wallflower

Here's a good start! 1 Miles Davis Kind of Blue 1959 2 John Coltrane A Love Supreme 1964 3 Charles Mingus Mingus Ah Um 1959 4 John Coltrane Giant Steps 1959 5 Sonny Rollins Saxophone Colossus 1956 6 The Dave Brubeck Quartet Time Out 1959 7 Cannonball Adderley Somethin' Else 1958 8 John Coltrane Blue Train 1957 9 Herbie Hancock Maiden Voyage 1965 10 John Coltrane My Favorite Things 1960 11 Miles Davis ******* Brew 1969 12 Art Blakey & the Jazz Messengers Moanin' 1958 13 Eric Dolphy Out to Lunch! 1964 14 Thelonious Monk Brilliant Corners 1956 15 Louis Armstrong 25 Greatest Hot Fives & Sevens 1929 16 Wayne Shorter Speak No Evil 1964 17 Ornette Coleman The Shape of Jazz to Come 1959 18 Bill Evans Trio Waltz for Debby 1961 19 Miles Davis Birth of the Cool 1950 20 Miles Davis In a Silent Way 1969 21 Lee Morgan The Sidewinder 1963 22 Charlie Parker The Savoy & Dial Studio Sessions 1948 23 Bill Evans Trio Sunday at the Village Vanguard 1961 24 Keith Jarrett The Koln Concert 1975 25 Miles Davis Sketches Of Spain 1960

A few words of warning... Check your home-owners policy to see what your deductible is AND if you don't want to loose your system during this upcoming storm season, unplug it before you go to bed. I learned the hard way. [] I really wanted Allan's Axis........

Where the heck to I retrieve my private messages? I've done it before but now I can't remember how I did it. HELP!

Allan, You have a pm and an email. I'd like your Axis. Thanks, Jeff

Thanks mas!<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> Your opinions about room dynamics and live music added to the discussion and remained true to the intent of the thread... Regards!! Oh and... the sky is black []

mas-<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> With all due respect, I think you're missing the point of this thread... It is not about, which do you prefer, tubes or SS? And it is not about, which is better, tubes or SS? As has effectively been pointed out in this thread, the "live" and amplified sound isn't necessarily always a good sound, but it has a distinct characteristic. IMHO that characteristic is most closely proxied by SS electronics (and Klipsch Heritage speakers) and I theorize that that's the case because nearly all PA systems are SS. Perhaps what could be clouding this discussion is the potential for really good SS and really good tube equipment to almost sound like the other. Let's exclude the consideration of really good/high end amps and preamps for the purposes of this thread so as to not muddy the water, because in addition to most PA equipment being SS, I'll be that a lot of the PA equipment we hear isn't even that good. []

Mark,<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> I'm referring to live music that is amplified (e.g. presumably with some sort of PA system), as opposed to those rare occasions where you might here live music with no amplification (which is a different subject). Other than those of us that attend symphony or chamber orchestra performances on a regular basis, I suspect most hear live music through some sort of PA system. And I'll bet 99% of those PA systems are SS. ============================================================================================================================================= I repeat this is not a question of which is better; I'm sure that question has been beaten like a dead horse around here. Try to remove any subjective bias you might have from analyzing what sounds more like live music. I fully expect many people on this forum would say they prefer tubes to SS, and vice versa, when listening to their two-channel system. But that's not the question.

Thanks for getting back on track...<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> Again the question isn't which sounds better (SS or tubes); its which can sound more like live music. I'm not sure live music has the best imaging or sound staging or other audiophile descriptors associated with it, but it does have certain characteristics. I'm trying to describe things like presence, dynamic qualities and perhaps a more upfront attack (in your face). Maybe it's the dynamic qualities that I hear in SS gear that sounds similar to what I hear in live and amplified music? I agree that tubes can be easier to listen to for longer periods of time than SS - especially at higher SPLs - but that the SS sound is closer (to my ears) to the effect of "being there" (not in the studio, but at the live show). I'll restate that I suspect that's because most PA equipment is SS. Continue....

O.K. back on track... Is SS more like live music than tubes.... continue

I listen to jazz, rock, classic rock, classical (actually mostly baroque), some pop, bluegrass, Celtic, country and acoustic/folk, live and recorded, and I too attend a lot of live performances and most all of it, if performed for a crowd of even minimal size (save the classical), uses some form of amplification. I also play a lot of acoustic/bluegrass music and when I play with others, and we're just jamming, and it's unamplified, that sound is more like SS too. In fact when I listen to a good recording of mandolin or guitar on my La Scalas, with the SS pre-amp, I swear I can hear the same "woodiness" that I hear when I'm in the room with those instruments. Conversely, I have yet to hear a SS pre-amp do justice to the distorted sound of a tube electric guitar amp. I think SS can do a fine job with the cleaner sound of a jazz guitar, but with distortion, SS sounds too strident and sterile. Anyone have suggestions for a great SS pre-amp that can make a distorted tube guitar amp sound good? That would be the ticket! The question about whether live music sounds good depends tremendously on the person running the board at the time. I also agree that the live sound may not be "audiophile level", but if done well it can sure sound great! My point, and I'm glad to see someone agrees, is that the live sound is much closer to a SS sound than to tubes to my ears.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

