I've got the Kenny Burrell which I bought a while ago on Ian's recommendation. Great LP. We can play it the next time you visit. Yes, the bass is pretty heavy, the guitar sounds great, and the music is very smooth. Great atmosphere.
My monitor/subwoofer system
- Thread starter Al M.
- Start date
I've got the Kenny Burrell which I bought a while ago on Ian's recommendation. Great LP. We can play it the next time you visit. Yes, the bass is pretty heavy, the guitar sounds great, and the music is very smooth. Great atmosphere.
Midnight Blue might just be in my top 5 jazz albums period... Though definitely get the 33 RPM Music Matters pressing:
http://www.musicmattersjazz.com/Kenny-Burrell-Midnight-Blue-Blue-Note-Vinyl-p/33bst-4123.htm
have you compared it to the Midnight Blue AP 45rpm pressing?
I've had a few cases where someone thought a 33 reissue was better than a 45 I already had. when I did the compare they were not close; the 45 was better by more than a little. that does not prove that would be true for all cases. but that was my experience.
obviously original pressing or early pressing compared to a 45 is a completely different question.
Last edited:
No shame and no settling. Ian and Al both raved about the sound of this CD in Al's all digital system. No pops/ticks/clicks or surface noise either. Enjoy.
I haven't, Mike. But the 33 RPM Music Matters stuff has to be heard, if you haven't. The mastering chain is likely superior to the previous gear Kevin used for the AP 45 release. Certainly the more recent 33 RPM Music Matters are better than the Music Matters 45s - and some releases are available on both so it's easy to hear. I've done that compare. Most jazz geeks say "it's not close" there, too. I felt it was closer than they say, but I certainly prefer the 33.
The AP 45 stuff rarely if ever disappoints, but if I have to guess, I'd say the mastering chain used to cut the MM 33 more than makes up for the difference. Mr. Fremer had this to say:
We compared the double 45rpm edition of Kenny Burrell's "Midnight Blue" issued by Analogue Productions a few years ago cut by Kevin Gray at Acous-Tech, his old mastering facility, with this new Music Matters version cut at 33 1/3 by Kevin Gray at Cohearent, his new mastering facility and the sonic differences were startling and that's not hyperbole.
The new 33 1/3 sounds more vibrant, more "live", faster, more dynamic, more three-dimensional and just plain more of everything you'd want. We also played the mono 33 1/3 of Coltrane's classic Blue Train and it was startlingly good, though we didn't compare it to any other versions.
So what accounts for the enormous sonic improvement? Gray is using a new tape playback deck and console, new analog electronics, and new Audioquest Wild Blue interconnects throughout the lacquer chain.
(Source : https://www.analogplanet.com/conten...ns-33-13-and-some-mono-new-blue-note-reissues)
+1
I have actually compared the AP 45 to the MM 33 and the MM45...The MM 33 is to my ears superior sounding to all of the 45 releases. Pretty much as MF stated.
IMO, the MM 33 is the best sounding version of this superb LP that I have ever heard.
Alright, I'm going to go listen to my MM33 Midnight Blue after all this talk.... But before I go, here's another great (IMO) MM33 recommendation -
http://www.musicmattersjazz.com/Stanley-Turrentine-The-Three-Sounds-Vinyl-Reissue-p/33bst-4057.htm
What pressing do you have of this one?
EDIT: in hindsight that was an unnecessary question. I have all the Music Matters 33's and didn't recognize this one by the cover. Must go look for it...
I wanted to share some thoughts on Al's system, but the site's problems are getting in the way of highlighting certain things, as the post-controls are not available...
I'll come back to this, but wanted to say a few quick things, after spending 4 hours listening to this beautiful system yesterday
- At a high level, I view live music and high end systems in terms of circles, where live music is perfectly circular and as large as you want it, and stereos are approximations in terms of circle size and perimeter roundness, and must not intersect with live music's (when they do, the system is way off, trash) but they can touch (and when they do, the system does things really well); when stereos intersect between themselves, there are offering alternate versions of reality. Then, the more the perimeter distortion, the more distorted a system sounds (in all sorts of ways); and the smaller the circle, the farther it is from reality in terms of scale, transparency and liveliness.
- All systems sound different, and that's OK, because there are different versions of reality: e.g. the BSO sounds different at Symphony Hall than Tanglewood, and both than their recordings.
