Sublime Sound
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
Yes, For Duke sounds outstanding on Peter's system: great tone and dynamics, realistic bite (not too little or too much) of brass, and excellent rhythm indeed (on your system For Duke is fantastic too).
As for improved high frequency extension of Peter's system: Next to the cartridge, part of it also seems to be removal of reflective glass surfaces, oddly enough. See my impressions here:
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?12853-Sublime-Sound&p=425170&viewfull=1#post425170
Thank you for visiting Ack and for sharing your impressions. I appreciate the comment about the speaker spikes. I mentioned this to Alon Wolf once and he recommended I use the Magico cone footers which came with the speakers rather than the spikes because of the soft wood flooring. I might try your suggestion for spikes and disks anyway. However, those 200 year old boards are pretty loose which allows the speakers to rock slightly. I will investigate securing the boards to the sub flooring with screws from below and also shoring up the whole floor structure. I am thinking of reinforcing the floor from below and then placing columns directly below the speakers. Right now I have two columns behind the speakers and in front of the heavy amps. I need to revisit this whole arrangement as it is not optimal.
We played the music pretty loud. I did notice a slight break up during complex passages when playing at such loud volumes. I never listen that loudly normally. Occasionally I crank it for rock and that Sheffield Drum Record, but the other day we were pushing the speakers much harder than usual. The small drivers just can't handle those excursions and volume with complex music without some slight distortion. Multiple and larger drivers like those in the M3 or S5 would certainly help. I've been conflicted about upgrading speakers for quite a while. I have been meaning to get a digital SPL meter as Al has suggested. I should have brought down my old analog Radio Shack SPL to verify the dBs.
I appreciate your comments, especially because they come from a guy with a system known for its clarity and articulation.
Peter, I am already listening quite loudly, and I have heard you often, yet not always, play your system as loud as I do, but usually not louder. At the volumes you play your system, it sounds clean and undistorted. For your room, I don't think the ability to play louder should factor in a decision to go for multi-driver speakers or not; after all, you like me and everyone else need to preserve our ears, especially in this hobby. I am commonly listening at the upper edge of NIOSH recommendations (often checking with SPL meter); louder than that might be problematic.
There are other considerations that might favor multi-driver speakers (even though these often come with some drawbacks too), but the ability to play loud is in my view not an issue here. In large rooms, yes, but not in yours.
I agree Al. I have no desire to listen louder than I normally do. In fact tonight, I listened back down to my normal volume which is ten clicks on my preamp corresponding to roughly -10dB from when I listened with Ack. I do think that at these levels, a multi way speaker may deliver more articulate sound on very complex orchestral music than my two ways do, but that is just a guess. I may someday try a pair in my room to see.
I have been experimenting with cartridge loading and recently tried my Pass XP-25 phono stage wide open at 47K ohms. The last time I experimented with cartridge loading, I settled on 1K ohms and did not notice a difference with 47K and only a very slight improvement over 500 ohms. Since then I have made some simple but effective improvements to the system including removing all glass from the paintings in the room and cleaning all connections with DeoxIT. Perhaps the system is now more transparent and revealing of loading or I have learned to be a more critical listener, but the system definitely now sounds better with loading at 47K.
The sound is more open, more dynamic, and more effortless with no noticeable shift in tonal balance. All types of music seem to benefit from solo acoustic instruments to jazz trios to choral music to symphonies. Organs have more air, choirs are more articulate, brass is more incisive and explosive. Bass is richer. I'm actually surprised that I notice such differences because my friend Ack reports that his Pass XP-25 sounds best with the loading set at either 500 and 1K ohms. He has a different phono cartridge and cable, so that may account for the differences in our respective loading preference.
The sound is more open, more dynamic, and more effortless with no noticeable shift in tonal balance. All types of music seem to benefit from solo acoustic instruments to jazz trios to choral music to symphonies. Organs have more air, choirs are more articulate, brass is more incisive and explosive. Bass is richer. I'm actually surprised that I notice such differences because my friend Ack reports that his Pass XP-25 sounds best with the loading set at either 500 and 1K ohms. He has a different phono cartridge and cable, so that may account for the differences in our respective loading preference.
Yeah I load at 47K now as well - sizeable difference, and audible now with all the tweaks I have made in recent months.
I continue to try to improve the sound of my system without spending money. I have two recent changes to report which result in better sound. The first is that I changed the loading on my Pass XP-25 phono from 1K ohms to 47K ohms, which is basically wide open with no loading. The sound opened up some more, became more effortless, and dynamics improved. High frequencies are also slightly more extended without sounding strident or harsh.
