Pro and Cons of adding Subs

[JoeN]

The more I’ve read about Magico M3s and subs, it seems a great number don’t use Magico subs but REL and JL Audio. They all seem very satisfied with their systems, including a few Magico dealers doing this as well.

I’m still waiting until after I purchase some new amps.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson

Well, that's a fine definition but it ain't the only one and that was my point.

Kal, I think I would enjoy knowing your personal definition of it.

For me its the most analog least digitally manipulated signal possible arriving at the speaker terminals, i.e., the purist signal path possible. In my all Mac system after the D to A conversion the signal passes through a digital volume control, no balance or tone control, fully balanced to the amps. The Wilson ActivXO electronic crossover is purely analog for a reason. We live in the age of digital manipulation of the signal and this adds audible distortion to the signal.

When you examine the M9 you will discover the lengths Magico goes to, to keep the signal analog going into it. The MXO (Magico Analog Crossover) is fully analog as is the Wilson ActivXO.

The crossover of the Q sub is an on-board digitally active electronic crossover and this represents a compromise on Magico's part. There's no way that Wilson would ever digitize a signal going into their mains or subs by means of an active electronic digital crossover.

Compromises are necessary but I have confidence with Magico that they are kept to a minimum. I'm sure that Magico has gone to great lengths to insure the fidelity (purity) of a Q-sub/M-speaker (M3, M6) system. With the M9 there is no compromise.

Now Mark has recognized all these issues and so has Legacy. I believe there are great advantages to taking a more complicated, more digitized approach or somewhere in between. Ultimately, there's no right or wrong but what satisfies your ears.

I think Joe's got a plan. I know he will achieve his dream of a great sub system in a few years.

Best,

Charles

[JoeN]

Thanks Charles. Yea I have a plan coming together. The new room won’t be cheap. If I do it, it will be over-designed for maximum impact.

I think I’ve decided to keep my present system. It’s truly a reference system and sounds absolutely amazing considering the space it sits in. And besides a little more powerful amp (which I will be ordering by next week, maybe today) and then possibly after that some subs I’ll be finished - famous last words …

The M6s for the new room are a consideration. But so are Von Schweikert Ultra 9s (possibly the 11s), Estelon Extremes, and believe it or not even the Wilson Chronosonic XVXs.

I think all these speakers are on top of the heap of good ones to audition.

It will be a journey for sure. But first the new room. This is so crucial to a setup like I’m considering. I can be content just with my present system, but after one hears what an audio system is capable of it’s difficult to get it out of your head (and ears).

I’m considering a TT only system room. TechDAS Airforce 1 Premium with SAT arms (2-3) will hopefully be one of the tables. Some other tables under consideration are the Kronos Discovery and CS Port. Others may be considered as I get closer to making a final decision.

I may add a digital setup - I’m just not sure at this point. I enjoy vinyl the most … But who knows I may try a WADAX. I don’t like their late 70’s Boombox looks (ugly IMO), but they are supposed to sound amazing. Maybe they will redesign the casing by the time I’m ready.

This is all a dream right now. But some dreams come into reality.

Originally Posted by Charles

Kal, I think I would enjoy knowing your personal definition of it.

For me its the most analog least digitally manipulated signal possible arriving at the speaker terminals, i.e., the purist signal path possible. In my all Mac system after the D to A conversion the signal passes through a digital volume control, no balance or tone control, fully balanced to the amps. The Wilson ActivXO electronic crossover is purely analog for a reason. We live in the age of digital manipulation of the signal and this adds audible distortion to the signal.

When you examine the M9 you will discover the lengths Magico goes to, to keep the signal analog going into it. The MXO (Magico Analog Crossover) is fully analog as is the Wilson ActivXO.

The crossover of the Q sub is an on-board digitally active electronic crossover and this represents a compromise on Magico's part. There's no way that Wilson would ever digitize a signal going into their mains or subs by means of an active electronic digital crossover.

Compromises are necessary but I have confidence with Magico that they are kept to a minimum. I'm sure that Magico has gone to great lengths to insure the fidelity (purity) of a Q-sub/M-speaker (M3, M6) system. With the M9 there is no compromise.

