My minimonitor/subwoofer system

[MadFloyd]

On Wednesday evening I visited Al and heard his system. I can't recall the last time I was there but it had been a while (several months?).

Al, I was not prepared for how good your system sounded. From the first xylophone (or was it a marimba, I can't remember) of the James Bond CD I could tell there was amazing body and the horns that followed confirmed it very quickly. Of course there was also a great sense of space (which I did expect based on previous visits) but the cleanliness of the sound was vastly improved since the last time I was there. Certainly you had made changes: the large angled panel at the front of the room in front of your tube traps, the new amp and equipment racks and DaveC's Zenwave Audio cable to list the obvious ones.

The low end, when it occasionally appeared in the James Bond music, was intoxicating. The imaging was also great (confirmed by the most convincing phase effects I have ever heard; not only did they go off to the sides but behind me and to the ceiling at times). Bravo.

When we heard the Janaki Trio I was shocked at how different it sounded compared to my system. For a moment I thought the timbre was a little colored, but I quickly put that out of my mind and was blown away by the immediacy of the presentation and how much it felt like the performers were right there in the room. It was the closest thing to hearing live cello and violin based on what I heard at the Ayer Mansion last fall. Vocals were equally impressive in terms of body and presence.

Speaking of body, I don't know how you get so much body, let alone without any muddiness in the lower region. And of course without any softness or lack of detail. The term 'phat' comes to mind. Tuba and the lower registers of a cello are startlingly realistic.


Again - bravo. Your system should be heard by every audiophile who thinks they need to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to put together a reference system.

 

[ack]

Impressive Al! Looking forward to visiting soon

 

[PeterA]

Well, the Boston Group is making nice incremental improvements to each respective system. Al's is a great example. He has made slow, very deliberate changes which have been well thought out, and not very expensive for a more believable and natural sound. The system, since I first heard it, has excelled at dynamics and the portrayal of size/scale and imaging. These recent changes have added new levels of clarity. By many standards, these changes have been minor: getting a new main rack, adding matching amp stands, replacing an old IC with DaveC's D4, fine tuning the Tube Traps, and cleaning connections with DeoxIT. Now there is a new DAC in for audition, but I have not heard it yet. Taken individually, each change is noticeable but now game changing. However, taken together, they each address some aspect of the system and come together to present a much improved overall sound.

Here is an email I sent to Al the day after Ian and I heard the system the other night. There is an attempt at introspection, and I hope not too much hyperbole:

Regarding the system, I enjoyed the listening very much. It has improved to a point that it now sounds better than I have ever heard it. I especially liked the “Cave Painting” song. Both voices and the saxophones sounded incredibly natural, present, and real. Perhaps the female voice was slightly large in size, but overall the imaging and tone were spot on. The weight, body, dynamics and tone of those saxes reminded me of what I heard at Goodwins High End with the Rossini, Spectral and MagicoQ1: very immediate and real sounding.

I also liked the Lieder performance with piano. It also had great tone and presence, though it sounded a bit closed in. I attribute that to an old mic technic or something, but the baritone of Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau, one of my favorites, was extremely well portrayed. Ian: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/o...ieder-singer-of-the-20th-century-7766909.html

However, I was not quite as impressed with the Bond music. Perhaps I just did not like the arrangements as much as the original classics, but the sound seemed slightly processed to me. Yes, the brass was outrageous, as Tasos said it is in his system, but the cymbals, were a bit homogenized, and it all sounded a bit synthetic to me. And like Ian, at first I thought the tone was a bit colored. This is a testament to how transparent the system now seems; one can clearly hear differences in recordings. This is a big improvement over the previous system, which just did scale, imaging and dynamics well. Those are all still great, but now, the differences in those three attributes with different recordings are now more pronounced.

I agree with Ian that clarity has taken a big step forward. Though resolution is still not quite SOTA like in Ian’s system, almost all other aspects of the system’s sound are at an extremely high level. This is astonishing given what audiophiles are led to believe about cost, brands and the current marketing and forum chat.

Resolution is still not at the level of the best I've heard in areas like string texture and inner details of the reed on sax and brush work on cymbals. But that is what one gets with much more expensive SOTA sources if chosen well. This is where the best tape, vinyl, and the Vivaldi (and Rossini) come in. Remember the outrageous resolution at Goodwins? Having said that, the rest of the stuff that your system does is so good, one can overlook the last bit of resolution. It just does not matter as much as Tone, Dynamics and Presence (Jim Smith). But, I just wanted to mention that impression because there is so little else to criticize about your system. You should be extremely pleased with what you have been able to achieve. It has been a lot of work, but also very deliberate and carefully chosen changes. I have enjoyed hearing the evolution over the last year.