The SS pre is an older Acurus RL-11, which I'm learning is a pretty darn good pre-amp. The tube pre is a Conrad Johnson PV-14L, which by most measures is a fast and dynamic tube preamp and I think most would consider it in a different league from the Acurus. Interestingly the Acurus holds its own fairly well. The Acurus is very quiet and it just gets out of the way. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> The Conrad Johnson SS power amp is a truly fantastic piece of gear. It's a brand new MF-2500A that had been sitting in the box at a store unsold. Got a great price on it. Whoever thinks La Scalas don't put out much bass ought to come and hear this combo. I'm not trying to start an argument. I'm only sharing some of my observations. And I'm not saying that one pre-amp is necessarily better than the other, just that they excel at different things. However, one thing that draws me to the Klipsch Heritage sound is the "live" effect and it seems interesting that, at least in my little world, the SS pre-amp creates the closer approximation to the live sound.

I've been playing around with some gear and I'd like others thoughts....<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> I've got a pretty good (actually very good) solid state power amp (a new Conrad Johnson with a lot of very clean power) and I've been going back and forth between a good SS preamp and a good tube preamp. While I like the tube preamp for some things (e.g. piano, electric guitar and classical stringed instruments), I notice that for a lot of my music and for most vocals the SS preamp sounds more like a live performance (more punch, definition and presence). I'm not necessarily saying the SS sounds better than the tube, but if I really listen carefully and do some A/B comparisons, the SS just sounds more like live music, especially in the context of live and amplified music, which is what most of us hear when we go to a performance (unless of course it's a symphony or chamber orchestra). The tube amp sounds rounder, fatter and fuller and is really great for just listening to the music (and even vocals sound great!), BUT, IMHO I think if listening for a proxy of live music, the solid state sound is closer for many different contexts; especially with Klipsch Heritage speakers. I suspect a lot of this has to do with the fact that nearly all the PA systems out there, with rare exceptions, are solid state. I know this all probably sounds sacrilegious to the tube fans out there and I genuinely dont intend to offend anyone. Thoughts?

I tend to agree with Dave for the long term... However, for the shorter term I'd pop for a few extra dollars and get the Rega Apollo (I've seen them used on Audiogon for $800). I've recently auditioned a bunch of CD players (A/B comparisions) and I've found nothing in the price range of the Apollo (even up to the $2,000 range) that even comes close for playing Redbook CDs. A/B an Apollo with a Toshiba and you'll hear a huge difference. I've done it and it only takes about 10 seconds to realize that the Toshiba is almost unlistenable in comparison to the Apollo. I own a Toshiba 3990 and until the A/B with the Apollo I thought it sounded pretty good too. In fact my Toshiba, compared to the Cambridge Audio 840c and the Arcam DV139 and FMJ CD36 and a host of other CD players, sounded very good in comparison (A/B). Not the same with the Apollo. The Apollo is a different animal and it made me realize that not all CD players are created the same. Good luck!

I play the mandolin and guitar. I play mostly bluegrass and sometimes get paid for it!

Very interesting topic...<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> I've recently done a <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />LOT of auditioning of CD players and I had pretty much come to the same conclusion. I've got a really inexpensive Toshiba DVD player that I've used for audio CDs and I thought I needed to improve on that component thinking it was the weakest link in my system. I demoed up to $14,000 CD players (at home and in my system) and I was stunned at how little improvement was made over the Toshiba. The more expensive players had, in some cases a better base response and maybe a little bit better detail on the high end, but overall the differences were pretty minimal and hardly worth the delta in price. I tried the best Arcam they make, the Cambridge Audio 840C, NAD, SONY, Jolida, CARY and dCS... and none were that impressive compared to my lowly Toshiba. That is until tried the new Rega Saturn. That CD player sounded very different to me. It's got the qualities of a warm and natural analog audio sound, while being very detailed and dynamic at the same time. It's got really good PRAT (that funny brit expression). It reproduces the sound of cymbals, voices and piano exceptionally well (piano, by the way, is one thing I really hear a lot of differences between CD players in terms of how they reproduce the sound; some sound just O.K. some don't, the Saturn sounds really spot on in this regard). It really shines with new digitally recorded CDs, but it also does something in it's processing to significantly improve the sound of old CDs that came from original analog tapes. It is remarkable to hear. I would highly recommend an audition of the Saturn or the Apollo. I have not tried the Apollo but I understand it does a lot of the same things as the Saturn without quite as much depth and detail. Personally I think there's probably a point of diminishing returns in terms of what they can do with digital sound given the technology that most of the CD audio companies are using (e.g. upsampling, etc...). That's maybe why the Saturn sounds different. Rega went back to the drawing board and are using their own transport and own operating system which really makes their CD player sound significantly different from other players I've auditioned. If other companies start doing this, we may hear much better sounding CD players in the future. We'll see.