Now Mark has recognized all these issues and so has Legacy. I believe there are great advantages to taking a more complicated, more digitized approach or somewhere in between. Ultimately, there's no right or wrong but what satisfies your ears.

I think Joe's got a plan. I know he will achieve his dream of a great sub system in a few years.

Best,

Charles

[bart]

Originally Posted by JoeN

Thanks Charles. Yea I have a plan coming together. The new room won’t be cheap. If I do it, it will be over-designed for maximum impact.

I think I’ve decided to keep my present system. It’s truly a reference system and sounds absolutely amazing considering the space it sits in. And besides a little more powerful amp (which I will be ordering by next week, maybe today) and then possibly after that some subs I’ll be finished - famous last words …

The M6s for the new room are a consideration. But so are Von Schweikert Ultra 9s (possibly the 11s), Estelon Extremes, and believe it or not even the Wilson Chronosonic XVXs.

I think all these speakers are on top of the heap of good ones to audition.

It will be a journey for sure. But first the new room. This is so crucial to a setup like I’m considering. I can be content just with my present system, but after one hears what an audio system is capable of it’s difficult to get it out of your head (and ears).

I’m considering a TT only system room. TechDAS Airforce 1 Premium with SAT arms (2-3) will hopefully be one of the tables. Some other tables under consideration are the Kronos Discovery and CS Port. Others may be considered as I get closer to making a final decision.

I may add a digital setup - I’m just not sure at this point. I enjoy vinyl the most … But who knows I may try a WADAX. I don’t like their late 70’s Boombox looks (ugly IMO), but they are supposed to sound amazing. Maybe they will redesign the casing by the time I’m ready.

This is all a dream right now. But some dreams come into reality.

Come on Joe, you can do better than all that lo-fi gear you're considering!

[JoeN]

Originally Posted by bart

Come on Joe, you can do better than all than lo-fi gear you're considering!

[Kal Rubinson]

Originally Posted by Charles

Kal, I think I would enjoy knowing your personal definition of it.

Since all my music is digital sourced, my perspective is different.

For me its the most analog least digitally manipulated signal possible arriving at the speaker terminals, i.e., the purist signal path possible.

Understood.

There's no way that Wilson would ever digitize a signal going into their mains or subs by means of an active electronic digital crossover.

Agreed in principle and I, too, would avoid A/D/A conversions if possible.

However, since all music recorded in the last few decades has been recorded into a digital format, a D/A is inevitable. Vinyl/tape transfers of older content is usually, but not always, excepted.

So, keeping it within the digital domain and maintaining high resolution, one can then use DSP (without penalty) to manage things like accurate speaker crossovers and proper room/speaker integration that impose colorations on even the best of hardware. It also eases the transition to multichannel which has great advantages over stereo in every way except, of course, cost.

I think it purist to deal with these things head-on.

Ultimately, there's no right or wrong but what satisfies your ears.

Yup.

[Charles]

Kal, when I bought my digital pre D1100 (I love this piece, no analog inputs), I remarked to my dear friend at Mac that since I had no interest in vinyl, this wouldn't be a problem. Without any hesitation he informed me that the phono input immediately did an A/D conversion, so vinyl was possible. No qualifications. I laughed to myself. Why on earth would anyone go to all that trouble only to immediately digitize the vinyl?

I think this (and you) make an excellent point. Virtually "everything" is digitized. No way around it. I think your definition of "purist" is manipulation of the already digital signal in the best (purist) digital way possible. This means judicious both passive and digital room treatments and multiple subs (if needed) and whatever else can improve sound quality using the digital domain. I think most audiophiles take this approach.

I march to the beat of a different drummer, while recognizing that everything you have pointed out is 100% correct. I believe the most analog (purist) signal path possible with passive room treatments, yields superior sonics but I also believe I am in a minority.

I think Joe has made the correct decision to improve his amps and not change another thing at this point in time.

Best

Charles

[Kal Rubinson]

Originally Posted by Charles

I think this (and you) make an excellent point. Virtually "everything" is digitized. No way around it. I think your definition of "purist" is manipulation of the already digital signal in the best (purist) digital way possible. This means judicious both passive and digital room treatments and multiple subs (if needed) and whatever else can improve sound quality using the digital domain. I think most audiophiles take this approach.

