The thread of confusion

[Deang]

I started my first stage of serious testing last night between the Scott push-pull and my Apollo SET amps.

I'd decided the best way to do this is to spend an evening with each amp, only using three CD's. The three I picked, I've been listening to for 10 years or longer. I decided on these three, because I am extremely familiar with them, and have heard them extensively on every decent system I've owned.

Kelly will be disappointed, as well as others here. However, I felt it imperitive I use material that would not wash out of my auditory memory.

Journey -- Infinity

The Moody Blues -- Anthology

Judas Priest -- Sad Wings of Destiny

With this plan in place, I went forward...about 2 feet.

A while back I had done some extensive listening with different cables, and various configurations on the Apollos. I never posted about it, because what I had found had contradicted earlier posts in the past few months where I had said it didn't amount to a hill of beans of difference. I wasn't sure how I wanted to handle the contradiction, and so have been putting it off. I also had alot of other things going on that were taking priority as far as my attention went.

I had landed a nice pair of Music Metre Silvers off of AudiogoN for $160. This was a 75% savings over retail, and I bought them specifically to settle a thought floating around in my head. The thought was that copper is copper, but that silver is not copper. I was thinking that if cables made a difference, it might be easiest to hear if I went to a different conductive material. I received the cables and promptly put them on the horns, moving the MIT's to the woofers.

There was a substantial difference in the presentation of the treble over the MIT's. There was a softening at the extreme top, but also a bit of a 'glare' present in the lower treble at high SPL's that I didn't hear with the MIT's. I reversed the cables, and again found a difference, but it was harder to nail down. Mostly, the treble was back to 'normal', but I couldn't really discern a difference in the woofer output. However, I reasoned there had to be one, since it had made such a change on the treble. I goofed around with this over a couple of hours, even yanking the MIT's altogether, and using my Tributaries straight OFC copper stranded. I ended up deciding I liked the Silvers on the horns, and the MIT's on the woofers. I thought there was overall improvement in the treble. A smoothing of sorts, in spite of the bit of glare -- that only manifested itself at 95db or above.

So, silver sounds different than copper, what else can I say? I still don't know if I was really hearing a difference between the Tributaries OFC stranded and the MIT's -- but the MIT's look really cool you see -- so I just put them in.

I bring this up now, because last night I decided since the Scott can not be biwired (from a practical standpoint because of the terminal strips) -- I wanted to put both the Scott and Apollos on even footing as far as cabling went. So, I went with just the Music Metres in a single wire configuration. I wanted to use these because they are outfitted with spades, and are much easier to attach to the Scott. I realized this was not a perfect setup, since I have no silver jumpers for the RF7's. So, to help offset this somewhat, I put the Silvers on the woofers of the RF7's, and used my homemade Vampire jumpers to the horn.

Putting in the first CD ended up turning my night into a freaking nightmare. It was apparent from the first dozen measures of music, that there was marked increase in transient response, and the bass was everywhere. I generally don't get too excited about miniscule changes in the signature, but this was kind of ridiculous.

I got to spend the night in cable hell, and I will end this post by just saying that the Wellborne Apollos suffer somewhat with biwiring.

Could this be something particular to tube amps in general?

I have a few other thoughts about this cable thing, but I'm not ready to be flamed yet.

[leok]

Dean,

If it's any consolation, I have completely given up on bi-wiring. Also, in general, the RF-7s can be tricky .. but so far, for me, very much worth the trouble.

Moondogs arrived this eve.

leok

[JCturboT]

Dean,

Let me know if you got the Cornwall pics-I'm having trouble with my "AO-HELL" (AOL)

Jeff

[mobile homeless]

A good effort... yet what can I say? That is absolutely the last music on this planet I would pony up to do anything but fire off a round of *****....with the Journey being pull one! heh... It's amazing we can come to an agreement on most things. Journey is the band I would use as the anchor of one-liners of derision(closely followed by the horrifying REO Speedwagon). I know my musical taste doth differ from the typical but how in the Home of Satan did you come up with these choices????

Ok, I like the Moody Blues. I wont die over ole Judas Priest....I can take that... I actually went to CD Now (now sold out to pathetic Amazon losing the Media Player capability) and listened to all cuts I could off those albums. And I sat back trying to imaging what you were hearing out there.

