Nuforce 9's, "The Absolute Sound" & Class D Am
Audiophile Realist -- Tue, 12/26/2006 - 10:08
I was just doing a magazine clearout and picked up issue 160, which contains the 2005 Product of the year awards. I noticed in these pages that the Amp winner was none other than the Nuforce Class D amps. To my recollection, the Nuforce amps got trashed by HiFi+. Going back to the Class D survey, I also recalled how there seemed to be a consensus that Class D amps simply had not arrived. Flipping back to see if the Nuforce amps were in the survey you find to diametrically opposed opinions on these amps. Martins thinks they are reference quality, while Garcia thinks they are total garbage. All of which leads me to ask a simple question...
How did the Nuforce amps get chosen for product of the year in the first place, when so many editors think that the technology is an affront to the absolute sound?
I'd like to read feedback on how two editors from the same magazine heralding a singular standard have such dramatically different opinions on a single product.
The singular standard isn't one dimensional. Not even close.
tmartin wrote:The singular standard isn't one dimensional. Not even close.
Can you elaborate on that? I thought the objective of TAS was to have the system best emulate what real instruments sound like. I'm not too fussed by this mind you, because my primary concern is with the talent of the artist and later the fidelity of the playback equipment. I do think that if the magazine's standard is not one dimensional (doesn't have to sound exactly like music), then the notion of the Absolute sound needs to be something that speaks to the multiple dimensions of listening enjoyment. That is, if it is totally fine if a listener finds certain sonic signatures to be pleasing, then TAS should drop the pretense.
What doesn't at all add up though is how this product was given the magazine's Product of the Year award. In the scope of multiple dimensions there should be some kind of common thread through the different sonic signatures. But what we have here are entirely different opinions on key attributes. One reviewer proclaims extraordinary resolution and transparency while the other reviewer directly and emphatically contradicts just about anything positive that could be said about the Nuforce.
Basically one reviewer thinks it deserves product of the year while another won't touch it with a ten foot pole. It's not as simple as saying that one product sounds better than the other. This is more like one product does the job in spades while the other doesn't do the job at all. Frankly, I can't rationalize the two views, so I continue to ask just how did the Nuforce get the Product of the Year Award when so many reviewers look poorly on Class D amps.
Certainly the idea behind The Absolute Sound is that live, preferably unamplified, music (i.e. the absolute sound) is a useful reference in judging the quality of hi-fi components. To say that live music is a useful reference is not the same as saying that specific components will often (or ever) duplicate the sound of live music. Since components will generally fall short of the sound of live music, it makes sense that they could fall short in different ways. The primary task of The Absolute Sound is to describe the ways in which components come close to, and fall short of, the sound of live music. Of course reviewers have opinions (value judgements) about how important are the approximations and shortfalls of a given piece of equipment. These opinions will vary due to taste, musical preferences, and listening environment. I believe these opinions are useful, particularly in a comparative context, as they should signal the reader that there are different possible responses to the signature of a piece of equipment, and that should encourage a further exploration of exactly why that might be and how it might fit with the reader's view.
It may also help to address the questions of the nuForce amps and class D amplification that you raise:
1. The nuForce amps were given a Product of the Year award because they offer exceptional value and represent a breakthrough of sorts in moderately priced amplification. This is not the same as saying they are perfect (that multi-dimensional thing again).
2. Some reviewers have criticized the nuForce amps when they are compared to the best available amplifiers. This is a level of scrutiny generally not applied to sub-$3000 amps. I think some of this criticism would hold using different references, but the color of the commentary would shift.
3. I think it is clear from reading TAS (and my own extensive listening) that class D amps vary more than conventional transistor amps in treble reproduction. This accounts for a key variation in views on class D amps.
4. I think the merits of class D in mid-range and bass reproduction have probably been masked by the debate about treble performance. But let is be said: for the money, class D amps are exceptionally transparent in the bass and mid-range. The reference equipment and value orientation used as context by reviewers matter a lot in this area.
5. I would summarize the views of the TAS/HiFi+ reviewers as follows:
See consistent problems with class D: Valin, Garcia, Gregory
See significant merit in class D: Harley, Martens, Gader, Martin
Per my comments above, it is perhaps instructive that the "merit" camp generally focuses on less expensive equipment than the "problem" camp.
In the end, one cannot simply read the summary statements and one cannot expect complex technological phenomena to have neat and clean characteristics. Or, one can, but that is a distortion of the intended use of the material.
Thanks a lot for your comments. They certainly do clarify things a great deal. As a reader of TAS, it is difficult to read the very harsh criticism of class D amps, espcially with the Nuforce, without questioning whether or not the problem is with language and perspective. It would appear that one man's inch is another man's chasm (eg the hyperbole [my view] over the Minis).