Good luck with the new DAC. I look forward to hearing it. I have to leave the computer right now to collect myself. Memories of hearing the late, great Fischer-Dieskau sing live in Salem last night are overwhelming me this morning, and I have to pull myself together to go about the rest of my day.

 

[Al M.]

Thank you, Ian and Peter, for your generous, positive comments! The cleanliness and effortlessness of sound has definitely improved over what I had before. The main source for that improvement is DaveC's interconnect; I heard this with the demo cable as well, even before I installed the amp stands. A second source for the improvement appears to be the new configuration with dedicated amp stands, and the external power supplies for the amps tucked into the rack instead of sitting on the floor. All this may have helped with the body of the sound as well.

In fact, now the body and effortless dynamics of the system have made me forget for a large part my AXPONA blues with the Volti horns driven by BorderPatrol amps:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...ght-BorderPatrol-Triode-Wire-Labs-Volti-Audio

At least for all the smaller scale stuff (chamber, ensemble of about 20 musicians etc.) I don't miss the horns at all now; also for rock I have no horn cravings at all. For orchestra the result is mixed. Some recordings sound with good weight and effortless dynamics to me (Stravinsky's Rite of Spring with Gergiev, some Bruckner, among others), some seem a bit strained and thin. For example, the Janssons Shostakovich 5 on Chandos sounded with far more weight and effortless grandeur on your system, Ian, with the NADAC at the time. Are the speakers at their limit, or is it (partially) something else? Yesterday evening the Shostakovich sounded much better to my ears, with the Schiit Yggdrasil DAC in place -- I hooked it up later that evening after our listening session, it still needs to break in. Is it the DAC? I have to do a direct A/B to find out. I don't expect the grandeur from Ian's large speakers, but I'd like to have not just pronounced (I do have that), but also effortless dynamics on all orchestral music, not just on some.

In any case, since the effortlessness of sound overall has greatly increased with the interconnect, I am wondering if the speaker cables (the same line as my previous interconnects) could be a remaining culprit as well. I asked DaveC for a demo pair of his SMSG speaker cables, and he affirmed he'd send me one. I also ordered an additional D4 interconnect between Yggdrasil DAC (Yggy) and Pass B1 buffer to get the best out of the Yggy; it is promising enough at this point. I need this since the Yggy has fixed output, while the Berkeley runs directly to the amps via digital volume control.

Perhaps I might go that upgrade route with speaker cables, rather than buying a new power conditioner right now, especially since the Yggy already sounds very good without one (I can't use the Tice because it's 220 V from my time in Europe; the Berkeley DAC runs at 220 V and is hooked up to it). The Yggy is still breaking in, but already it seems at least as good as the Berkeley, which is already an excellent DAC, as was evident in Wednesday evening's session. Stay tuned for more updates on the Yggy.

 

[Al M.]

Impressive Al! Looking forward to visiting soon

I look forward to your visit as well, Ack. Your system is also a benchmark against which I judge improvements in my own.

The fact that we, and all of our Boston group, share the same ultimate reference, live unamplified music, in my view makes discussions about system improvements and goals so much easier and more meaningful. I always enjoy them.

 

[ack]

I understand your DAC is away right now... let me know when you get your Schiit back together so I can come up and listen

 

[Al M.]

I understand your DAC is away right now... let me know when you get your Schiit back together so I can come up and listen

Hehe. Will do. You won't believe this Schiit.

Thanks for today's session at your house with Ian and myself, that was great, as always.

 

[Al M.]

ZenWave Audio D4 interconnects and amp stands were already mentioned on the previous thread page as system changes, but my system has now undergone a number of other upgrades in the last few months (since February) as well. It is time to list them here, and in the next two posts show some system pictures.