Bust out and get some big ole vintage monoblocks and drop in some parts to bring to snuff. Who knows what you will find with those three as the only form of measure. It really isn't playing to the strengths of the amplifiers. I would use four or five CDs with different types of music to access different parts of the spectrum of reproduction. None of those records sound particularly natural nor have a lot of space between notes. Processing is high and compression deep. Why those three and only those three?

Still, I read your post twice and was trying to understand the speaker wire issue. I think I need to read it a third time.... heh. Ole Dean. Man, I wish I was down the road from you; I'd like to drop in and see what's up in that place of yours. Crazy ole dean....

kh

[JCturboT]

Kelly,

Hear what your saying about that cdnow issue.

I used to buy all my mail order music from www.musicboulvard.com which was then combined with cdnow and now Amazon has entered the picture and really screwed up things-stick with books Amazon!

Jeff

[Deang]

LOL.

Like I said. I know every note off those three CD's. When you can't do direct A/B comparisons -- you're fighting auditory memory. I've been listening to this stuff forever, I've heard it on dozens of different systems, heard it live, and used to sing and play some of it.

I was big on Greg Rolle when he was with Santana. I was doing Journey when people didn't even who the hell they were. 'Look into the Future', and 'Next' are must owns. Infinity was a tremendous effort. The problem is, we have all heard the radio cuts off of this thing so much we are sick of it. However, if you sit and listen to the whole thing through -- you gain a real appreciation for the intensity and emotion in this recording. Rolle's moving air, and Perry's splitting it. Piano, Hammond B3, and Neal Schon going completely nuts. Harmonies by Perry that chase every note off of Schon's Les Paul.

You going to CD Now to listen to clips of Judas Priest frightens me. 95% of their stuff was really bad, just plain awful. Only one recording is worth owning. 'Sad Wings of Destiny' has some mighty fine stuff on it. There is a cut in it with about 3 minutes of grand piano, and Halford actually trying to sing. Most of this recording is just riff alley, and there are some major transients on the drums and cymbal work. I've used 'Island of Domination' as a test song on every set of speakers I was even remotely considering. I listened to most of this CD on a set of Vandersteen's with a room full of people at Audio Etc. here in Dayton once. People were coming into the room with this confused, disoriented look. Maybe one of them was you? Funny thing however -- none of them would leave. After about 10 minutes, I've got 8 or 9 people standing behind me...listening. I dumped about a 100 watts of Jeff Rowland into the Vandersteens. I reduced those things to homogenized spagetti in seconds. After I turned it down, a guy remarked that he didn't understand why it sounded so different loud. I explained that the true test of a speaker -- is whether or not it maintains its signature when the music gets complex, or goes up in volume. I then threw this CD into a system with Magnepan 1.5QRs and an Adcom. I dumped the whole amp into those things before the CD was over. I wasn't the only person that walked out with set of Magnepans that day.

I'm guessing I don't listen for the same things you do.

When I'm done with all this business, I'm sending you some CD's. You may want to bolt your chair to the floor.

The cabling thing is easy. The Apollos sounded better in a single wire configuration. Biwiring produced a softening of the transients.

[TBrennan]

Whoa, so Dean is into early "psychedelic" Journey. That was a great band and Schon could go toe to toe with any guitarist and Ainsley Dunbar was a drummer of great power and precision. Later Journey was a great band too and Steve Perry was a true singer, he sang from deep in the chest with immense power and clarity. I saw both versions of Journey several times, most often at The Aragon Ballroom, and they were superb every time.

REO Speedwagon was another band whose live shows had a great deal more power and drive than their singles would indicate. They were a great live Rock and Roll band.

I was a bouncer for many years for Chicago's main rock promoter and I saw EVERYBODY from about 1973 to 1985.

[Randy Bey]

Dean,

it's early and my coffee level has too much blood in it still.

I don't know what the heck you are saying. Were you comparing amps or wiring configurations?

And what did you find?

[Deang]

Randy -- drink more coffee!