I can certainly buy your argument that the Nuforce won product of the year for what it does for the money. And I can certainly understand the disappointment some reviewers would have with them if they see anything other than reference quality as being as horrible as Garcia describes the Nuforce. The problem with language is that you don't hear Garcia qualifying the quality of the Nuforce against cost-no-object reference gear. When I read his comments, along with Valin's it sounds like the Nuforce and others are bad regardless of price.
Perhaps readers would be able to get a better grasp of the contradictory remarks if the con-reviewers commented further on what these amps are able to achieve. For example, do the perform better than or are comparable to all but the very best out there? Or, are there heinous flaws that simply cannot be excused no matter how low they are priced? I hope that Garcia, Valin and Gregory chime in here, because as it stands it seems like these amps will impress those who purchase less expensive (read lower performance) gear. To be more direct, my question would be should others who have no interest in spending $20k, $40k, $50k for an amp be strongly considering amps like the Nuforce instead of many others in the less than obsecenely priced range (say $10k)? Or are the transparency issues that Garcia laments absolute deal-breakers?
I do think one man's inch is another man's chasm in a lot of this. That said, let me make three more observations about the nuForces:
1. If accurate treble reproduction is absolutely fundamentally important to you (ie you hear chasm-esque differences between amps here), there are probably a few better choices than the nuForces in their price range.
2. If you are the kind of listener who absolutely detests any form of treble "brightness", the nuForces probably are not for you.
3. This view must be tempered by the ancillary equipment you are using. That is to say, if you are using moderately priced to fairly expensive (e.g. $2k to $8k) speakers the nuForce treble may be less of a problem than some TAS reviewers would indicate. The point here is that some of the more critical TAS reviewers are not only comparing the nuForces to pretty pricey amp but they are listening in systems that have very transparent treble. This tends to change one's view a lot.
This doesn't explain Garcia flatly proclaiming that the Nuforce is not transparent. I'm comfortable with "not as transparent as the $20k ARC 201s". But that is not what he wrote. Valin takes much the same angle.
I hate attaching price to sound quality, because I think that far too much of hi-fi is based on psychological or aspirational views as opposed to objective criteria. It would have been so much better to have had an amplifier survey where the reviewers had no idea which amp they were listening to (sigh). As it stands, there are a far more reviews out there that are highly enthusiastic of the Nuforce than there are reviews that are against them. I also don't exactly feel confident in TAS when only one side of the argument takes the effort to comment on something so controversial. Garcia and Valin's silence here is quite interesting to say the least!
I think my overview suggests where the explanation of Garcia's view of the nuForce amps lies. That is, the nuForces, along with many other class D amps have "different" treble. In the case of the nuForces, I would say that the initial part of treble transients is slightly emphasized relative to many other amps. If one has speakers (or other components) that also emphasize treble transients the combination could be glassy and lack transparency and dimensionality, which is Garcia's observation. This happens because low level treble transients contain a lot of harmonic and soundstaging cues. On the other hand, if one uses components in combination with the nuForce amps that emphasize treble transients a little less, the combination may work better. It is very hard to determine which specific component is "correct", so I read Garcia's comments as being clearly qualified as applying to his experience with the amps in his system.
As for Garcia and Valin's "silence", they, along with much of the rest of the country, may be on vacation this week.
As for associating price with sound quality, I would encourage caution. But, in the case of speakers, it is undoubtedly true that Beryllium and Diamond tweeters are generally only available above a certain price. Those tweeters, in my experience, have different treble transient behavior than traditional soft dome tweeters.
First, since you are a self-proclaimed “reader of TAS,” TAR, I would’ve thought that you might have noticed that I did not review the NuForce amp. Garcia, Harley, and Martens did, and, like the three bears, they found it hot, cold, and just right. I have never commented on it because I’ve never heard it in my home. Second, far from exclusively comparing all Class D/T amps to the ARC Ref 210, in Issue 168 I compare them (and the Rowland 201 in particular) to the $2k Class AB Parasound A21. I also, as I've repeatedly said, compared them to the sound of live music. I guess you haven't seen the article, though "as a reader of TAS" I would've thought you might have. Third, I did not trash every Class D amp I’ve heard (“When I read [Garcia’s] comments, along with Valin's it sounds like the NuForce and others are bad regardless of price”)—I very much like the Kharma MP150 (and so did Garcia) and have said so repeatedly. I also found things to like about the Rowland 201.
Elsewhere, you bemoan the fact that we do not customarily conduct measurements at TAS. And yet...and yet. When I, uncustomarily, printed the frequency-response plot of the MAGICO Minis—the best-measuring speakers I have ever tested (the Grand Prix Award winner two years running in Japan's prestigious Stereo Sound, a magazine strongly biased toward tests and measurements), speakers that Mssrs. Harley, Pearson, and just about everybody else who auditioned them at CES raved about without seeing my test results—you dismissed the Minis, sight unseen and sound unheard.
One man's inch, indeed.