The second change was the result of a comment or observation by Ack. He tried pushing my speakers during his last visit and said that my speakers swayed back and forth too much. This is true because my floors are 200 year old wide pine boards and a bit loose because the finished boards are nailed with square nails to the sub flooring boards. The speakers are not as solid or anchored as they could be. This rocking means the cabinet is moving as the driver moves and this could cause blurring. I decided to go into the basement and screw the sub floor boards to the finished floor boards from beneath so the screws would not be seen. Sure enough, this helped to secure the floor boards right below and around the speakers. I only did this in a small area and not for the entire floor. I then replaced the steel lolli columns below each speaker which support the speakers and keep the old floor from sagging too much.
Another thing that may be happening is that now the area directly around the speakers is more stable and solid, but the rest of the floor is still loose as before. I think the floor may respond less to the sound pressure in the room because it is loose and vibrations may not travel back up into the speaker as a result, which would be good if true. I've often thought about decoupling the speaker completely from the floor system, but they would still have to be on some kind of firm support. My current solution is a partial attempt to achieve this.
Sure enough, the sound improved. Bass extension became deeper and the overall sound became clearer and cleaner. Dynamics improved a bit further and resolution went up a notch.
Thank you Ack for pointing out this weakness. Your observation lead to my trying to solve the problem which has in turn improved the sound I hear.
The second change was the result of a comment or observation by Ack. He tried pushing my speakers during his last visit and said that my speakers swayed back and forth too much. This is true because my floors are 200 year old wide pine boards and a bit loose because the finished boards are nailed with square nails to the sub flooring boards. The speakers are not as solid or anchored as they could be. This rocking means the cabinet is moving as the driver moves and this could cause blurring. I decided to go into the basement and screw the sub floor boards to the finished floor boards from beneath so the screws would not be seen. Sure enough, this helped to secure the floor boards right below and around the speakers. I only did this in a small area and not for the entire floor. I then replaced the steel lolli columns below each speaker which support the speakers and keep the old floor from sagging too much.
Another thing that may be happening is that now the area directly around the speakers is more stable and solid, but the rest of the floor is still loose as before. I think the floor may respond less to the sound pressure in the room because it is loose and vibrations may not travel back up into the speaker as a result, which would be good if true. I've often thought about decoupling the speaker completely from the floor system, but they would still have to be on some kind of firm support. My current solution is a partial attempt to achieve this.
Sure enough, the sound improved. Bass extension became deeper and the overall sound became clearer and cleaner. Dynamics improved a bit further and resolution went up a notch.
Thank you Ack for pointing out this weakness. Your observation lead to my trying to solve the problem which has in turn improved the sound I hear.
Glad to hear it Peter! You may also want to entertain my approach of resting the speakers on a slab of granite, with that blue EAR Isodamp material I am using between the spikes and itself. I wish I could easily demonstrate the huge difference in the bass, so I'll just say, trust Magico for using that Isodamp in their MPods as well. I think *proper* speaker-to-floor coupling with appropriate absorption is paramount for any speaker, and just spikes are just too old fashioned, as is rubber feet.
I agree that how the speaker meets the floor is important. I have considered placing a steel plate cut to mimic the oval shape of the Magico Mini II stand bottom plate on my floor with some kind of absorption ala the MPod, but I may consider something even more radical. I have been thinking about these ideas:
1. Having a steel plate welded to the top of the steel column directly under my speaker going to the concrete basement floor. Then having three spikes welded to the top of the column plate. These would go through three holes in the floor and the speaker stand would rest directly on those three spikes so that the speaker is completely separated from the floor and only in contact with the column to the ground below. The three spikes would be thin and separated from the floor with rubber grommets. The downside to this is that the speakers can not be moved once everything is complete. The upside is that the floor's movement would not impact the speaker at all. The earth movement would impact the speaker so I would consider some EAR Isodamp somewhere in the column structure itself or designing an Isodamp/steel plate/wood sandwich on top of the column.
2. Same steel plated welded to the top of the steel column in the basement. This would then be bolted through the floor to a steel plate resting on a damping layer (EAR Isodamp perhaps). Here there would be a sandwich from bottom up of: column, steel top plate, Isodamp, subfloor, finish floor, Isodamp, steel plate, hardwood cut out, all clamped tightly together. Then the speaker stands would be spiked to the hardwood top of the clamped structure.
3. A complete rebuild of the floor support structure with engineered laminated beams directly under the front of the room supported by columns and completely independent of the rest of the floor system. This section would be about 3' X 12' and not be visible from above. This floor section would be anchored to the rock in my basement via the columns and the rest of the floor would remain as is, free to move independent of the speakers. This in essence would be like a stage which is incredibly solid and act as a platform for the two speakers. This would allow me to move the speakers around the front of the room and allow for future speaker changes.