Simple, really. I wanted to use similiar cabling arrangements on both amps before I started comparing. When I single wired the Apollos, they sounded better. I ended playing with cables most of the night. I deduced that the Apollos, for some reason or another -- don't respond well to birwiring.

Tom -- Old Journey only sounds psychodelic when you're on mushrooms.

[dbflash]

But Dean cables don't make a difference.

Danny

[maxg]

You werent kidding with the confusion were you Dean. Say what???

OK - now repeat the whole exercise with the Heresy's and report back. At least there is no confusion over biwiring with Heresy's!!

As for the music choice - whatever lights your fire. I do agree, however, that performing valid assessments of any system absolutely requires the use of music and recordings you are totally familiar with. Other than that I just try to make sure it is music that reflects my tastes as far as possible. Aint no point buying a system that plays classical perfectly if you never listen to classical ...

[Deang]

Danny,

That's right, cables don't really make a difference. Usually nothing worth getting all excited about. However, with these SET amps, I've found that less is more.

[dbflash]

Dean,

That is the truth.

I have notice cables make more difference with my "little" 3.5W than when I was using 205W SS.

I will say that I have been the happiest with silver.

That is all I'm going to say about cables.

Keep up the good work. I look forward to what you have to say.

Danny

[mobile homeless]

Max, that's not the point. The point is this (and it's what troubles me about this forum a bit), people come on in here and drop recommendations and assessments of gear that are BASED ON a VERY NARROW set of criteria. I have seen this aspect in here more than a few times, almost to the point of being the norm.

It's fine to make an assessment of what YOU want and prefer, but when reviewing gear for others to get an objective take on its performance, using this narrow range of criteria (including narrow defining parameters from a small band of music to a less than comprehensive look at all the factors) will NOT bring a very good review or assessement. Yet in this forum, it carries the same weight as a comparison using a wider variety of criteria, reference points, and points of comparison.

In other words, the validity of the review becomes much more personal based and less as an overall judgement of the component.

So publishing a review in this way is actually detrimental, in my view. I am sure others will disagree as this happens in here frequently. In another thread, HDBRbuilder and I have been debating this same point. I feel that the range of comparison that floats with his judgement of "all modern gear" just does not encompass much modern gear of higher quality at all. Yet the recommendation can easily be spelled out here with nary a concern or much debate.

I think if you are going to really make an objective review, it's important to really lay out your experience, the amount of equipment you have compared it to, and the condition parameters. In Dean's corner, at least he has said the music here. But in assessing the performance of these amps, this is a VERY narrow range to judge by in order to gain a fair and overall perspective of what this gear has to offer.

kh

[Deang]

Hmmm. I hadn't really considered this.

What you say is true. My opinion only has meaning to someone with my musical taste and listening preferences.

otoh, I'm not a professional reviewer, nor do I claim to be. My library is limited to what I like to hear, and just don't own any little girl with guitar music, jazz, or classical -- and even if I did, I wouldn't have a clue how to evaluate equipment with it.

At any rate, even with my narrow, small minded range -- folks should be able to glean enough to get a general idea of what's going on. Besides, I don't ever recall Stereophile, TAS, or anyone else for that matter -- ever once using material that I'm familiar with, or listen too. As far as I concerned, their reviews are as useless to me, as mine are to you.

[mobile homeless]

This response is really surprising from you as usually you are very even here. Doesnt sound like the Dean I know. No one is calling you small minded. It's just that when you make statements about gear like "this amp is every bit as equal to amp B at under 1/3 the cost" you have to take into account the parameters and the qualities you are judging.

I personally think a lot of the dreck some of the reviewers use is also too narrow as well. Just in the other camp as many of these audiophile recordings do not encompass the full spectrum either. I think some of these recordings should be used to get an idea of what the gear can and does reveal, but other considerations must be taken as well. I have had this debate with Colin as he tends to rely on things like Diana Krall and some jazz sampler/ Stereophile test CDs to evaluate systems. I personally dont agree here either as I just dont think these type of recordings reveal some of the most important points of a system, namely how it does on music that actually embodies more than this type of sonic/music approach. While Diana Krall is fairly well recorded, her depth as a musician is not exactly up with the best. Ditto with Partricia Barber, another reviewer mainstay. I have this discs as well. But there is so much more to conveying a solid understanding of the gear then Barber, Krall, or the Stereophile test CDs.