BTW, I find it kind of curious and borderline amusing how you talk out of both sides of your mouth when it comes to “reference quality” amps versus Class D amps. Not so long ago, you were the guy who was preaching that virtually anything above a certain price point was, ipso facto (BTW, that’s Latin for “as a result of a particular fact”—in this case, price), a boondoggle. At least, that was the tune you were playing when you originally came on line. Now, suddenly, it is unreasonable for us to compare Class D to “reference quality” amplifiers that cost a lot, presumably because the reference quality amps are so much better-sounding than more “affordable” equipment that the comparison is patently unfair. Well, which is it? Is the whole high-priced high end, or almost all of it, a case of the emperor's new clothes, as you previously maintained? Or do some items that cost more—often a lot more—actually sound a lot better than some items that cost less?
BTW, if you think that "some reviewers ...see anything other than reference quality as being…horrible,” then how come I liked the Parasound A21 well enough to say that "I could live with it...in a system that costs fifty times what it does"?
I disagree - we know what a bright sounding amp component sounds like. If the treble were merely emphasised, I would expect the commentary to describe the amps as being bright or forward. To me Garcia does not appear to be describing an emphasis, which would actually be more revealing of transient detail due to the lack of a flat frequency response. He is flatly saying that it is not transparent, which would actually describe a factor of distortion. "False clarity" is what he describes, which is the antithesis of higher resolution. In one sense it would be playing a note as recorded, but at a higher volume (emphasis). In the other sense it would be changing or eliminating a note (lack of transparency). One would be akin to using a magnifying glass (emphasis), whereas the other is akin to smearing vaseline over a lens (distortion). Harley proclaims that acoustic instruments sound like synthesizers.
Valin is even more descriptive by saying that details in the treble simple get lost. When he says that orchestral bells sound like door bells, that would not be emphasis. That would be distortion. He even states that "class D amps are not yet a legitimate high-end amplification alternative." Again, is the magnitude of this problem these gentlemen describe lacking context? As they have left it, one would think that they would choose class A or A/B in just about all cases before choosing class D. Which of course brings us back to the unanswered question of how did a product that is not yet a legitimate high-end amplification alternative even remotely considered for Amp of the Year.
Our Products of the Year Awards are consensus picks, and there is often a good deal of give and take about a given selection (we don't always agree on specific picks, although sometimes a choice is a slam-dunk). In 2005, when the award you are referring to was given out, several of our editors had auditioned the NuForce at great length--and truly loved it. Many of the rest of us had only a passing acquaintance with it at shows. (Though this may shock you, TAR, no one on our staff has lived with every product that is nominated for our Awards. We rely, perforce, on the acumen of those who know a worthy contender best and feel most strongly that it is deserving. ) On the basis of the very strong approval of those who were most familiar with the NuForce amp, we decided to give it our award. Subsequent controversy notwithstanding, at the time it was a reasonable choice.
jvalin wrote:First, since you are a self-proclaimed “reader of TAS,” TAR, I would’ve thought that you might have noticed that I did not review the NuForce amp. Garcia, Harley, and Martens did, and, like the three bears, they found it hot, cold, and just right. I have never commented on it because I’ve never heard it in my home. Second, far from exclusively comparing all Class D/T amps to the ARC Ref 210, in Issue 168 I compare them (and the Rowland 201 in particular) to the $2k Class AB Parasound A21. I guess you haven't seen the article, though "as a reader of TAS" I would've thought you might have.
Sigh. Must you always get offended at being questioned? It hardly matters that you specifically reviewed the Nuforce, when you concluded that, "class D amps are not yet a legitimate high-end amplification alternative." I also never said that you exclusively compared class D to the ARC 210. I merely questioned if an inch of a difference to one person might be written as a mile of a difference.
Quote:Elsewhere, you bemoan the fact that we do not customarily conduct measurements at TAS. And yet...and yet. When I, uncustomarily, printed the frequency-response plot of the MAGICO Minis—the best-measuring speakers I have ever tested (the Grand Prix Award winner two years running in Japan's prestigious Stereo Sound, a magazine strongly biased toward tests and measurements), speakers that Mssrs. Harley, Pearson, and just about everybody else who auditioned them at CES raved about without seeing my test results—you dismissed the Minis, sight unseen and sound unheard.
You will not find any argument made by me that a product's absolute value is determined by how it measures. The only point I made is that without measurements we are left with nothing more than anecdotes. For a magazine that seems to be so dead set against measures, I thought it hypocritical that measurements were used to justify the Mini (same thing with the weight argument made on the Mini, amazingly enough, but I digress).
Case in point when discussing the treble issue on digital amps. TAS has done absolutely nothing to look deeper into the issue of the treble "problem" with class D amps. A reader cannot glean anything consistent about high frequency response or distortion from these amps. All we have is one guy saying that the (Nuforce) amps are wonderfully transparent, while another is saying that it is not transparent at all. If I had two doctors arguing over whether or not my leg was broken, I would hope that they would be open to the idea of using an X-ray to see if they might be able to get a better idea of what is wrong. Here we have a magazine where an amp received product of the year, when the technology it is based on has been condemned by some of the mag's most senior reviewers.