- But systems can sound very much alike in all sorts of ways without being identical; in the circle-paradigm, they would be virtually concentric circles of similar-shape perimeters
- If I were to name two such concentric systems, it would be mine and Al's. We pretty much hear the same way and have very similar goals; the approach may be different, but the results are very similar
Since last time I visited, the settling of the treble was quite obvious - be it the DeOxit, break-in, or otherwise. We played a number of tracks and I noticed the following:
- Great transient speed and transparency
- Great scale
- Truly metallic low-register piano notes (not there before, and something I had pointed to Al back then)
- A bit higher noise floor than what I am used to, masking a few things and showing a bit of graininess on low-level information
- A little less separation of instruments than what I hear at home, with a little less clarity
- Spectacular micro-dynamics
- Great string tone, really shines!
- Great palpability and presence
- Redbook is coming of age and can sound like analog
- Man, these Octave amps are a true wonder of electrical engineering; love the build quality, operation and those incredible KT-150 tubes
In terms circle shape and size, it's all subjective, and I won't go there right now, but I would say that we all need to perfect the perimeter as much as possible, before we make the circle larger. Having said that, I REALLY enjoyed the sound, and suggested to Al that he get a reclining chair, because I could easily spend a whole day listening to his system, as I do in mine.
I'll come back to this, but wanted to say a few quick things, after spending 4 hours listening to this beautiful system yesterday
- At a high level, I view live music and high end systems in terms of circles, where live music is perfectly circular and as large as you want it, and stereos are approximations in terms of circle size and perimeter roundness, and must not intersect with live music's (when they do, the system is way off, trash) but they can touch (and when they do, the system does things really well); when stereos intersect between themselves, there are offering alternate versions of reality. Then, the more the perimeter distortion, the more distorted a system sounds (in all sorts of ways); and the smaller the circle, the farther it is from reality in terms of scale, transparency and liveliness.
- All systems sound different, and that's OK, because there are different versions of reality: e.g. the BSO sounds different at Symphony Hall than Tanglewood, and both than their recordings.
- But systems can sound very much alike in all sorts of ways without being identical; in the circle-paradigm, they would be virtually concentric circles of similar-shape perimeters
- If I were to name two such concentric systems, it would be mine and Al's. We pretty much hear the same way and have very similar goals; the approach may be different, but the results are very similar
Since last time I visited, the settling of the treble was quite obvious - be it the DeOxit, break-in, or otherwise. We played a number of tracks and I noticed the following:
- Great transient speed and transparency
- Great scale
- Truly metallic low-register piano notes (not there before, and something I had pointed to Al back then)
- A bit higher noise floor than what I am used to, masking a few things and showing a bit of graininess on low-level information
- A little less separation of instruments than what I hear at home, with a little less clarity
- Spectacular micro-dynamics
- Great string tone, really shines!
- Great palpability and presence
- Redbook is coming of age and can sound like analog
- Man, these Octave amps are a true wonder of electrical engineering; love the build quality, operation and those incredible KT-150 tubes
In terms circle shape and size, it's all subjective, and I won't go there right now, but I would say that we all need to perfect the perimeter as much as possible, before we make the circle larger. Having said that, I REALLY enjoyed the sound, and suggested to Al that he get a reclining chair, because I could easily spend a whole day listening to his system, as I do in mine.
Thank you, Ack, for your report. I am glad you enjoyed the system as much as you did! Having had Ian and you over this week was fun, both times.
I agree that we have similar goals, and hear things similarly. I am pleased that you think our results are similar as well. After having enjoyed your Spectral amps many times, and also enjoyed Spectral elsewhere, I mentioned to Paul at Goodwin's High End that I thought Octave is the Spectral of tube amps. He understood that from my view this was a compliment for both brands all around (there may be other tube amps that merit this comparison).
I am glad that we can now agree on great transient speed also in my system, even though at the time you first visited, and where you were critical, I may have somewhat overstated my case, as components were not fully broken in yet, and there were some limitations of acoustics that I have worked out in the meantime. As on page 5 of this thread observed, the square wave performance of the Octave amp is due to bandwidth limitation (in this case to 80 to 85 kHz, which is excellent for a tube amp with output transformer), and thus is not fully indicative of transient performance in the audible band. A Spectral amp which is not bandwidth limited must and will yield superior measurements on this parameter.
Great that you also found micro-dynamics that good; for both of us macro- and micro-dynamics, in general vividness of sound, are of utmost importance, and it shows in your system performance too.
I agree with you also on the slight graininess on low-level information in my system. If it's the amp or the DAC I cannot tell; I suspect it is the latter (perpaps the current Yggy version 2 might improve things). Yet it is a minor issue as it does not significantly detract from my enjoyment of the system, and apparently not from yours as well.