On the other hand, what THESE type of CDs DO do, is allow you to hear into the amp/system's performance as the recordings have certain qualities that tend to reveal criteria such as imaging, soundstage, inner detail, resolution, blackness of silence between notes, spatial cues, etc. And while you might NOT have these recording, I would recommend buying them just like I did, if only to be able to assess what the reviewer is talking about. I think reviewers make a big mistake by using these sources ALONE and many do. Indeed, many actualyl LISTEN to this stuff just to hear their system. I find the music unsastisfying to say the least, probably just as much as you would depending on the recording.

But if I am talking about the peformance of a peice of gear, I will usually try to run the GAMUT of music through it from acoustic, to jazz, to rock, to poor recordings, to audiophile offerings, to my favorite music just as you have elected here. I addition, I will run the system at low volume, hight volume, as well as normal/average listening levels. I will also try to do an equal amount of vinyl as digital. As you have stated, it IS important to KNOW your recordings. On the other hand, it is just as important to know a WIDE VARIETY of recordings with varying conditions to get a balanced view. AS stated before, doing a rather narrow (in the definition of the word) scope of music will more than likely just test a narrow range of performance qualities, making overall assessment of the gear hard to deliver.

kh

[leok]

I think the information people provide from the perspectives of their music sources and listening environments is an acceptable packaging of such information (and I'm sure most people here do too .. this is more a discussion of preferences). The impressions people provide here paint a picture that becomes more clear with reviews from many different perspectives. Nobody mentions the music of Andrew Manze or Arvo Parte. But I've learned as much from impressions here as I have from Stereophile or TAS about ways to improve my system's ability to present that music. If people believe their perspectives will be valued, they will present them. Then we all get an opportunity to sort through those impressions for trends that interest each of us.

For example, I know Kelly likes the Moondogs through Cornwalls. Does that mean a SET will improve harpsichord through RF-7s. Well, it was Dean's SET experience along with Kelly's and several others' that finally convinced me. No single review could be convincing .. and no single reviewer was listening to baroque through RF-7s via pp KT66s, or Tripath, for that matter.

I did enjoy a few vinyl cuts of Journey today, having been reminded. After all of the work I've done on this system, they sure sounded nice.

leok

[Randy Bey]

Dean,

I think that someone who has popped for MIT cables believes in wire making a difference.

I don't think bi-wiring is a panacea. But if you're going to compare the amps, you should probably 'optimize' the setup for both, within reason. So single runs for the Apollo, bi-wire for the 299, given that caveat.

I don't fault people's taste in music or choice for comparisons. I had people play trance/electronica on my stereo, and others play headbanger rock, and both said they appreciated what it did for their music. Neither is my cup of tea, but to each his own.

But I would not go with snap decisions, in any event. Optimize one at a time, listen to each for a week or two, go back and forth if necessary, then let us know. You are in an enviable position.

Those Apollos are supposed to be pretty darn hard to beat. Don't know about your speakers, never heard them, but I am a true believer in matching amps to speakers.

[mobile homeless]

First of all, let me say that I agree with you(leok)here. I think everyone's opinion is valid and am not trying to say it isnt. I value dean's take and we usually have a very healthy exchange. I feel the same way for anyone here, even if I disagree.

I dont think I am saying it is not VALID to offer impressions with this perspective. It just would be more advisable to relate the impressions in this way specifying this.

Well, I happen to always want to work to better understand the equipment in various conditions and with various sources and setups. Before I say too much on the overall performance of the piece, I will have listened to acoustic jazz, classical (large and small scale), Indie Label, classic rock, pop, progressive... all with differetn presentations. In will go

Mogwai, Coltrane, Bill Evans, Guv'ner, Boards of Canada, Led Zeppelin, Cream, Hendrix, The Who, Jesus and Mary Chain, Helmet, Billie Holiday, Art Pepper, Edgar Myer, YoYo Ma, Frank Zappa, Big Black, The Kronos Quartet, Beat Happening, Sonny Rollins, Cornelius, Trans Am, Edison Denisov, Franz List, Diana Krall, Patricia Barber, Aaron Copeland, Television, Count Basie, Tom Waits, Glenn Gould, Belle & Sebastian, Nick Drake, Sun Ra, Mahler, LOIS, Mission of Burma, Robert Johnson, Matador Compilation, etc etc

This is just a random sampling of some of my music collection that I might pull out when listening and trying to get a handle on a piece of gear/system.