.....except for the implementation of multichannel, something not practical in pure analog.

I march to the beat of a different drummer, while recognizing that everything you have pointed out is 100% correct. I believe the most analog (purist) signal path possible with passive room treatments, yields superior sonics but I also believe I am in a minority.

Agreed although you are not always in the minority.

[Charles]

Kal, there you have it and on this point we don't necessarily have a disagreement but a point that needs be made. Although, what you have said about most vinyl and tape being digital is valid, I grew up in the age of monaural. I remember as a kid the first stereo vinyl record I ever heard: South Pacific. In those days stereo was a huge phenomena.

It's amazing how stereo has held up over the course of 60 years. Even today all CD's, SACD's, recordings you can download from HD tracks and streaming, are all stereo. Movie sound tracks are stereo, just as was South Pacific 65 years ago on my father's dinning room table.

I desire to reproduce the signal imbedded on the CD or SACD existing in stereo, stereophonically, in the most analog "purist" signal path possible. I think the high end as I define high end, remains stereo, not multichannel.

When I listen to a DVD/BR movie or concert it is downmixed to stereo. The major high end mags (Stereophile and TAS), take the exact same approach that I do: stereophonic reproduction maintaining the simplest most analog signal path. possible.

I have a good friend who is really into the high end. I think he has a two channel system but I know he has a multichannel system also. He comes over frequently to listen to my system in order to make his system sound like mine. This has been going on for several years. We have a lot of fun because we talk endlessly. For me, it's the sound your ears like but I know deep down that nothing can match a superb 2 channel system like Joe's. Once you have heard a high powered, tremendous dynamic range, maximum resolution, extremely low distortion 10Hz-30kHz 2-channel system, it's difficult to switch to multichannel or employ active room equalization. I would never employ it.

The thing that intrigues me so much about Mark's system (SCAudiophile) is the way he a woven/created a stereo system that employs the very best of what would be an anathema to me. I would greatly enjoy hearing his system. I am sure it sounds amazing. But I still believe that nothing can match the kind of system I have or the kind of system Joe has, but I could be wrong. This is why the high end is so much fun.

In my system there is no HP. The amazing property of Big Wilson's is that they sound much better run this way. When and if Joe employ's subs he must employ a HP and the quality of the built in electronic crossover will in almost all cases significantly degrade the signal path. Why? You are taking a 94K Magico and superb ancillary gear and running it through what will be an inferior electronic digital crossover. There is no connection between my Thor and my XVX.

I believe Magico has employed electronic digital subwoofer crossovers into their Q-subs commensurate in quality to their M-Class speakers, the exception being the M9 which employs an all analog active crossover as also does the Wilson ActivXO.