Upgrades/additions to the system:

1. Pass B1 passive preamp; my review at WBF:
Review: Pass B1 Buffered Preamplifier

2. Schiit Yggdrasil DAC, replacing a Berkeley Alpha 2 DAC, see:
Comparison: Schiit Yggdrasil DAC vs. Berkeley Alpha DAC 2

3. ZenWave Audio SMSG speaker cables

4. ZenWave Audio SMSG speaker jumpers

5. TrippLite 1000 HG isolation transformer
(bought at Jet.com)

Used as power conditioner for both Yggdrasil DAC and Simaudio Moon CD transport (digital front end). It is 'medical grade' rather than being an "audiophile" power conditioner, with the advantage of probably achieving the same for much less money. Removes EMI/RFI noise, utility switching transients, load-generated harmonics and ground loops (see link).

6. Herbie's Tenderfoot component isolation feet, for both Yggdrasil DAC and Simaudio Moon CD transport

 

[Al M.]

Middle rack for equipment
Upper shelf, from left to right: Schiit Yggdrasil DAC, Pass B1 buffered passive preamp, Simaudio Moon 260 DT CD transport.
Lower shelf: BorderPatrol external power supplies for the tube amps flanking the TrippLite IS 1000HG isolation transformer for the digital front end.

 

[Al M.]

Rather uniquely in this business, WBF member DaveC, who makes these cables, is so considerate and smart to offer different thicknesses of speaker cables for individual customers' needs. Since my monitors do not draw much current, this allowed me to choose thinner speaker cables (17 gauge) from the ZenWave Audio SMSG line, and saved me a lot of money. Speaker cable/jumper connections are Furutech, rhodium plated.

 

[MadFloyd]

I am late in writing this report, but On October 28th I visited Al to hear his system.

Note: do not visit Salem, MA on Halloween weekend unless you are expressly there for the festivities; traffic is crazy!

I always enjoy Al's system. It was instrumental in highlighting some deficiencies in my system and influenced some changes I had made (e.g. going from solid state to tubes). It also taught me how good digital can be (and how transports matter!) and also how important it is to pay attention to room treatments and setup details; one doesn't need to spend lavish amounts of money on expensive gear and in fact without getting the room and setup right it's arguably a tragic waste.

Al's system does small ensembles so well; from Stravinsky's Histoire du Soldat to various Stockhausen pieces (always a sonic and intellectually stimulating experience at Al's) to string quartets to jazz and fusion, it's always ultra engaging. It has that reach-out-and-touch-it soundstage and while I've heard my share of holographic soundstages before, I can't think of any other system that combines pinpoint imaging with such weight. A violin on Al's system truly feels like the performer is just a few feet in front of you. It has incredible detail, but it's not unnatural either (perhaps due to feeling close to the performers).

One area where Al can improve his system is high frequency extension. It can often sound a bit dark. It doesn't seem to matter with a lot of music (e.g. violin may sound a bit more wooden and rosin-y but it's not very noticeable and certainly not distracting) but it can lack some brilliance. On this particular Saturday we were listening to John McLaughlin and 4th Dimention's Boston Concert. With this recording, the electric bass (which to my ears sounds heavily influenced by Jaco Pastorius both in tone and style) is extremely engaging. So are the drums... but John McLauglin's guitar is not front and center in the mix. In fact, I didn't really focus on it (this may be partly because I love bass, but still...). When I returned home I immediately ordered the CD. When it arrived and I gave it a spin the presentation on my system was dramatically different. I had more balance between the various instruments with the guitar much more lively sounding. I certainly didn't have Al's soundstage though!

On the day I visited Al, I brought some CDs with me. Not so much to enjoy (although that was part of it - I certainly didn't bring anything I didn't want to hear ) but I wanted to get a feel how some of the more orchestral pieces that I (and, for that matter, Al) had enjoyed on my system. Some of these recordings were very complex in terms of instrumental passages and interwoven counterpoint and melodies and I felt like Al's system was struggling to articulate it all. Al will be the first to say that this is not the strength of his system and I agree. I could hear some distortion in these situations (or maybe congestion?). This along with the slight rolled-off nature of the highs made we want to focus on what his system does well (basically anything other than large orchestras).

I know that I will never get the incredible soundstage that Al does (my room is not conducive towards that and I'm at peace with it) but that's what makes visiting Al so much fun.

Al, now that I have heard your DAC several times, I have to say that I love it. Great stuff. Thank you for a fun day and here's to our next listening session, wherever that may be!

 

[Al M.]

Thanks, Ian, for coming to listen to my system, it was fun indeed! I guess on our way to dinner we avoided the traffic as much as possible by slipping into a quiet side road as soon as we could (it pays off knowing your way around being a local). But yes, traffic was crazy.