I suppose I could also leave things as they and discuss with Magico the possibility of modified two set of MPods for the Mini II. I don't know how they would work with the separate stand.
Lots of possibilities, but this speaker/floor interface is clearly an important area for investigation.
Yesterday I had again the privilege to listen to Peter's system. He had made changes to the cartridge loading and upon Ack's suggestion fastened the floor boards under his speakers so that they would move less (see post # 232), and he invited me to hear the improvements. We started with Art Pepper+Eleven, which sounded even more open and transparent than before, with still great saturated harmonics in the brass section. Clarity had improved, and even more than on earlier occasions I was struck by the dynamic 'suddenness'. The sound was incredibly clean, but at the same time had a realistic bite.
The highlight of the evening for me was Bach's Partita #2 for violin with Gidon Kremer, a Philips analog recording from 1980 that I also have on CD. It made a great impression but I first want to point out the similarities of sound between Peter's and my system on this recording, which I checked again right after returning home, at the same volume level. The spatial presentation of the recording and the portrayed size of the instrument were similar in both systems, and the wooden tone of the violin was as well. It thus appears that the CD transfer used the same master as the vinyl pressing, which allows for a rather straight comparison.
The rendition on Peter's system featured not just the great wooden tone from the body of the violin, but also a rather airy tone on the bowing of the strings. To hear this life-like combination of sounds expressed with such clarity is intoxicating. One reason for the airy tone on the strings is a greater high-frequency extension in Peter's system, which I do not quite have mainly due to my room acoustics. Yet the greater overall clarity is not just due to the high frequencies, but also due to the apparent complete lack of coloration in the rendition of the recording on Peter's system. The inert cabinet of the Magico Mini II monitors allows for the clarity and speed, which in my system seems to be slightly held back by residual 'ringing' of the speaker cabinet that becomes apparent only in direct comparison, while, unlike with some other speakers, there is no obvious 'wooden' coloration from my speakers either (and the cabinet already vibrates very little upon hand touch while loud music is playing). The virtues of a truly inert speaker cabinet, only achievable with elaborate efforts, have revealed themselves to me also in Madfloyd's Magico M Project speakers, and its importance becomes ever clearer in my view (my next planned speaker upgrade will go in that direction too). Overall, the experience of this violin recording with such clarity, transparency, micro-detail, presence, truth of timbre and just sheer acoustic energy on Peter's system was extraordinary. This was as good and believable a reproduction of solo violin as I have ever heard. The great lack of coloration, exceeding what I heard before from Peter's system, may also have been helped by the system changes outlined above.
The SME turntable revealed itself even further to be a precision instrument. The rendition of violin made me think once more about how great digital and analog seem to converge, but from different directions. Lesser digital seems to suffer from 'etched' transients, an artifact that vanishes to ever greater degree on top digital. On the other hand, lesser analog appears to have a more rounded tone that some may find intoxicating, but which does not do justice to an accurate reproduction of the real thing either. The vinyl reproduction in Peter's system has an enormous precision that both avoids an artificial 'rounding' and an artificial 'etching' of tone but just leaves pristine transients. They are incredibly fast yet of such natural tone that the 'speed' is not even obvious as a 'hi-fi spectacle'. Rather, they contribute in an unobtrusive (yet if you listen for it, impressive) way to a strong sensation of realism. Kremer's playing has a rough, forceful tone during some transients, but again, there just seemed a superbly natural rendition of his playing, with neither exaggeration nor blunting of tone. The 'suddenness' of micro-dynamic shifts was once more arresting; the overall dynamic range was just as impressive as from CD.
We also listened to some other music, with several great examples of believability and fine resolution of tone. The famous LP with the Christmas choir music once again impressed, apart from a superb rendition of voices and organ tone, with a magnificent presentation of the spacious acoustic of the church where it was recorded in. The soundstage was large, and the speakers as usual completely vanished from it, something that monitors driven by great front-end and amplification are so good at.
The highlight of the evening for me was Bach's Partita #2 for violin with Gidon Kremer, a Philips analog recording from 1980 that I also have on CD. It made a great impression but I first want to point out the similarities of sound between Peter's and my system on this recording, which I checked again right after returning home, at the same volume level. The spatial presentation of the recording and the portrayed size of the instrument were similar in both systems, and the wooden tone of the violin was as well. It thus appears that the CD transfer used the same master as the vinyl pressing, which allows for a rather straight comparison.