I perceive the separation of instruments and the clarity of the system to be of a high standard, yet I agree with you that it falls short in some respects in this area, and there were some clear differences with your system in the first movement of Mahler's Symphony 2 that we played. Yet I was astonished about the progress with my system on orchestral music lately as I also heard on this recording; I need to probe the effect of the DeOxit treatment of cable connections on this aspect of performance a bit more.
Finally, Ack, I agree with you that the Redbook CD format has come of age and can sound like analog. We both had been skeptical before; a few years ago I was convinced that Redbook would never overcome certain limitations, even though it had been, and still is, my music medium of choice. Yet with the help of some WBF members I had become convinced that the technical theory of Redbook is sound -- within the chosen bandwidth, the analog wave form is accurately represented rather than extrapolated (when the technology is optimally implemented, that is). Impressive aural evidence soon followed.
It may still be that the medium is not entirely transparent to the source, but the window of transparency seems to be very wide indeed.
It may still be that the medium is not entirely transparent to the source, but the window of transparency seems to be very wide indeed.
Al, redbook is still getting there for most, including you and I. It has arrived for at least one player, the Spectral SDR-4000SV which I had in here, and which sounds like no other in that line, a line that none of us ever liked. I will say again, when the recording is great - like any Chesky - it sounds absolutely like the best analog I have heard, and that's a big statement. Perhaps other products have also arrived, but from the ones I have heard, I can also tell you the Vivaldi 2.0 stack isn't one of them.
To me, a BIIIG part of it has to do with the analog output section, and manufacturers need to work on it still some more. Enter the Yggy2 and improvements in that area; I suggest you borrow an Yggy2 to compare.
When I had the 4000SV in here, I tried to find a way to make my Alpha sound like it; I could not, with the DAC into an RCA preamp input, with any digital volume setting; but I have finally come very close, by utilizing again the dedicated balanced input of my 30SV preamp - which was designed for DACs according to Keith Johnson, whatever that means; and to compensate for the slight drop in treble resolution, because of the [welcome] rounding of the highs this input imposes (to fix digital's edginess in that area), I have since actually raised my DAC's volume control to compensate; the whole thing gets me about 95% of the 4000SV's performance in my system, but that additional 5% is still a large gap. At the end of the day, digital has proven to be difficult to get right, but that's not unlike anything else, just different and in many ways a lot more complex... but it has arrived, even if it's by very few manufacturers.
Having said that, I still find HDCD to be superior to any redbook recording, and the Janaki Trio Debut is a perfect example of this: just beautiful string tone out of digital, from this Alpha DAC and the 4000SV... but that's another discussion. Given all this, I feel the more fundamental problem with digital is how it's produced, and that is in fact a MAJOR problem, and we have a lot of work to do over there.
To me, a BIIIG part of it has to do with the analog output section, and manufacturers need to work on it still some more. Enter the Yggy2 and improvements in that area; I suggest you borrow an Yggy2 to compare.
When I had the 4000SV in here, I tried to find a way to make my Alpha sound like it; I could not, with the DAC into an RCA preamp input, with any digital volume setting; but I have finally come very close, by utilizing again the dedicated balanced input of my 30SV preamp - which was designed for DACs according to Keith Johnson, whatever that means; and to compensate for the slight drop in treble resolution, because of the [welcome] rounding of the highs this input imposes (to fix digital's edginess in that area), I have since actually raised my DAC's volume control to compensate; the whole thing gets me about 95% of the 4000SV's performance in my system, but that additional 5% is still a large gap. At the end of the day, digital has proven to be difficult to get right, but that's not unlike anything else, just different and in many ways a lot more complex... but it has arrived, even if it's by very few manufacturers.
Having said that, I still find HDCD to be superior to any redbook recording, and the Janaki Trio Debut is a perfect example of this: just beautiful string tone out of digital, from this Alpha DAC and the 4000SV... but that's another discussion. Given all this, I feel the more fundamental problem with digital is how it's produced, and that is in fact a MAJOR problem, and we have a lot of work to do over there.
Tasos, I have to agree...HDCD is to my ears a step up over all of the redbook recordings that I have ever heard. My old (but still quite analog sounding, according to many who have heard it) digital system, that can playback HDCD is still highly musical...and in some ways can still compete with some of the best digital out there. Once that HDCD light comes in on my DAC, I know it’s going to sound great.
Similar threads