You sum up nicely the strengths of my system, as well as its shortcomings. Like my system has had an influence on your choices, so did yours on mine. For example, your speakers were the reason that I chose my Reference 3A monitors one and a half years ago; an inert cabinet is a powerful concept (not that the cabinet of my speakers is as inert as the one of yours, but I am already looking for the next thing, see below). My envisioned future upgrades, discussed later in this post, are also inspired by your system.

I agree that high frequency extension is a problem in my system, or rather, it is a deliberate compromise. The attenuated high frequencies are mainly due to the large wool carpet behind the speakers up to the front wall (for system pictures, see previous thread page). Two years ago I found out that I needed that carpet in order to combat too recessed images. If I took it out to expose the wood floor, the highs seemed much more sparkling and extended, but at the expense of images being to recessed, drastically reducing my involvement as listener. So I made the current compromise with carpet in place. However, in the meantime I installed all my window plugs and I now have the absorbing panel in the middle which pushes images more forward, so it would be worth a try to go for the bare wood floor again (with a light smaller carpet behind the middle rack in order to catch reflections between floor and ceiling). I know that my amps have a slight treble roll-off, compared to a Spectral amp that I once auditioned in my system, which was otherwise almost identical in tonal balance. Yet the roll-off is not very pronounced, even though it factors in partially.

As for the rendition of orchestra, your system is incredible, Ian, and thus a very high standard against which to measure. The separation of instruments and musical lines in the most complex music is just outstanding, of a superb quality as I have not yet heard anywhere else. I know that I will never obtain this quality of orchestral rendition. Apart from your excellent front-ends and amplification, it is not just a function of your Magico M Project speakers being rather large multi-way ones with superb drivers, but also a function of the inertness of cabinet due to their superior construction. Those characteristics also make possible the uncanny coherence and realism in the portrayal of piano on your system, the instrument that many say is the hardest to reproduce. All this of course comes with a price tag; in my view, 'regular' multi-way floorstanders don't need apply when it comes to such rendition of orchestral and piano sound.

This being said, my personal choice is to continue on the monitor/subwoofer theme. Monitors achieve small scale intimacy and holographic soundstage so easily, and a completely inert cabinet can be achieved at a considerably lower price point than with multi-way floorstanders. As I see it, the inertness is crucial for a clear and clean separation and articulation of instruments and musical (side-) lines in complex orchestral music, and my next speakers, the top-of-the-line monitors by Reference 3A, the Reflector, probably achieve such inertness. Of course, the other factor, a multi-driver set-up where any given driver does not have to cover so much of the music, is lacking, but I want to get as far with the monitor/subwoofer concept on orchestral music as it can go (even though my system will never achieve the stellar performance on this music of the Magico M Project speakers). And cabinet inertness is of course also crucial for the most faithful timbres in small-scale music that is so easily well served by monitors. -- According to the designer, next to more speed, the Reflector speakers also have more weight than my current ones, which additionally should benefit orchestral sound. Yet as you say, a lot of music already has considerable weight on my system (and also most rock is rather well served by it).

To get the best orchestral performance from monitors, the amplification of course needs to be right as well. It may be that my current amps, excellent as they are, strain a bit on orchestral music, the high efficiency of the rather small speakers (92 dB) notwithstanding. While dynamics are outstanding, even explosive on some material, 15 Watts per channel only gets you so far, unless you have horns. After acquiring the Reference 3A Reflector monitors I plan to audition in my home the Octave MRE 130 monoblocks (pentode, 130 W/ch), which Goodwin's High End now carries, and which should be able to handle my speakers with their little finger, as it were. If I like them, they probably will also partially solve the problem of high-frequency extension; they should be very linear. Only if then extension is still lacking I will experiment again with removal of the large carpet (we both agreed that this would be the best strategy). Such experiments are a pain. It takes me in each case an hour to dismantle the system and an hour to build it up again (good in this situation that I don't have heavy floorstanders!). I once spent a good part of my vacation just doing that, experimenting with carpet acoustics. Not something that I look forward to repeat, but in the end it was worth it to get my acoustics to a point that I could be happy with.

 

[Ron Resnick]

A very interesting report from Ian, and a very interesting reply by Al!

Now that I have discovered how great are the acoustics at Walt Disney Concert Hall, and how easy it is to go there, I have stepped up my concert-going efforts. When I listen to live, unamplified music I am always struck by the absence of artificial brightness.

