Equipment Matching

[Electricboogaloo]

When I began to invest more in my audiophile passion I was romanced by the warm and sweet sound of McIntosh. For 20 years I nurtured the warm musicality with Sonus Faber and Koetsu. As I possessed so many mediocre recordings, the forgiving nature of these brands was marvelous. Fast forward and my record collection has become largely audiophile quality. I decided to tinker with my system and add some more detailed and energetic components. This has been a wonderfully delightful exercise in matching…..I was a bit nervous as I settled on 3 different brands of amplification across phone amp, pre, amp…..and added a far more detailed cartridge. Certainly not stating that is have upgraded but more changed out components. But, for the moment, the new energy is satisfying. This was an extreme makeover. It did help me to be less conservative in equipment matching….and I do feel closer to the music.

[Charles]

Your post is very thought provoking. The boulder amp is a very nice amp, SS, and among the best on the market. I am assuming that you bought it to achieve more detail and improved overall sound in your system. Also sometimes folks just want a change.

I chose a different route. I chose very expensive AQ solid silver Wel Signature for all my connections and Dragon power cords for my McIntosh. My 24' Wel balanced IC's were 28K when I bought them. They are much more expensive now and they make a huge difference in the amount of detail. I had previously been using copper. I can't imagine having more detail in my system. With my 3500's the presentation is neutral, neither forward or recessed. The bass is simply amazing. There are many ways to improve on the basic Mac sweet sound. I have Wilson Pedestals under all my electronics, for example.

I'm a believer in sound signatures. However, many are not believers, especially those with the money for a no holds barred system, similar to the one you have. I use the sound signature approach to keep my costs under control and to ensure compatibility, which I think is very important. I love the basic sound of McIntosh, but desire to improve on it as much as possible. I'm at an endpoint with my system. Mac has chosen a different route with their new C-12000 pre and MCD12000 DAC. I won't be replacing my D1100 and MCT500 because I'm not interested in vinyl and I'm not going to jump Mac at this point in my life.

Now I'm not going to ever say never, but I have never been one to throw money away just because I have it to spend, which I do. My XVX is an end of journey speaker as is my AQ gear. Folks laugh when they say my XVX is the single most cost effective gear I have bought, but it's true, because I will never buy another speaker.

I think your post is thought provoking. I hope that someone else might discuss their philosophy in approaching the high end. I think many may not have an approach which can lead to constant dissatisfaction and frustration.

Post some pics of your system, if you can.

Best

Charles

[PeterMusic]

Yes, one of the most thought provoking posts in quite some time.

I am very curious about your Bartok compared to analog with both your old and new amps. I would guess the Bartok has the edge in "detail and energy", but analog the edge in "warm musicality". Do you miss the old amps when playing digital? Also, how about when playing older LPs? Thanks

[Charles]

It's fun to fantasize spending other's money. In order to maximize your sound I would go with the Boulder 1108 phono pre and 1110 line pre. Add a couple of REL Reference subs for ultimate LF extension. Now that would be a system for the ages!

Best

Charles

[George Prentice]

Thank you for sharing your journey. Mine has been over a period of fifty years. Early on scraping together the best used equipment I could. My system would occationally venture too far to the detailed and harsh side. I learned to walk the line. I have always loved the look of MacIntosh and every five years went in with the intent to buy a piece. That would be dashed in seconds by the lack of detail. Great muscle equipment. I completely understand the kind of person that would want to own it.

I have owned Threshold, Pass amps and preamps primarily. Over time each time I would acquire an Audio Research piece of equipment, it would stick and that slot would become ARC then upgraded. The first was my phono stage 35 years ago. Then my preamp became ARC. I had SIM Moon, and VPI for a decade or two. Then over the last few years I switched my amp to ARC and finally my DAC. The last two were so synergistic I was simply shocked. The system I have now sounds exactly what I have wanted my system to sound like for the last couple decades (as I learn enough to know what I really wanted). I use a Koetsu Rosewood Signature… btw.