Quote:One man's inch, indeed.
BTW, I find it kind of curious and borderline amusing how you talk out of both sides of your mouth when it comes to “reference quality” amps versus Class D amps. Not so long ago, you were the guy who was preaching that virtually anything above a certain price point was, ipso facto (BTW, that’s Latin for “as a result of a particular fact”—in this case, price), a boondoggle. At least, that was the tune you were playing when you originally came on line. Now, suddenly, it is unreasonable for us to compare Class D to “reference quality” amplifiers that cost a lot, presumably because the reference quality amps are so much better-sounding than more “affordable” equipment that the comparison is patently unfair. Well, which is it?
:roll: Uh, where did I say that it is unreasonable to compare class D to reference quality? I merely wanted to know if the harsh criticism needed to be tempered, or if Class D was fundamentally flawed. Further, asking how Class D performs compared to "reference quality" products has nothing to do with my price tolerance and perception of rapidly diminishing returns as you reach the stratosphere of high end. If the upper price range of amps was $5k instead of $250k (Wavac), I would still want to know what separates these amps and the very best performers out there. As one can plainly see, I am not talking out of both sides of my mouth.
Quote:Is the whole high-priced high end, or almost all of it, a case of the emperor's new clothes, as you previously maintained? Or do some items that cost more—often a lot more—actually sound a lot better than some items that cost less?
:roll: I believe that most ultra high end goods are priced at extreme levels due to poor economies of scale, or because someone is trying to sell the audiophile equivalent of a Rolex watch. Given this, I do not believe that performance is dramatically increased the further you go beyond a certain price point. For speakers in particular, I believe that performance returns diminish rapidly around the $10k-$15k mark. My inch, your mile. I say this emphasising the point that I paid for my hi-fi out of my own pocket, whereas you pay zippo for the privilege. As to my point in the other thread, I most certainly do believe that your mile would shrink closer to an inch if you were spending $20k of your own cash for an amplifier. And the relevance to Class D is would you be so harsh on them if you had to suffer the price of every ounce of alleged performance gain the ultra high end has to offer?
Quote:On the basis of the very strong approval of those who were most familiar with the NuForce amp, we decided to give it our award. Subsequent controversy notwithstanding, at the time it was a reasonable choice.
:shock: I cannot see how Garcia and Martins can both be right. I cannot comprehend how most of you condemn Class D, yet a class D amp won amp of the year. Controversy indeed!
Sir, I'm not going to delve into the manifest ways you gloss over your patent hypocrisy about the worth of the high end, which is, has always been, and will always be about fine but important distinctions that escape you, and I'm not going to point out your outright aggression toward Garcia and me. It is there for all to see. But I will note that you nowhere address my Parasound review or the conclusions I reach there. It wouldn't serve what passes for your argument, would it, to concede that I like and have liked many products that don't cost a fortune? And I am going to take strong issue with this manifestly untrue statement:
Quote:I thought it hypocritical that measurements were used to justify the Mini
You did no such thing, sir. You never made an issue of my measurements in the "War Over Magico Minis" thread, and you outright dismissed observational comment after comment from people who owned or had heard or had used MAGICO Minis. (And, BTW, if I'm being a hypocrite to point out the unusual flatness of the Minis' frequency response, what does that make Stereo Sound, which pointed out the same thing?) All that mattered to you at the time was the Minis' price, their lack of deep bass, and the propaganda of competing companies. You did not need to hear them to make up your mind. BTW, if you think measurements are beside the point, why in hell do you keep banging the drum for us to include them? I could point out that something like the Rowland 201 has a -3dB point of 70kHz (which, if this number is right, is considerably higher than most Class D/T amps, which barely make it to 40-50kHz), where a great Class AB like the MBL 9008 is flat and distorion-free out to 350kHz.
In regard to the disagreement between Chris and Wayne, I will repeat what I just said and you seemed to have missed (as usual): The award in question was given out in 2005, better than a year before our Class D survey and the controversy it engendered. At the time of the award, it was a reasonable choice by our usual method of deciding these things.
jvalin wrote:Sir, I'm not going to delve into the manifest ways you gloss over your patent hypocrisy about the worth of the high end, which is, has always been, and will always be about fine but important distinctions that escape you,
Fine, but important distinctions that I cannot justify for the price. I don't have a Rolex mentality towards hi-fi, I honestly believe that performance gains beyond certain price points are far more subtle and subjectively appreciated than the language in such reviews tends to allow. The "massive improvements" over certain price points described in the ultra high end simply is not there, and I strongly believe that most reviewers would not pay for these "grand improvements" out of their own pockets if they had to.