Al, I rather prefer attenuated high frequencies. Are you sure there is actually anything to "fix" in that regard?

 

[Al M.]

Comparing with unamplified live music raises interesting questions, Ron. It is true that it often does not exhibit as prominent highs as from most systems. However, when there is something of pronounced high-frequency energy, e.g. a triangle or other high-pitched metallic percussion, it always comes through, more clearly than from most systems. Also, Ian, his wife and I recently visited a Boston Symphony concert with Beethoven's 4th piano concerto and Shostakovich's 11th symphony (fantastic music, performances and sound, by the way). The orchestral part in the Beethoven concerto features rather subdued colors, even perhaps dark ones, yet the sound was still airy and transparent -- something I have often found in a live situation. It is hard to find such a combination of subdued color yet still airy sound reproduced from a system. Either the sound is just as airy, but then not with such attenuated colors, or when the colors are as subdued, the airiness usually vanishes. So I think overall high frequency energies, and their perception, from unamplified live music and from stereo systems cannot always be compared in a straightforward manner.

Ian's system sounds remarkably open and transparent, yet can also sound very warm and full at the same time. I don't have that very open sound, so in comparison with his system mine perhaps sounds 'dark', but that is relative. There is still plenty of high frequency energy to be heard from my system, as also Ack noted to whom high frequency energy is very important.

 

[ack]

FWIW I never thought Al’s system sounds dark.

 

[PeterA]

FWIW I never thought Al’s system sounds dark.

I agree with Ack's assessment. I also don't think of Al's system as dark sounding. In my opinion it excels at dynamics, presence and sound stage/imaging. It is not the last word in resolution or articulation, but the tonal balance and view into the music are very good. The system is very involving and it conveys the musicians' intentions and emotions. Because it does so many things well, the system is very engaging and I tend to overlook the few characteristics like resolution that I have heard exemplified in other systems. Al has taken a very holistic approach to developing his overall sound. I am sure that a more inert speaker cabinet with slightly better drivers and quality parts and a higher quality amp with more power will improve the system still further, but one does not think about these things when listening to Al's enthusiasm about a new CD that he wants to play you. One just anticipates the music and enjoys the sound.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Comparing with unamplified live music raises interesting questions, Ron. It is true that it often does not exhibit as prominent highs as from most systems. However, when there is something of pronounced high-frequency energy, e.g. a triangle or other high-pitched metallic percussion, it always comes through, more clearly than from most systems. Also, Ian, his wife and I recently visited a Boston Symphony concert with Beethoven's 4th piano concerto and Shostakovich's 11th symphony (fantastic music, performances and sound, by the way). The orchestral part in the Beethoven concerto features rather subdued colors, even perhaps dark ones, yet the sound was still airy and transparent -- something I have often found in a live situation. It is hard to find such a combination of subdued color yet still airy sound reproduced from a system. Either the sound is just as airy, but then not with such attenuated colors, or when the colors are as subdued, the airiness usually vanishes. So I think overall high frequency energies, and their perception, from unamplified live music and from stereo systems cannot always be compared in a straightforward manner.

. . .

I think this is very thoughtfully stated! The high frequencies on audio systems versus live is indeed a puzzle.

I tend to find that a neutral system with flat high-frequency extension, which thus has the ability to reproduce high frequencies successfully, strikes my ears as bright or "tipped up" or analytical. Such a system likely is the correct answer intellectually and in terms of "accuracy," but I find it slightly fatiguing.

 

[PeterA]

I think this is very thoughtfully stated! The high frequencies on audio systems versus live is indeed a puzzle.

I tend to find that a neutral system with flat high-frequency extension, which thus has the ability to reproduce high frequencies successfully, strikes my ears as bright or "tipped up" or analytical. Such a system likely is the correct answer intellectually and in terms of "accuracy," but I find it slightly fatiguing.

High frequency extension per se does not bother me. It is when those high frequencies are distorted or when there are artifacts which cause hardness, glare, etch etc. that irritate me. They sound unnatural and cause fatigue and I quickly loose interest. I never hear this with live unamplified instruments. Cymbals, trumpet, flute, triangles, can be loud when heard live up close, but they are clean and clear and not usually fatiguing.

 

[Al M.]