So, I got here from heterogeneous components. High end companies have house sounds… Mac, B&W, Boulder, ARC, Pass has two… etc. My theory is that typically if you are in alignment with the house sound of a company (ARC and I have been on the same trajectory since the beginning) then the same company’s components are typically going to bring significant synergy.

My way of explaining it to myself… I have no idea if this is true. Assume component one is a tad warm (could be many different parameters), the second cool (so there is a little subtraction), the third a bit warm (additional subtraction). But all the components of a single company are tuned the same… no subtraction.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by George Prentice

Thank you for sharing your journey. Mine has been over a period of fifty years. Early on scraping together the best used equipment I could. My system would occationally venture too far to the detailed and harsh side. I learned to walk the line. I have always loved the look of MacIntosh and every five years went in with the intent to buy a piece. That would be dashed in seconds by the lack of detail. Great muscle equipment. I completely understand the kind of person that would want to own it.

I have owned Threshold, Pass amps and preamps primarily. Over time each time I would acquire an Audio Research piece of equipment, it would stick and that slot would become ARC then upgraded. The first was my phono stage 35 years ago. Then my preamp became ARC. I had SIM Moon, and VPI for a decade or two. Then over the last few years I switched my amp to ARC and finally my DAC. The last two were so synergistic I was simply shocked. The system I have now sounds exactly what I have wanted my system to sound like for the last couple decades (as I learn enough to know what I really wanted). I use a Koetsu Rosewood Signature… btw.

So, I got here from heterogeneous components. High end companies have house sounds… Mac, B&W, Boulder, ARC, Pass has two… etc. My theory is that typically if you are in alignment with the house sound of a company (ARC and I have been on the same trajectory since the beginning) then the same company’s components are typically going to bring significant synergy.

My way of explaining it to myself… I have no idea if this is true. Assume component one is a tad warm (could be many different parameters), the second cool (so there is a little subtraction), the third a bit warm (additional subtraction). But all the components of a single company are tuned the same… no subtraction.

George, your comment concerning McIntosh is typical of the ARC owner that pans McIntosh. I tried very humbly to correct the incorrect impression that Mac is "sweet" and lacking in detail. There is nothing sweet or lacking in detail about my system. If you go to Hi Fi Buys in Nashville you will discover a 350K XVX identical to mine (same color) driven by 1.25KW mono blocks and a C-12000 pre/MCD12000 DAC.

"I was gobsmacked by this $100,000+ McIntosh/Sonus Faber system" which is Steve Guttenberg's summed up comment. The gear he was referring to was as follows: C-1100 pre/MC901 mono amps/ D1100 digital pre & DAC/ MCT500 SACD transport/Sonus Faber Cremonese speakers. I use 3500's and 1.25 KW's for my power amps, see my signature below.

One of his impressions was the tremendous resolution/detail the system provided as well as the tremendous dynamic range. Another impression concerned correcting the misconception that Mac tubes were soft or sweet sounding.

I can tell anyone reading this thread that Mac tube power amps have tremendous bass and a very neutral midrange and treble with excellent resolution. I like the 3500 mid and treble slightly better than the 1.25KW but it is the bass that I really prefer over the 1.25. It is the upper bass where the 3500 will exceed any power amp available today, IMO. Notice I did not say "blow away" and the 3500 has its limits with the XVX. The other night I was listening to Wilson Picket "Knock on Wood" in the James Taylor DVD "Pull Over". Because the sound is so clean there is this tendency I have late at night after skating to keep turning it up. The bass impact was incredible, and I just keep wanting more. My right channel shut down. I turned the 3500 off and waited about 2 minutes and reduced the volume a couple of clicks. This would not have happened with my 1.25's.