The rendition on Peter's system featured not just the great wooden tone from the body of the violin, but also a rather airy tone on the bowing of the strings. To hear this life-like combination of sounds expressed with such clarity is intoxicating. One reason for the airy tone on the strings is a greater high-frequency extension in Peter's system, which I do not quite have mainly due to my room acoustics. Yet the greater overall clarity is not just due to the high frequencies, but also due to the apparent complete lack of coloration in the rendition of the recording on Peter's system. The inert cabinet of the Magico Mini II monitors allows for the clarity and speed, which in my system seems to be slightly held back by residual 'ringing' of the speaker cabinet that becomes apparent only in direct comparison, while, unlike with some other speakers, there is no obvious 'wooden' coloration from my speakers either (and the cabinet already vibrates very little upon hand touch while loud music is playing). The virtues of a truly inert speaker cabinet, only achievable with elaborate efforts, have revealed themselves to me also in Madfloyd's Magico M Project speakers, and its importance becomes ever clearer in my view (my next planned speaker upgrade will go in that direction too). Overall, the experience of this violin recording with such clarity, transparency, micro-detail, presence, truth of timbre and just sheer acoustic energy on Peter's system was extraordinary. This was as good and believable a reproduction of solo violin as I have ever heard. The great lack of coloration, exceeding what I heard before from Peter's system, may also have been helped by the system changes outlined above.
The SME turntable revealed itself even further to be a precision instrument. The rendition of violin made me think once more about how great digital and analog seem to converge, but from different directions. Lesser digital seems to suffer from 'etched' transients, an artifact that vanishes to ever greater degree on top digital. On the other hand, lesser analog appears to have a more rounded tone that some may find intoxicating, but which does not do justice to an accurate reproduction of the real thing either. The vinyl reproduction in Peter's system has an enormous precision that both avoids an artificial 'rounding' and an artificial 'etching' of tone but just leaves pristine transients. They are incredibly fast yet of such natural tone that the 'speed' is not even obvious as a 'hi-fi spectacle'. Rather, they contribute in an unobtrusive (yet if you listen for it, impressive) way to a strong sensation of realism. Kremer's playing has a rough, forceful tone during some transients, but again, there just seemed a superbly natural rendition of his playing, with neither exaggeration nor blunting of tone. The 'suddenness' of micro-dynamic shifts was once more arresting; the overall dynamic range was just as impressive as from CD.
We also listened to some other music, with several great examples of believability and fine resolution of tone. The famous LP with the Christmas choir music once again impressed, apart from a superb rendition of voices and organ tone, with a magnificent presentation of the spacious acoustic of the church where it was recorded in. The soundstage was large, and the speakers as usual completely vanished from it, something that monitors driven by great front-end and amplification are so good at.
Thank you Al for sharing your impressions on my system page. That famous Christmas choir music LP is Cantate Domino on Proprius 7762. It is a great recording and captures the acoustic of the church to a very large degree. I like you use of the word "clarity" to describe what I used to call "accuracy". The problem with the term accuracy is that it is a bit vague. Does one mean it accurately portrays what is on the recording, or does it mean that the sound from a system accurately represents the sound one hears from live instruments? We have discussed that there is no "absolute sound" but rather a range of sounds which recall our memories of how we have heard various instruments in various settings sound over time. Furthermore, we do not know exactly what is on the recording, so how can we state that a reproduced sound from an audio system accurately portrays what is on the recording?
The seems the term "clarity" is easier to assess. We listen to a system, make some changes to improve the sound, and then we can compare the sound to our memory of the previous sound to see if the system sounds more clear. Do we notice things that we did not notice before? Does the sound remind us more of our memories of real instruments? Is there more "suddenness"? I have written before that the one impression with which I leave every time I have attended the BSO is just how clear the sound is. Of course it is one of the best halls in the world, but regardless of how complex or the music is, individual lines are distinguishable and single strikes of a triangle can be piercing.
The one thing that really pleases me is the knowledge of just how much the sound of my system has improved since you first heard it a few years ago, and this is all without a major component change. We discussed the other night that perhaps many audiophiles do not fully optimize the sound of their systems before they change gear yet again hoping that a new purchase will bring them the satisfaction that they are missing. There is nothing wrong with changing gear hoping that it will improve the sound of one's system. I did that for years. However, there is a quiet satisfaction and sense of pride which comes from making changes to the conditions which can enable existing components to reach their full potential. This is one of the lessons I learned from Jim Smith and one of the things I continue to learn from these forum discussions. Exposure to other good systems and experienced audiophiles who share candid opinions helps a lot too.
