by the best SETs. Still a really good sounding machine. Not sure what is so different about VFETS. But given the rest of your setup I would be inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt on the sound.

I ran a Sphinx Hybrid for years on my Apogees and later Acoustats until I heard KR Audio, which is also a hybrdi but the other way around. I still like very much the sound of Sphinx amps and Ypsilon as well.

It is interesting that you have Allnic on the front end. I like their stuff. I have been a fan of KS Park since his Silvaweld days and I still use and treasure my Silvaweld phonostage. It just sounds...better than most else I have tried.

I don't try to stir up anything...just call it like I see it.

 

[Zero000]

As for the Ayon, I own the Orthos XS 150 which is with Justin because I wanted to try it on the Apogee. I bought it because I can't afford a Vitus or Boulder.

Yup.

I own both valve and solid state amps. I like to switch between the two and observe the contrast. When you get fed up with one set of attributes, I find it good to swap them out for another set of quite different attributes. I can live with either, but not long term. I need that swap every now and then to appreciate attributes I've been missing.

My wife, on the other hand, prefers my vintage Accuphase M-60 monos to ANY other amp I've ever owned or had in the house. And I have had bucket loads of different amps in here.

 

[bonzo75]

Brad, I mentioned unrestored Apogee with MF to show it does not need much.

You have not been to Henk’s and to Lissnr’s (for Duetta).

I also sit not too far off in the Barbican and Royal Festival hall, while the Wigmore Hall, King’s Place and St. Martin’s are all intimate. I have been to Concertgebouw in the 3rd row and now will visit again towards the back.

The thing is, the integration of the orchestra and the tympani and the soundstage, is what the Apogee far excels in compared to these horns.

If I went WE or Trios, I will go SETs. I don’t consider the Vox sound at Munich in the same league but appreciate that if one were to listen to it in ideal settings (which neither of us have) it allows a lot of potential to get it right.

I disagree with your take on Apogees because you have previously said you like the big planars sounding alright in small rooms, something I strongly disagree with, and so do the distributors of Analysis from Germany and the UK, the US restorer of the Apogee, and Henk’s room is 40ft. So, I think we are talking different experiences. I have heard two Soundlab Ultimates which I don't think you have, and 1 old A1.

I can see why Acoustats will sound better than Apogee in the kind of room you have, and the one that Christoph has upstairs. All stats are very coherent.

Anyway, no point arguing. I think you don't calibrate to large orchestral sounds, and you are too adamant on SETs, and those who like SETs should read your opinion. IMO, they are a very small part of the equation to be used only if the speaker commands it. Also highly recommended for those with small rooms who can use small sensitive speakers

 

[Kingsrule]

Actually, if you look around at the systems many of the responders have it is very much the Wlson, Magico and "reference" SS amp crowd. So, not really a red herring but relevant to the overall discourse.

We will just have to disagree about what you think of the Vox system becuase to me it is far more real sounding than anything you have mentioned. I am quite familiar with Divas, both unrestored and restorted, and even with far better electronics than the MF gear it still sounds a bit like really good hifi and is not totally convincing. Vox/kondo goes beyond hifi into virtual reality (maybe not quite as much this year but in 2014 and 2015 it was unbelieveable). If you cannot hear how it transcends what normal hifi is doing then I have to wonder about what you are taking from all your listening experience. It was a true eyeopener for me the first time I heard it...and I had been hearing Apogees of all sorts in all sorts of rooms and other planars and stats for more than a decade before that. I have been through many planars, including Apogees and most of my friends own or owned at least one pair over time. Scintillas, Divas, Grands, Studio Grands, Centaur Majors, Stages, Caliper signatures. Too many amps, Dacs and TTs to count. None of it did or does what Vox/Kondo did/does. I dragged my friends into that room and their faces said it all...they were gobsmacked! Just like I was the first time. It is the closest hifi equivalent to a Star Trek Holodeck.

Interestingly, a planar speaker that was far more realistic than any Apogee that I have heard, at least for smaller music, was the old AudioStatic ES series (ES100, ES300). I had ES100s and they had PRESENCE and transparency. It was pretty amazing really. They projected in front and behind with the best of them. What they didn't have was a very natural tonal balance. Later models were better balanced but a bit less present. Now, one could probably DSP them to behave but probably at a cost to sonic purity. They also had a bit of Venetian blind effect with high frequencies that was kind of annoying but they did holographic in a way Apogee cannot...or at least in 15 years of hearing Apogees I have not heard. The other speaker that could do this in an amazing way was the STAX ELS-F81. I had a pair for a while and they were the ultimate low level listening speaker. Totally transparent down to very low volumes and super present and coherent. BUT, they were limited in loudness and in bass.

I would probably consider one of those over an Apogee to be honest because for normal listening levels they are more present and alive...and as long as I had a smallish room. For a big room I would probably have to consider Soundlab speakers, which are the only currently made electrostats that really show what the technology can do.

Short of being able to afford such a system though the Diva with really good SET would be right up there on the list. Acoustat Spectras actually to me sound more natural than Apogees though...it is why I switched from Apogee to Acoustat about 12 years ago. Better coherence as well. Even better bass.

I get that you like this expansive and a bit distant sound like you would hear in Barbican (except up front...I sat third row for Lang Lang, Vadim Repin and Misha Maisky...wow). Apogees excel in projecting a huge and deep soundstage largely behind the speakers. They can also project forward but this depends a lot on the recording and electronics.

When was the last time you were in an intimate concert where you sat just a few meters from the performers? As I said, though, I like big concerts too. I was at Tonhalle the week before to hear Mussorgsky and Shostakovich and we were in the back third of the hall. It was also a somewhat distant and not too intimate sound...powerful but not nearly as present as you well might imagine.

Your description of the AudioStatic is perfect....the Acoustat's always sounded hollow/woolen to me. The Apogee's where not a favorite. Always seemed like they had to play loud to get going. When I visited Jason's to hear his reference set up I felt the same

 

[bonzo75]

Your description of the AudioStatic is perfect....the Acoustat's always sounded hollow/woolen to me. The Apogee's where not a favorite. Always seemed like they had to play sound to get going. When I visited Jason's to hear his reference set up I felt the same

You are referring to the old ones which I do not like. I am referring to certain restores.

 

[morricab]

Your description of the AudioStatic is perfect....the Acoustat's always sounded hollow/woolen to me. The Apogee's where not a favorite. Always seemed like they had to play loud to get going. When I visited Jason's to hear his reference set up I felt the same

I have heard some Acoustats sound as you describe but not the Spectras that I had. They were very open and transparent. Better balanced tonally than any other Stat I have heard. They were only +- 2db in my room from 200Hz to 12Khz. The room had impact below 200Hz and above was a smooth rolloff, down about 3db at 20Khz.

Apogees are less responsive but not horribly so. Magnepans are worse in this regard. Still, compared to a good stat you have to "goose" them a bit.