Quote:and I'm not going to point out your outright aggression toward Garcia and me. It is there for all to see. But I will note that you nowhere address my Parasound review or the conclusions I reach there. It wouldn't serve what passes for your argument, would it, to concede that I like and have liked many products that don't cost a fortune?
:shock: You're kidding me right? You've behaved like a petulant child within and ever since the Mini threads. When you felt like it, you completely scrubbed my comments to suit your disdain for my remarks. Your penchant for claiming I wrote things I clearly did not was quite remarkable. You have a monster of an ego, and get incensed whenever your profession is brought into question. I haven't read the Parasound review, because I don't have the January edition yet. I also do not argue that you don't like lower priced gear. My point is that I find it totally logical that the opinion of equipment at certain price points will change when you are actually paying for it out your own pocket.
Quote:and I am going to take strong issue with this manifestly untrue statement:
Quote:I thought it hypocritical that measurements were used to justify the Mini
You did no such thing, sir. You never made an issue of my measurements in the "War Over Magico Minis" thread, and you outright dismissed observational comment after comment from people who owned or had heard or had used MAGICO Minis. (And, BTW, if I'm being a hypocrite to point out the unusual flatness of the Minis' frequency response, what does that make Stereo Sound, which pointed out the same thing?) All that mattered to you at the time was the Minis' price, their lack of deep bass, and the propaganda of competing companies. You did not need to hear them to make up your mind. BTW, if you think measurements are beside the point, why in hell do you keep banging the drum for us to include them? I could point out that something like the Rowland 201 has a -3dB point of 70kHz (which, if this number is right, is considerably higher than most Class D/T amps, which barely make it to 40-50kHz), where a great Class AB like the MBL 9008 is flat and distorion-free out to 350kHz.
Get a grip, man! I never made issue of measurements in the Mini thread, because I believed that their bass output would be a concern in a given room size no matter how flat they actually played. $22k for a monitor that looks like it belongs in The Robb Report, was plainly objectionable to me. Further, I stronglysupport the use of measurements, as evidenced by my Rowland thread and Measurable data threads. The hypocrisy is in TAS was the use of measurements to justify the performance of the Mini review, followed by the strong resistance towards using measurements to try and understand Jeff Rowland's contradictory comments on the treble of his amp. In one instance measurements matter to you, and in another they don't. For me, measurements are a minimum requirement for a review. TAS obviously disagrees. I also point out the ridicule you dished out over my comments that given the small size and relatively light weight of the Mini, it certainly seemed overpriced to me given what other products cost for the size/weight of them (a general comment on construction quality). You entirely mocked the idea that weight had anything to do with the quality of the product after you wrote at the very start of the Mini review, "At over 200lbs per side (including its dedicated stands) the Mini is obviously a perfectionist product." Just like measurements, the weight of the product only matters when it supports your own viewpoint.
Quote:In regard to the disagreement between Chris and Wayne, I will repeat what I just said and you seemed to have missed (as usual): The award in question was given out in 2005, better than a year before our Class D survey and the controversy it engendered. At the time of the award, it was a reasonable choice by our usual method of deciding these things.
Nonsense. That would be like saying that you had no idea what transparency and good treble performance was before the 2005 awards. Almost as if the bar suddenly got higher in 2006. The Kharma (which you have heard) seems to be considered to be the top of the pile in the D amp survey, yet "class D amps are not yet a legitimate high-end amplification alternative". If the Kharma is supposed to be better than the Nuforce, then how on earth could any digital amp that is "not yet a legitimate high-end amplification alternative" become amp of the year?
Quote:I don't have a Rolex mentality towards hi-fi, I honestly believe that performance gains beyond certain price points are far more subtle and subjectively appreciated than the language in such reviews tends to allow
I honestly believe that you honestly believe what you say. That doesn't change the issue. Although you keep shifting your ground, your original argument was that it was basically unfair to compare affordable gear to "reference quality" gear. If the difference between Class D amps and something like the Audio Research Ref 210s is merely or primarily cosmetic, I repeat: Why would that comparison be unfair or misleading?
Quote:Your penchant for claiming I wrote things I clearly did not was quite remarkable.
I have quoted you verbatim, when I have quoted you.
Quote:I never made issue of measurements in the Mini thread, because I believed that their bass output would be a concern in a given room size no matter how flat they actually played.
Lord. The Minis are two-ways. The best two-ways ever made, but still two-ways. You, me, the whole friggin world knew that going in--or should have. Would anyone in his right mind buy a two-way if he listened primarily to drum-and-bass or synth recordings or lived in a palace? I certainly wouldn't, and I never recommended that readers for whom deep bass is a primary concern or who had very large rooms should, either. Indeed, I went out of way to talk about the kinds of music (and listener and room) these speakers were suitable for and the kinds they weren't. If deep bass is your thing, then there are better options, including the Mini/Wilson-Benesch "super-system" I will review in our next issue.