The seems the term "clarity" is easier to assess. We listen to a system, make some changes to improve the sound, and then we can compare the sound to our memory of the previous sound to see if the system sounds more clear. Do we notice things that we did not notice before? Does the sound remind us more of our memories of real instruments? Is there more "suddenness"? I have written before that the one impression with which I leave every time I have attended the BSO is just how clear the sound is. Of course it is one of the best halls in the world, but regardless of how complex or the music is, individual lines are distinguishable and single strikes of a triangle can be piercing.
The one thing that really pleases me is the knowledge of just how much the sound of my system has improved since you first heard it a few years ago, and this is all without a major component change. We discussed the other night that perhaps many audiophiles do not fully optimize the sound of their systems before they change gear yet again hoping that a new purchase will bring them the satisfaction that they are missing. There is nothing wrong with changing gear hoping that it will improve the sound of one's system. I did that for years. However, there is a quiet satisfaction and sense of pride which comes from making changes to the conditions which can enable existing components to reach their full potential. This is one of the lessons I learned from Jim Smith and one of the things I continue to learn from these forum discussions. Exposure to other good systems and experienced audiophiles who share candid opinions helps a lot too.
I have had the Pass Labs XP-22 preamplifier in my system now for three weeks. In the past I have owned the Pass Aleph P, the X-1, and the XP-20. I also auditioned the XP-30 and XS Pre in my system. I directly compared the XP-20 to the XP-22 during this three week period. I subjected two friends to blind A/B/X tests and did numerous sighted A/B tests on myself as well as longer term listening evaluations. To directly compare the two preamps I used Burley Wire cables and for longer term listening I used my Transparent Audio REF XL interconnects which I sent back to Transparent for re-calibration to match the lower output impedance of the XP22.
At first, I thought the differences between the the XP20 and XP22 were fairly subtle. I don't know if it was the slightly lower resolution Burley Wire IC or that the XP22 needed a long break in period, but for whatever reason, I thought the differences were minor. I was able to consistently identify differences at the beginning but over time, these differences seemed to become more pronounced or at least once identified, they became easier to hear. At about the ten day mark, I began to really appreciate the improvements I heard with the XP-22.
I suspect that Pass Labs trickled down some of what they learned when they developed their statement preamplifier, the XS Pre. I have read about better shielding, a quieter volume control, higher Class A bias, a quieter transformer and one less gain stage. Compared to the XP-20, the XP-22 has a lower noise floor, higher resolution and better bass articulation. I also began to notice that there is a greater degree of palpability and sense of space with the XP22. Images are more dimensional and solid, and there is a richer, more full tonal palette. Finally, dynamics and low level detail are better. The overall impression is one of a more natural presentation which sounds more complete and correct.
Here are some of the LPs I listened to for the evaluation:
Vivaldi, The Four Seasons, Academy of St. Martin-in-the-Fields, Argo
Johnny Hartman, Once in Every Life, Beehive
Bach, Parita Nr. 2 Chaconne, Gidon Kremer, Philips
Cantate Domino, Proprius
Acoustic Research Demonstration Record, Ensayo
Ella and Louis, Verve, 45RPM
Ray Brown & Laurindo Almeida, Moonlight Serenade, Direct to Disk Jeton, original
Muddy Waters, Folk Singer, Chess, 45 RPM
Beethoven “Appassionata” Kamiya, Direct to Disk, 45 RPM, RCA
Janaki String Trio, Debut, Yarlung, 45 RPM
Sonny Rollins, Way out West, Analogue Productions
The Sheffield Drum Record, Jim Keltner, Direct to Disk
Art Pepper + Eleven, Modern Jazz Classics, Contemporary
I identified four specific areas of improvement: Noise floor, Bass, Tone, Dynamics.
Noise. The XP-22 is definitely quieter. I hear more details and more information. Everything sounds cleaner. There is better contrast between notes, more sense of space. The performers are more palpable and present. The recording venue is more defined and apparent. Musical lines are better separated and distinguishable in complex music. This was particularly evident in the Vivaldi, the Cantate Domino, and Stravinsky “March Royale” on the AR demo LP.
Bass. Ray Brown’s bass was both more articulate and extended. It was more full and had better body. Keltner’s kick drums were more taught, deeper, more impactful, and had loner resonating trails. Kamiya’s left hand was less garbled, and individual notes were more solid and clean. They served as a better foundation for what her right hand was playing. Bach’s organ on the AR demo disk was deeper, airier, bigger. It was less constrained and swelled better into the listening room.
Tone. Vocals had more meaning. On “April in Paris”, Elle and Louis sounded more emotional. There was more subtle inflection in their voices, more “breathiness”, and sibilance was cleaner. Hartman’s baritone had more shading. Kremer’s violin had a richer tonal palette. The shifts with the bow were cleaner, quicker and more colorful. The distinction and balance between string tone and the wooden violin body was both more clear and more natural. Rollin’s saxophone was just richer sounding, from the quiet air leaving the throat to colorful and nuanced brass tone.