For example, before I ever wrote a note in here about the Moondogs, I had played them through:

- 87dB ProAc Mini Towers (but an easy load)

- Polk RT5 Monitors (Wife's monitor system)

- Fried Q4 Monitors (Transmission Line)

- Epos ES12

- Finally 77 Cornwalls

I ran them with a passive preamp and with several tube preamps I had on hand with two versions of a Cary preamp featuring 6SN7s and 6SL7s. I also ran them with a 12AU7/12AX7 and a 6922 pre. Add to that, MANY tube variations, almost too numerous to mention with over 32 NOS 6SN7 combos and RCA black plates, TJ Full Music Meshplate 300b/2.5v, Sovtek, and KR2A3 (not to mention various Mullard GZ-37/5AR4).

I tried them with all SORTS of wire combinations from home brew RS 18awg solid core to CAT 5 home brew. I used Transparent Wire, Kimber, AQ, and DIYCable Jon Risch designs.

Sources were LP-12 analog, Rega Planet, Tjoeb 99, and various subs (not to mention an Aiwa Portable).

The point is, I try to hear the gear within all sorts of combinations and music. I also think it important to listen to the system at different levels as stated above. Low level listening (and how the amp reveals nuance) is very important too. Along the way, it important to STOP LISTENING TO THE SYSTEM and just see how the music moves you...letting go completely....

In addition, I think it really important to get some long term impressions where the true nature of the gear starts to sink in. Add an understanding of your system and the reference sound, an important factor in the equation.

Do you have to go through all this to offer an opinion on the way something sounds? Of course not. But in arriving at a more informed take on the piece(s), I personally cant get a handle on it till I met most of the criteria I listed above, whether it be music or listening conditions or setup.

Still, all info and input is GOOD input if it reveals things to others that really does represent the nature of the gear/music/system.

kh

ps- Randy, I think the Apollos are probably the least SET like of the WL gear. But obviously the most flexible. Of the powerful SETs I have auditioned, the 845/211 seems to be the biggest soundstage. It just didnt have the magic of the low watt options.

[Deang]

Kelly -- I didn't mean to come off like I was offended. I was actually agreeing with you. I was just pointing out that I'm not the only one who takes the 'narrow' approach, and it seems you agree with me here. It is somewhat 'small minded' not to consider more things than I do. I suppose if I write a review, I should write something beneficial to all. I thought it ironic that I do the very thing I accuse other reviewers of -- so... 'small minded'.

I'm not the 'critical' listener I was 10 years ago. I just finally got around to figuring out what in a system I find important, and then built accordingly. I'm quite familiar with the sound of many instruments, and if something sounds 'off', I'm certainly going to mention it. I use music as therapy, and when I sit down to listen, I pretty much only care about one thing -- do the speakers disappear?

When I do listen for the purpose of sending out an opinion, I like to keep descriptions as simple as possible. BTW, I never even knew what the hell 'space between instruments', and 'blackness of backround' was -- until you came to this forum. It wasn't until I bought the first AE-25 that I actually heard a bit of what you were talking about -- so, now I can listen for it, and render an opinion. There is probably much that you hear, that I don't even notice. I'm just zoning in on a handful of very specific things. I know that if these things sound 'right' -- the speaker, amp, CD player, whatever -- will do well across the board. At least, this has been my experience so far. I'm sure you would agree that it's very difficult to peg down the exact differences between two tube amps. Just think -- I've only owned 4. I've got a very basic understanding of the differences I've heard between these amps. As far as the Scott goes, all I know is that the Scott is as musically involving as the Superamp DJH, and makes my ears every bit as happy.

Your points are well taken, I just don't know how I would go about describing equipment with music that I have no idea is supposed to sound.