However, deep bass--as was repeatedly, almost endlessly, pointed out to you by me and everyone else contributing to that thread--is not the whole of music or musical reproduction. What you refused to grasp is that the Minis offered a level of neutrality, low distortion, and high accuracy that made them a new standard of high fidelity where they played. This did not seem to matter to you, but it does matter, greatly, to other people.
Quote:I haven't read the Parasound review, because I don't have the January edition yet. I also do not argue that you don't like lower priced gear.
Oh, I'm sorry. I must've misread the following sentence from this very thread: “I can certainly understand the disappointment some reviewers would have with [Class D amps] if they see anything other than reference quality as being as being as horrible as Garcia describes the Nuforce. [italics added]”
Quote:The hypocrisy is in TAS was the use of measurements to justify the performance of the Mini review, followed by the strong resistance towards using measurements to try and understand Jeff Rowland's contradictory comments on the treble of his amp.
Once again, if TAS is being hypocritical, then was Stereo Sound--a harsh critic, indeed, of non-performing components--also being hypocritical when it singled out the Minis extraordinarily flat frequency response and extremely low levels of distortion and coloration? The point, buddy, wasn't to "justify the performance of the Mini review" (whatever the hell that means); the point was that this kind of measured response is extraordinary, not because of how it looks on paper but, as I said in the review, because it correlates so closely with how the speaker actually sounds in room.
Quote:You entirely mocked the idea that weight had anything to do with the quality of the product after you wrote at the very start of the Mini review, "At over 200lbs per side (including its dedicated stands) the Mini is obviously a perfectionist product."
As I said at the time--years ago, it seems--weight in and of itself means absolutely nothing. It is how and where and to what end that weight is applied that means something. In the Mini's case, its heft and the heft of its dedicated stand were direct reflections of the unusual thoughtfulness, craft, and judiciousness that went into its design. You could and can hear the results of this in its neutrality, freedom from box coloration, and disappearing act.
Quote:If the Kharma is supposed to be better than the Nuforce, then how on earth could any digital amp that is "not yet a legitimate high-end amplification alternative" become amp of the year?
Apparently it has not occured to you that none of us had heard the Kharma MP150 when the award to the NuForce was made. I repeat, for the third time, the candidates for the Products of the Year awards for 2005 were nominated and voted on long before our Class D survey came about. The NuForce was highly recommended by those on the editorial staff who knew it best. It seemed a reasonable choice at that time.
Over and out.
This is what I mean about your repeated attempts to put things in my mouth. I wrote:
The problem with language is that you don't hear Garcia qualifying the quality[/q] of the Nuforce against cost-no-object reference gear. When I read his comments, along with Valin's it sounds like the Nuforce and others are bad regardless of price. ...To be more direct, my question would be should others who have no interest in spending $20k, $40k, $50k for an amp be strongly considering amps like the Nuforce instead of many others in the less than obsecenely priced range (say $10k)? Or are the transparency issues that Garcia laments absolute deal-breakers?
And from that you assume that I think it is unfair to compare Class D to reference gear. I just can't keep up with you. Every moment of questioning sends you on a personal jihad to distort the basic thrust of the questioning.
Quote:However, deep bass--as was repeatedly, almost endlessly, pointed out to you by me and everyone else contributing to that thread--is not the whole of music or musical reproduction. What you refused to grasp is that the Minis offered a level of neutrality, low distortion, and high accuracy that made them a new standard of high fidelity where they played. This did not seem to matter to you, but it does matter, greatly, to other people.
But this is precisely the point. In my opinion $22k is way too much for a speaker of that size. Paying $5k for the stands alone is robbery. I have no problem saying that I think
Quote:Oh, I'm sorry. I must've misread the following sentence from this very thread: “I can certainly understand the disappointment some reviewers would have with [Class D amps] if they see anything other than reference quality as being as being as horrible as Garcia describes the Nuforce. [italics added]”
I'm referring to the November comments about Digital amps. The Parasound review is in January's issue, is it not? You criticed me for not weighing up your comments from a review that I have not yet read. What exactly is your point here? Mine is that I can understand the comments better if someone like Garcia, etc. has very low tolerance for the problems he encountered in the NuForce review.
Quote:Once again, if TAS is being hypocritical, then was Stereo Sound--a harsh critic, indeed, of non-performing components--also being hypocritical when it singled out the Minis extraordinarily flat frequency response and extremely low levels of distortion and coloration? The point, buddy, wasn't to "justify the performance of the Mini review" (whatever the hell that means); the point was that this kind of measured response is extraordinary, not because of how it looks on paper but, as I said in the review, because it correlates so closely with how the speaker actually sounds in room.