Heritage Envy... That is really funny. I was busting a gut reading your post. Thanks!!

No doubt Federer is the best of all time. It's not just about how he easily beats everyone; it's about how effortlessly he moves on the court. His efficiency of motion. His perfect backhand and forehand. His ability to volley. He is just simply the most complete player ever. I used to think it was Sampras, but Federer is at an entirely different level. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> When Michael Jordan was still playing basketball, I took every opportunity to watch him play because it was the chance to see greatness in action. Tiger Woods is the same and so is Roger Federer. We're fortunate in our lifetime to be able to witness such outstanding athletes.

Hi All,<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> I asked this question in my other thread but it was kind of buried... Has anyone done an A/B comparison between the Jolida JD 100 and either the Arcam CD 73 or CD 192? If you have, please advise your impressions of the characteristics and differences. I've searched Audioasylum and can't see anything that indicates a direct comparison. Also, this is for a system with a 200W SS amp and SS pre-amp (soon to be a tube pre-amp) with La Scalas. Thanks!

O.K., Ive done some auditioning of a few CD players and these are my observations, so far. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> A week ago I went to a high-end audio shop and auditioned the Cambridge Audio 540C, 640C and 840C. Among those CD players the 840C clearly won out. It was the only CD player of the bunch with upsampling and thus I deduced that that was the key ingredient as to why it sounded better? The 840C had better detail in the high end and much better bass extension than the 540C or 640C. Yesterday I went back to the same shop and made some more comparisons. They had a very high end CD player (I think it was a JSC or maybe a JCS??). Ive not heard of the brand (probably because I dont play in that kind of rarified audio space) but it was a $14,000 CD player. It was truly awesome. It had everything; great detail, great extension, very lively, great presence, excellent dimension and depth, very analog sounding and it was exceedingly musical. Compared to the JSC/JCS (spelling?) the 840C sounded positively lifeless. It was a real disappointment after my previous weeks listening... For reference the system had the following equipment: Conrad Johnson 350W <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />SolidState Power Amp Conrad Johnson tube pre-amp Wilson Audio Sophias (Note: I much prefer Klipsch heritage speakers to the Wilsons) Power Conditioner First class power cables, interconnects and speaker cables For grins I asked the salesperson to try the Arcam CD 73 (no upsampling). We were both very surprised that the Arcam was much more musical than the Cambridge Audio. In fact it had many of the same qualities that the JSC/JCS (spelling?) exhibited. Clearly it wasnt a peer to the JSC/JCS, but it did have some similar attributes. This listening involved multiple changes from one CD player to the others keeping interconnects the same and output levels the same. Actually I think the salesperson was shocked when he heard the difference between the Cambridge Audio and Arcam. When I first suggested trying the Arcam he kind of scoffed at the suggestion because he was certain there wouldnt be any competition since the Arcams price point was one half of the Cambridge Audios. But after I made him repeatedly change back and forth he too was convinced of the superior sound of the Arcam. What did the Arcam offer that the Cambridge Audio didnt? It had a similar image and depth to the JSC/JCS. It had a warm and analog-ish sound, which the Cambridge Audio 840C did not have. While it lacked a bit of the high end detail of the Cambridge Audio it made up for it with its breadth of sound stage and analog presence. The Cambridge Audio sounded digital, cold and lifeless comparatively speaking. From that listening it would have been hard to justify the $14,000 JSC/JCS, although it did sound significantly better than the Arcam, but for $13,300 difference and a little time adjusting to the sound, my ears could be pretty happy with the Arcam CD 73. So what does all this mean? Im not exactly sure. One thing for sure is that unless youre able to compare these players head to head there can be no real way to determine their differences. Also, while I liked the warmer, less digital sounding Arcam, some may prefer the high frequency detail of the Cambridge Audio. To each their own! Next week Im going to audition the Arcam CD 192. That should be interesting. I would like to know if anyone has compared, head to head, the Arcam CD 73 or CD 192 against the Rega Apollo or the Jolida JD 100?? That would be very helpful information. Please advise and thanks in advance for any information you can provide! Best Regards, Jeff

Could you all make some recommendations on CD players up to the $1,500.00 mark? I'm wanting it to be as analog sounding as possible. Thanks!

Hi, I want the 299B! Thanks, Jeff

Hi Rockets, I had the very same thing happen to me and I didn't enter all my information either (I didn't even hit the enter key), however, just by entering some of my username and password the bad guys were able to use enough of my information to break my password. After that (about 8 hours) some really bad things started happening. They got into my eBay account and then they broke into my email account as well. It was a mess. My advice would be login to every service you use and change the passwords immediately. I know that sounds ugly but the alternative is really awful. Trust me, I learned the hard way. Jeff