Dynamics. On dynamic music like Art Pepper and the Sheffield Drum LP, the horns and drum strikes were more startling, more explosive, and better focused. Sounds burst out of stillness more convincingly. Surprisingly, there was more ‘jump factor’, even on music I know well. Peaks were less bold or blunt, but more piercing and precise. The entire envelope between loud and soft seemed expanded.
The three recordings which seemed to benefit the most from all of these qualities were the Janaki String Trio, Beethoven’s Appassionata, and the Sheffield Drum solo. With the XP-20, these sounded wonderful for years in my system, but I was simply not fully aware of the range of sounds and energy captured in these three recordings. The XP-22’s low noise floor brought out such a range of dynamics, tonal color and musical expression, that these familiar pieces became more convincing and believable and introduced a new sense of beauty and meaning. The XP-22 seems to reveal more of what is on the recording, and with the best recordings, that increased information conveys a better, more complete musical message. My system is refreshed and more emotionally involving now.
I have decided to trade in the XP-20 for the new XP-22. The volume control now goes from 1-99. The umbilical cord is much more robust and apparently better shielded. The casework is slightly different on the side and bottom edges of the front face plate. If one already owns the XP20, deciding whether or not to upgrade will depend on how highly one values these differences relative to the cost to upgrade. If one does not already own the XP-20, I would say that the XP-22 is an incredible value and an extremely high performing preamp. For under $10K, it is a relative bargain, especially considering that it is so much less expensive than the flagship XS Preamp. It is much better than all previous Pass preamps that I have owned and I actually prefer it to the XP30, which had an overall warmer voicing, though it too has a very low noise floor and great resolution. The XP-22 has a neutral tonal balance like the XP-20 and XS Pre. There is clear evidence of trickle down technology from the XS Pre.
I have spent the last year or two working diligently to make steady, but often subtle, improvements to my system without spending any money. Most of these involved minor speaker placement shifts, better cleaning of cable connections, removing reflective materials from the listening room, and better fine tuning my cartridge and arm. Upgrading to the XP-22 will be the first major equipment change that I have made in about four years. In current high end audio terms, the upgrade is fairly inexpensive. However, the sonic improvement is significant. It is a good start to the new year.
At first, I thought the differences between the the XP20 and XP22 were fairly subtle. I don't know if it was the slightly lower resolution Burley Wire IC or that the XP22 needed a long break in period, but for whatever reason, I thought the differences were minor. I was able to consistently identify differences at the beginning but over time, these differences seemed to become more pronounced or at least once identified, they became easier to hear. At about the ten day mark, I began to really appreciate the improvements I heard with the XP-22.
I suspect that Pass Labs trickled down some of what they learned when they developed their statement preamplifier, the XS Pre. I have read about better shielding, a quieter volume control, higher Class A bias, a quieter transformer and one less gain stage. Compared to the XP-20, the XP-22 has a lower noise floor, higher resolution and better bass articulation. I also began to notice that there is a greater degree of palpability and sense of space with the XP22. Images are more dimensional and solid, and there is a richer, more full tonal palette. Finally, dynamics and low level detail are better. The overall impression is one of a more natural presentation which sounds more complete and correct.
Here are some of the LPs I listened to for the evaluation:
Vivaldi, The Four Seasons, Academy of St. Martin-in-the-Fields, Argo
Johnny Hartman, Once in Every Life, Beehive
Bach, Parita Nr. 2 Chaconne, Gidon Kremer, Philips
Cantate Domino, Proprius
Acoustic Research Demonstration Record, Ensayo
Ella and Louis, Verve, 45RPM
Ray Brown & Laurindo Almeida, Moonlight Serenade, Direct to Disk Jeton, original
Muddy Waters, Folk Singer, Chess, 45 RPM
Beethoven “Appassionata” Kamiya, Direct to Disk, 45 RPM, RCA
Janaki String Trio, Debut, Yarlung, 45 RPM
Sonny Rollins, Way out West, Analogue Productions
The Sheffield Drum Record, Jim Keltner, Direct to Disk
Art Pepper + Eleven, Modern Jazz Classics, Contemporary
I identified four specific areas of improvement: Noise floor, Bass, Tone, Dynamics.
Noise. The XP-22 is definitely quieter. I hear more details and more information. Everything sounds cleaner. There is better contrast between notes, more sense of space. The performers are more palpable and present. The recording venue is more defined and apparent. Musical lines are better separated and distinguishable in complex music. This was particularly evident in the Vivaldi, the Cantate Domino, and Stravinsky “March Royale” on the AR demo LP.