I can tell you from personal experience (not a few seconds in a dealership setup to sell ARC) that there is nothing sweet sounding concerning my 3500's or my system or the very similar system currently on display at Hi Fi Buys. It is a very musical highly resolved system with unlimited dynamic range. My system is neutral and highly resolving in the extreme. It is also very relaxed. There is zero dynamic compression. Your system will not approach that of a live performance. After it reaches its dynamic limit, it begins to sound harsh or compressed. An XVX will produce 114 dB at 24 Hz with 1.5% harmonic distortion. It is -3 dB at 15 Hz. At even extreme levels like live performances the distortion is completely inaudible. At even truly extreme bass levels it is difficult to see the woofers even have the slightest movement/excursion. I have never seen a speaker with woofers like the XVX in this regard.

When the Alexx V arrived with the new tweeter, I asked Wilson which had the better treble. "Not even in the same league as the XVX," was the reply. I can tell anyone reading this thread that with McIntosh reference gear in a system like mine or at Hi Fi Buys in Nashville, McIntosh is competitive with ARC or Boulder or Dag or Accuphase, etc. I personally would not swap my 3500's for any power amp currently on the market.

Respectfully,

Charles

[George Prentice]

Charles thanks for your thoughtful comments. I’m not sure you will be able to “correct impressions”. They are just that and they come based on our values. Audio Research folks have different values than folks that love Macintosh. As I said, I completely understand why folks would want to own it, but it is different… I have said that when I owned Pass, and Sim Audio, and other brands. Both companies (back to ARC and Mac) have a “vision” of what great sound quality is. They are different. I bring it up, not to denigrate the company or equipment, but to point out the rather large difference in sound quality I perceive versus some of the other companies.

[RetiredMike]

Originally Posted by George Prentice

Charles thanks for your thoughtful comments. I’m not sure you will be able to “correct impressions”. They are just that and they come based on our values. Audio Research folks have different values than folks that love Macintosh. As I said, I completely understand why folks would want to own it, but it is different… I have said that when I owned Pass, and Sim Audio, and other brands. Both companies (back to ARC and Mac) have a “vision” of what great sound quality is. They are different. I bring it up, not to denigrate the company or equipment, but to point out the rather large difference in sound quality I perceive versus some of the other companies.

There wouldn’t be the wonderfully wide variety of hi-end gear available if companies had the same sound. I am a solid-state integrated amp kind of guy. I started out with a Krell integrated amp (300r) which was wonderful but a little over-analytical (edgy). I went from the Krell to a Mac (6600) I also really enjoyed the Mac which was romantic, lush, and wrapped warm arms around you with a slightly emphasized mid-range (the Mac sound). I enjoyed the Mac as much as the Krell…which was a lot. I then went with a Simaudio 700i. This was the perfect balance for me, and I think Simaudio is the brand I will stay with for quite a while.

I won’t go back to Mac or Krell, but I certainly understand why people purchase and enjoy them!! Different strokes for different folks.

[Electricboogaloo]

Thank you all for jumping in on this chain. For me, change is fun as long as it is not worse! I do find that many systems lean completely 1 way or completely the other. I had Koetsu, Mac and Sonus Faber all lean warm….I also see a lot of Boulder, Wilson, Ortofon….all leaning detailed or neutral. I don’t see a lot of systems that take some warm stuff and mix it with revealing stuff. I ak not passing judgment as to which is better…if the sound moves you, that is the goal. Just observations. I have been trying mix sonic signatures simply for kicks and pursuit of more persuasive sound of course. The Boulder Amp was a seismic change from my Mac 601s. Not just tighter bass but more energy and life around every sound. And the Ortofon was a seismic change from my Koetsu…far more detail! The Pass amp is more transparent than my Mac2300 but I wouldn’t call the change seismic to my ears.

I do play “vinyl or stream” with friends and all of us get it wrong now and then…the dCS is remarkable. When we do an A/B it is more obvious but when I just play a song without comparison, it can be tricky! The Ortofon has more bass, more depth, more dynamics, the dCS is silky smooth and has incredible sound stage. They are both extremely detailed. I prefer the Ortofon…..im still not done tinkering!

[Electricboogaloo]

Charles, your matching using interconnects and tweaks sounds fascinating! So incredible to be able to hone sound in this way! I will post pics!