Problem of high frequency extension solved

Three people have now recently commented on the lack of high frequency extension in my system, Ian (see post 11-14-17 on top of page), Peter, and Alan, a friend of ours. I had known there was a problem with my acoustics (see my reply to Ian), but I thought it had always be that way since I had the large wool carpet from speakers to front wall.

Yet Peter thankfully repeated a concrete suggestion upon visiting last week that finally ignited my sometimes slow imagination. He said I should remove the large absorptive panel that I had in the back of the rather long room (far behind my listening seat), identical to the one that I have in the middle of the front wall, leaning against tube traps (see images on thread page 9). Due to its size it was cumbersome to move out of the room, and I had left it there for future acoustic experiments, thinking, from anecdotal evidence of moving it around the room and of clap echo in the corner where it stood, that in this spot it didn't have much of an effect on the acoustics. I was wrong.

But before I would move this second absorptive panel out of the room, I thought about what other things I could try. I had previously experimented with speaker toe-in and not found much effect on the highs, but perhaps circumstances were different then and I didn't use the right music to listen to. In any case, now toe-in had an easily audible effect, and greater toe-in, with the tweeters beaming more directly towards the listener, considerably improved the highs.

The second thing that I then did was turning the smaller carpet, on which the listening chair is positioned, from its wide side to its long (narrower) side so that more of the wood floor was exposed between speakers and listener.

Finally, the third item was removal of the large absorptive panel in the back out of the room.

Result of all of this: greatly improved highs, much more open sound. There is more string texture on solo violin, clear and extended cymbals, glockenspiel, triangle and xylophone, and the feeling that something was dampening the acoustics is gone. Everything seems to sound freer, even just singing voices. Upon Peter's visit yesterday to assess the changes, we found that also our voices sounded different in conversation, more open and more like in Peter's room.

Thanks, Alan, Ian and Peter, for your observations!

I am triply thrilled: first about the new sound, second to learn that I do not have an intractable acoustic problem, and third about the fact that I will probably never again have to experiment with removal of the large wool carpet, which also does improve the highs, but at the expense of too recessed images which to me are deeply annoying and rob me from being involved in the music (while I love the great spatial depth that I still have now). Experimenting with that carpet is such a pain since it requires full disassembly and re-assembly of the system each time, which is hours of work. And the outcome for imaging by its removal may again be detrimental, even though now the absorptive panel close to the front wall might mitigate the effect, perhaps even to a large extent.

Next to the long break-in of the Schiit Yggdrasil DAC (4 weeks), the muted highs may also have been a factor why the opinions about the DAC diverged so much on the comparison thread. While overall the Yggy is more extended or pronounced not just in the bass but also in the upper midrange/lower treble, compared to the Berkeley Alpha DAC, the latter has a lighter, less weighty tonal balance that in a number of cases would explain a preference for it by some listeners in the context of highs that are somewhat muted by room acoustics. In these circumstances it may have seemed to sound less dark and more open compared to the Yggy. This again suggests, system/room context is everything when judging components. Now, with the extended highs, even the weightier presentation of the Yggy never gives any feeling of lack of openness of sound, or of the sound being dark, at least as I now experience it.

In any case, the highs are now so pronounced that anything more would be overkill, in my opinion. Fortunately, other than for example lessening speaker toe-in again, I still have easily applicable tricks at my disposal such as turning the corner tube traps once more to their absorptive side to lower treble energy. Now their reflective sides face one another, i.e. they are only 45 degrees (one eigth of a full rotation) away from full exposure of the reflective side into the room.

I may need that trick with the new Octave tube amps that I plan to audition at home (see post 11-14-17). These amps repeatedly have been reported to have very linearly extending treble, possibly more than mine. At least, I heard a slight, certainly not severe, treble roll-off compared to Spectral amps (DMC-15/DMA-260) that I auditioned in my system four years ago. Yet upon preparing this post, I realized that also here I may be mistaken: that comparison was made before I got the massive BorderPatrol external power supplies for my amps which make the tubes operate more linearly. For certain I know these external power supplies made a large difference in bass weight, and it may well be that they helped for treble extension as well -- if the output transformer of my tube amps is not a limiting factor, which at this point I simply do not know. While it still may not be the case, it might not be a complete surprise if it turns out that my current amps are now just as extended in the treble as the Octave amps may be.

 

[LL21]

Congrats! Amazing how much finetuning we can sometimes do without realizing it at first. I think our room is too live at the moment, but will take our time in trying to overcompensate too quickly too soon.