I can't comment on Stereo Sound, and I do not disagree with the notion that the Mini's have flat frequency response. What I find hypocritical is that the idea of using measurements to check for correlations gets universally discouraged in one breath (Rowland and Measurements threads), but an exception was made for the Mini review. I'll spell it out for you. It's great to have measurements when they positively correlate with a reviewer's opinion. But they would be one major finger in the eye when they don't correlate. The real cowardice is in the silence that followed Rowland's rebuttal IMO.
Quote:As I said at the time--years ago, it seems--weight in and of itself means absolutely nothing. It is how and where and to what end that weight is applied that means something. In the Mini's case, its heft and the heft of its dedicated stand were direct reflections of the unusual thoughtfulness, craft, and judiciousness that went into its design. You could and can hear the results of this in its neutrality, freedom from box coloration, and disappearing act. "
Excuse me, but you specifically wrote, "At over 200lbs per side (including its dedicated stands) the Mini is [b]obviously a perfectionist product." Actually no, not obviously. More than likely in this industry. But those stands count for 120 of those 200lbs, and I sincerely doubt that their performance would degrade significantly when placed on a decently -weighed and seated pair of stands. Nevertheless, I knew what you were getting at, and I fully support the notion that weight can be correlated to build quality and performance. I also argue that weight can be correlated to the manufacturing cost of a product. In the Mini thread you ridiculed any point I made about weight correlating to performance and cost to manufacture, and that was plainly hypocritical.
Quote:Apparently it has not occured to you that none of us had heard the Kharma MP150 when the award to the NuForce was made. I repeat, for the third time, the candidates for the Products of the Year awards for 2005 were nominated and voted on long before our Class D survey came about. The NuForce was highly recommended by those on the editorial staff who knew it best. It seemed a reasonable choice at that time.
That is obviously besides the point, because even having heard the Kharma, which is supposed to sound better, you still declared that the technology "is not yet a legitimate high-end amplification alternative." I hate to break it to you, but at this point any class D amp getting an award seems incomprehensible without considering some very basic ideas. Most notibly (what this thread is really about), is this a case of language/exaggeration, a case of lower quality gear not exposing the weaknesses of Class D, a case of not using the absolute sound as the real reference, a case of audio snobbery, etc. etc.? Whether you like it or not, there is a huge contradiction in Martins' comments, yours and Garcia's comments, and that has nothing to do with the chronology of the award giving and amp survey. The standard for good treble was set long ago (it's called the live performance is it not?).
Quote:This is what I mean about your repeated attempts to put things in my mouth.
So let me get this straight. You didn't write: “I can certainly understand the disappointment some reviewers would have with [Class D amps] if they see anything other than reference quality as being as being as horrible as Garcia describes the Nuforce [italics added]”?
Quote:In my opinion $22k is way too much for a speaker of that size. Paying $5k for the stands alone is robbery. I have no problem saying that I think
And on what do you base this opinion? Size? You clearly don't base it on listening experience, because you've never listened to the Minis! Talk about a serious disqualification for having an opinion! BTW, the $5k stands are so much "like robbery" that Wolf has been losing money on them. Ask him, why don't you, instead of shooting your mouth off when you don't know the facts?
Quote: What exactly is your point here? Mine is that I can understand the comments better if someone like Garcia, etc. has very low tolerance for the problems he encountered in the NuForce review.
And my point--and yours, if you were honest and you aren't--is that you imply that Garcia and I are blinded by our "expensive" reference systems and can see no good in anything that doesn't measure up to them in price.
Quote: It's great to have measurements when they positively correlate with a reviewer's opinion. But they would be one major finger in the eye when they don't correlate. The real cowardice is in the silence that followed Rowland's rebuttal IMO.
That's the real cowardice, huh? And what is the false cowardice, TAR? Judging a great loudspeaker without ever listening to it? Clamoring for measurements with the NuForce, and simply ignoring them with the MAGICOs? Claiming that everything that costs more than you're willing to spend is a boondoggle, and that everyone who appreciates such things is a fool or a knave? You know perfectly well, from previous threads, that measurements of electronics are nowhere near as predictive of performance as speaker frequency-response measurements can be (but aren't always). You've even acknowledged this. (I refer readers to the "Rwoland response to class D article" thread.) I have pointed out, here and elsewhere, that the bandwidth of Class D amps is limited by modern-day solid-state standards and that the steep filters used to remove Class D ultra-high-frequency switching noise may (repeat, "may") have an effect on their treble response. It certainly sounds that way to me and others.
Quote: Excuse me, but you specifically wrote, "At over 200lbs per side (including its dedicated stands) the Mini is [b]obviously a perfectionist product." Actually no, not obviously. More than likely in this industry. But those stands count for 120 of those 200lbs, and I sincerely doubt that their performance would degrade significantly when placed on a decently -weighed and seated pair of stands.