Bass. Ray Brown’s bass was both more articulate and extended. It was more full and had better body. Keltner’s kick drums were more taught, deeper, more impactful, and had loner resonating trails. Kamiya’s left hand was less garbled, and individual notes were more solid and clean. They served as a better foundation for what her right hand was playing. Bach’s organ on the AR demo disk was deeper, airier, bigger. It was less constrained and swelled better into the listening room.
Tone. Vocals had more meaning. On “April in Paris”, Elle and Louis sounded more emotional. There was more subtle inflection in their voices, more “breathiness”, and sibilance was cleaner. Hartman’s baritone had more shading. Kremer’s violin had a richer tonal palette. The shifts with the bow were cleaner, quicker and more colorful. The distinction and balance between string tone and the wooden violin body was both more clear and more natural. Rollin’s saxophone was just richer sounding, from the quiet air leaving the throat to colorful and nuanced brass tone.
Dynamics. On dynamic music like Art Pepper and the Sheffield Drum LP, the horns and drum strikes were more startling, more explosive, and better focused. Sounds burst out of stillness more convincingly. Surprisingly, there was more ‘jump factor’, even on music I know well. Peaks were less bold or blunt, but more piercing and precise. The entire envelope between loud and soft seemed expanded.
The three recordings which seemed to benefit the most from all of these qualities were the Janaki String Trio, Beethoven’s Appassionata, and the Sheffield Drum solo. With the XP-20, these sounded wonderful for years in my system, but I was simply not fully aware of the range of sounds and energy captured in these three recordings. The XP-22’s low noise floor brought out such a range of dynamics, tonal color and musical expression, that these familiar pieces became more convincing and believable and introduced a new sense of beauty and meaning. The XP-22 seems to reveal more of what is on the recording, and with the best recordings, that increased information conveys a better, more complete musical message. My system is refreshed and more emotionally involving now.
I have decided to trade in the XP-20 for the new XP-22. The volume control now goes from 1-99. The umbilical cord is much more robust and apparently better shielded. The casework is slightly different on the side and bottom edges of the front face plate. If one already owns the XP20, deciding whether or not to upgrade will depend on how highly one values these differences relative to the cost to upgrade. If one does not already own the XP-20, I would say that the XP-22 is an incredible value and an extremely high performing preamp. For under $10K, it is a relative bargain, especially considering that it is so much less expensive than the flagship XS Preamp. It is much better than all previous Pass preamps that I have owned and I actually prefer it to the XP30, which had an overall warmer voicing, though it too has a very low noise floor and great resolution. The XP-22 has a neutral tonal balance like the XP-20 and XS Pre. There is clear evidence of trickle down technology from the XS Pre.
I have spent the last year or two working diligently to make steady, but often subtle, improvements to my system without spending any money. Most of these involved minor speaker placement shifts, better cleaning of cable connections, removing reflective materials from the listening room, and better fine tuning my cartridge and arm. Upgrading to the XP-22 will be the first major equipment change that I have made in about four years. In current high end audio terms, the upgrade is fairly inexpensive. However, the sonic improvement is significant. It is a good start to the new year.
The last three weeks of intense listening to my system, and listening just two days ago to Ack's system, has me continuing to try to find new ways to eek out more improvements. The Pass XP-22 preamp is more revealing of details because it has a lower noise floor, so subtle adjustments in the rest of the system seem to be more apparent than they would otherwise have been.
Over the last few months, I have revisited three areas of system set up that had remained fixed for a long time: cartridge loading, cartridge tracking force, and speaker toe in. I suppose I could add power cables to that list. (Thanks Al).
A couple of months ago, I reduced cartridge loading to its lowest setting, 47k ohms. This resulted in a more open, free sound, better, more clean high frequencies, and an overall increase in perceived resolution. Most of you have heard this in my system.
Two weeks ago, I increased speaker toe-in by three inches on each side at the back wall, or roughly 1/16” at each speaker base. This resulted in a more crisp, focused sound. Everything sounds tighter and more together. Dynamics improved as well as imaging and 3D palpability. The sweet spot also increased slightly.
Yesterday, I started experimenting with vertical tracking force - VTF for you analog guys. This is still new, but I am hearing a less constricted, ‘stiff’ or damped sound. Musical energy is flowing more freely into the room and seems to be unleashed. It is a similar effect to cartridge loading. The higher VTF and loading seemed to dampen the cartridge’s movement and signal, constricting the sound.