Best

Charles

__________________________________________________ _
Charles Updated System: Wilson McIntosh Audioquest
New gear on order:
Most recent updates: Latest is the last one posted: AQ Diamond USB replaces AQ Coffee; Wilson Audio Specialties Alexx replaced by Wilson Audio Specialties XVX Chronosonic; new subwoofer crossover; new Galaxy Grey Thors Hammer; Wilson Pedestals; heating and cooling completely reworked and reinsulated resulting in a much quieter, cooler, and more efficient room (cost about 10,000.00). McIntosh MCT 500 SACD/CD transport; Wilson Audio Acoustic Diode for XVX Chronosonic; WEL Signature digital Coaxial cable for MVP 881/D1100 digital connection replacing the optical connection; New plinth for Thor subwoofer made of X material with the Wilson Acoustic Diodes; Thor is now off my floor; MC3500MKII mono block amps (2) and two custom granite slabs; Wilson ActivXO Stereo Electronic Crossover; new 75-ohm multi-directional FM antenna for tuner
Amps: McIntosh MC3500MKII mono blocks (2), McIntosh MC1.25KW’s (3). All amps set on floor on custom made granite slabs
Preamp and DAC: McIntosh D1100
Sources: McIntosh MCT500 SACD/CD Transport, MVP881 BR player, MVP851 DVD player, MR87 tuner, Marantz 510LV Laser Disc player, ASUS laptop USB (JRiver Media Center 23)
Speakers: Wilson Audio Specialties XVX Chronosonic; custom made Wilson Acoustic Diodes
Sub-woofer: Wilson Audio Specialties Thor’s Hammer (1) horizontal lie; custom plinth of X material with Wilson Acoustic Diode feet; Wilson ActivXO Stereo Electronic Crossover
Cables main system: Audioquest WEL Signature speaker cables and balanced IC (preamp to amps); WEL Signature AES/EBU balanced digital IC for CD playback; WEL Signature digital coaxial cable for MVP 881/D1100 digital connection; Audioquest Diamond optical (1) for tuner, (1) for MVP 851 DVD player, and (1) for LD player for total of (3); Audioquest Diamond USB cable; McIntosh MCT cable for SACD playback; Dragon power cords (5 HC cords and 3 source cords for total of 8); Thunder HC power cord for MR87 tuner
Cables subwoofer system: Audioquest Redwood speaker cable (1); Wolf balanced subwoofer IC from ActivXO crossover to amp; Wind balanced IC from preamp to ActivXO; Hurricane HC (2) and Dragon HC (1) power cords
Power conditioners: Audioquest Niagara 7000 (1) and Niagara 5000 (3); (4) dedicated 20-amp lines with no. 10 wire straight out of fuse box
Isolation: Wilson Pedestals for D1100; MVP881 BR player; MCT500 transport; MR87 tuner; plinth for Thor subwoofer made of X material with the Wilson Acoustic Diodes
Cabinet: Double Custom Woodwork & Design (CWD) solid walnut cabinet on large casters; holds all sources and preamp; also, Niagara 7000; 11 feet minimum distance from speakers
Acoustic Treatments: Room and Echo Tunes
AC: Dedicated to this room only, an ultra-high efficiency and quiet recently installed Ruud split system 3-ton heat pump.

[Kal Rubinson]

Originally Posted by Charles

Kal, there you have it and on this point we don't necessarily have a disagreement but a point that needs be made. Although, what you have said about most vinyl and tape being digital is valid, I grew up in the age of monaural. I remember as a kid the first stereo vinyl record I ever heard: South Pacific. In those days stereo was a huge phenomena.

I grew up in a household with only AM radio and 78rpm records so I recall the revelations of, first, LPs and, later, stereo.

It's amazing how stereo has held up over the course of 60 years. Even today all CD's, SACD's, recordings you can download from HD tracks and streaming, are all stereo. Movie sound tracks are stereo, just as was South Pacific 65 years ago on my father's dinning room table.
I desire to reproduce the signal imbedded on the CD or SACD existing in stereo, stereophonically, in the most analog "purist" signal path possible. I think the high end as I define high end, remains stereo, not multichannel.

Understood but, let me point out the obvious. That's all you had. The original experiments that preceded the availability two-channel stereo indicated that the fewest number of channels for achieving the intended effect was three! The only reason we had to settle for two is that there was no technology available at the time to deliver more than two channels. It was a known compromise.

I have a good friend who is really into the high end. I think he has a two channel system but I know he has a multichannel system also. He comes over frequently to listen to my system in order to make his system sound like mine. This has been going on for several years. We have a lot of fun because we talk endlessly. For me, it's the sound your ears like but I know deep down that nothing can match a superb 2 channel system like Joe's.
Once you have heard a high powered, tremendous dynamic range, maximum resolution, extremely low distortion 10Hz-30kHz 2-channel system, it's difficult to switch to multichannel or employ active room equalization. I would never employ it.

The thing that intrigues me so much about Mark's system (SCAudiophile) is the way he a woven/created a stereo system that employs the very best of what would be an anathema to me. I would greatly enjoy hearing his system. I am sure it sounds amazing. But I still believe that nothing can match the kind of system I have or the kind of system Joe has, but I could be wrong.

I cannot argue with your preferences or your beliefs but I do not share them. Moreover, I know of no way to create a situation to test you or me. All I can say is that my experience leads me (as yours does you).

.................................................. ..........
FWIW, the best Wilson demo experience I've heard was, in fact, a 4.0 system with WAMM Master Chronosonics and dual Thor's Hammers. Frankly, I have no knowledge of how the bass management was handled but this was an all-digital system.