I don’t know why I did not experiment with these things earlier. They are basic, cost nothing, and seem important to overall system set up. I suppose it is lack of experience and willingness to experiment and push the system’s performance. I guess I took these settings for granted and correct. How wrong this is! I am gradually beginning to understand that when one makes a change to his system which results in greater resolution/transparency, he should revaluate other parameters that might reveal further improvements. There is really nothing to lose except for time, and much to gain, both in overall system performance and experience. It is also kind of fun, if a bit frustrating at times.
I suppose some of it has to do with listening skills. The more I learn, like perhaps some of you, the more I realize how little I really know about audio. I think I know some of my recordings pretty well, but again, the more I learn, the more different they sound and the more I notice new things. Strange and encouraging.
I was struck by Ack mentioning that he spent last year almost exclusively experimenting and tweaking and not spending money on gear. I did the same, more or less, but not enough. I am more convinced than ever, that we do not know the true potential of our systems, and perhaps especially if we have vinyl. I started a thread on WBF called “Sweating the small stuff for big gains” or something. I had no idea, really that that was just the beginning of what can be done.
I just finished playing the Ray Brown & Almeida LP. With my recent changes, I can play it louder with less distortion. The perceived energy (instrument resonance) filling the room has increased. The bass sounds less defined somehow, and much bigger and looser, but the plucking of the strings is more precise and the image has remained the same size. The strings just sound looser, freer and fatter with more weight while the guitar is just as distinct and focused as before, but its sound fills my room more and hangs in the air longer. And I am more aware of resonating energy like what I hear when listening to live instruments. I think this is more of how this bass and guitar would sound like in real life. I think, it sounds more natural.
Anyway, after spending $4K on my first gear upgrade in four or so years, I’m back to futzing around with set up. I predict that it is going to be an interesting year for the sound of my system.
Over the last few months, I have revisited three areas of system set up that had remained fixed for a long time: cartridge loading, cartridge tracking force, and speaker toe in. I suppose I could add power cables to that list. (Thanks Al).
A couple of months ago, I reduced cartridge loading to its lowest setting, 47k ohms. This resulted in a more open, free sound, better, more clean high frequencies, and an overall increase in perceived resolution. Most of you have heard this in my system.
Two weeks ago, I increased speaker toe-in by three inches on each side at the back wall, or roughly 1/16” at each speaker base. This resulted in a more crisp, focused sound. Everything sounds tighter and more together. Dynamics improved as well as imaging and 3D palpability. The sweet spot also increased slightly.
Yesterday, I started experimenting with vertical tracking force - VTF for you analog guys. This is still new, but I am hearing a less constricted, ‘stiff’ or damped sound. Musical energy is flowing more freely into the room and seems to be unleashed. It is a similar effect to cartridge loading. The higher VTF and loading seemed to dampen the cartridge’s movement and signal, constricting the sound.
I don’t know why I did not experiment with these things earlier. They are basic, cost nothing, and seem important to overall system set up. I suppose it is lack of experience and willingness to experiment and push the system’s performance. I guess I took these settings for granted and correct. How wrong this is! I am gradually beginning to understand that when one makes a change to his system which results in greater resolution/transparency, he should revaluate other parameters that might reveal further improvements. There is really nothing to lose except for time, and much to gain, both in overall system performance and experience. It is also kind of fun, if a bit frustrating at times.
I suppose some of it has to do with listening skills. The more I learn, like perhaps some of you, the more I realize how little I really know about audio. I think I know some of my recordings pretty well, but again, the more I learn, the more different they sound and the more I notice new things. Strange and encouraging.
I was struck by Ack mentioning that he spent last year almost exclusively experimenting and tweaking and not spending money on gear. I did the same, more or less, but not enough. I am more convinced than ever, that we do not know the true potential of our systems, and perhaps especially if we have vinyl. I started a thread on WBF called “Sweating the small stuff for big gains” or something. I had no idea, really that that was just the beginning of what can be done.
I just finished playing the Ray Brown & Almeida LP. With my recent changes, I can play it louder with less distortion. The perceived energy (instrument resonance) filling the room has increased. The bass sounds less defined somehow, and much bigger and looser, but the plucking of the strings is more precise and the image has remained the same size. The strings just sound looser, freer and fatter with more weight while the guitar is just as distinct and focused as before, but its sound fills my room more and hangs in the air longer. And I am more aware of resonating energy like what I hear when listening to live instruments. I think this is more of how this bass and guitar would sound like in real life. I think, it sounds more natural.
Anyway, after spending $4K on my first gear upgrade in four or so years, I’m back to futzing around with set up. I predict that it is going to be an interesting year for the sound of my system.
Similar threads