You are omitting a bit, aren't you, TAR? Like the full page of my review in which I explained why the Minis and their stands weigh as much as they do--and how that relates to their sound? As I recall all you did was tout the sheer tonnage of Wilson speakers. And, on what basis, do you claim that the Minis wouldn't be "degraded significantly" by using a different (less expensive) stand. I happen to know an audiophile in California who tried this very experiment. Guess what, Braniac? He bought the Mini stands.
Quote: That is obviously besides the point, because even having heard the Kharma, which is supposed to sound better, you still declared that the technology "is not yet a legitimate high-end amplification alternative." I hate to break it to you, but at this point any class D amp getting an award seems incomprehensible without considering some very basic ideas. Most notibly (what this thread is really about), is this a case of language/exaggeration, a case of lower quality gear not exposing the weaknesses of Class D, a case of not using the absolute sound as the real reference, a case of audio snobbery, etc. etc.? Whether you like it or not, there is a huge contradiction in Martins' comments, yours and Garcia's comments, and that has nothing to do with the chronology of the award giving and amp survey. The standard for good treble was set long ago (it's called the live performance is it not?).
How is it beside the point, TAR, to say that we chose the NuForce--as we choose all of our Products of the Year nominees and winners--on the basis of the strong enthusiasm of the nominators who had the most experience with it a full year before we conducted our Class D survey? Each of us cannot hear everything that is nominated for a POY award, and we must, perforce, rely on the opinions of others on our editorial staff. The Class D survey, in which the NuForce fared not so well, wasn't even a gleam in our eye when we awarded our 2005 Products of the Year. In hindsight, were we to vote again the NuForce would occasion considerable debate. But hindsight is famously 20/20. At the time, the choice seemed reasonable.
And thanks for the hot tip about treble and the sound of a live performance. I'll keep it in mind in future reviews.
Quote:So let me get this straight. You didn't write: “I can certainly understand the disappointment some reviewers would have with [Class D amps] if they see anything other than reference quality as being as being as horrible as Garcia describes the Nuforce [italics added]”?
That is precisely what I wrote. Notice the use of the qualifiers "some reviewers" and "if they". And then look at the use of the word "understand". If from that you got that I thought it was unfair to compare class D amps to reference gear, then quite frankly...
Quote:And on what do you base this opinion? Size? You clearly don't base it on listening experience, because you've never listened to the Minis! Talk about a serious disqualification for having an opinion! BTW, the $5k stands are so much "like robbery" that Wolf has been losing money on them. Ask him, why don't you, instead of shooting your mouth off when you don't know the facts?
I base my opinion on having heard B&W 801s, Revel Salons, Eagleston Works Andras, Meridian 8000s, Martin Logan Monoliths and many others. Those are very luxurious stands, which I would imagine require a hidious cost to manufacture. If Magico is subsidising the cost of the stands with the sale of the speaker, then what does that tell you?
Quote:And my point--and yours, if you were honest and you aren't--is that you imply that Garcia and I are blinded by our "expensive" reference systems and can see no good in anything that doesn't measure up to them in price.
No. Not at all. My question regarding the harsh criticism of Class D amps is based on whether or not (A) a person who is used to hearing the very best would be a very harsh critic of the treble problem or (B) a person with less than the very best gear (or ears) would be able to detect the allegedly-massive problems described. Like I pointed out earlier, your personal opinion is that class D is "not yet a legitimate high-end amplification alternative." This flies in the face of the Amp of the year award. Questions are therefore being asked about the context or nuance of the opinion. Are class D amps really that bad, or are Garcia and Valins expectations that high? You can read whatever you please into the exchange, but that is the question on my mind. As it stands per your comments in the Survey, the amps simply should not be given a second thought.
Quote:That's the real cowardice, huh? And what is the false cowardice, TAR? Judging a great loudspeaker without ever listening to it?
Hang on a second. I have not dismissed the liklihood that the Mini is a great speaker. If my listening room was 10x15, I probably wouldn't mind the limitations of a speaker that small and limited in output. But based on what its peers have to offer, $22k is far more indicative of very poor economies of scale and not performance. If Magico stripped back the luxurious touches, or if the Harmon Group were making them, I'd bet my last dollar that the price would be $5-7K less.
Quote:Clamoring for measurements with the NuForce, and simply ignoring them with the MAGICOs? Claiming that everything that costs more than you're willing to spend is a boondoggle, and that everyone who appreciates such things is a fool or a knave?
Pants on fire, Mr. Valin
Quote:You know perfectly well, from previous threads, that measurements of electronics are nowhere near as predictive of performance as speaker frequency-response measurements can be (but aren't always). You've even acknowledged this. (I refer readers to the "Sound quality of class D amps v Hiend references" thread.) I have pointed out, here and elsewhere, that the bandwidth of Class D amps is limited by modern-day solid-state standards and that the steep filters used to remove Class D ultra-high-frequency switching noise may (repeat, "may") have an effect on their treble response. It certainly sounds that way to me and others.
This doesn't excuse the reluctance to use measurements to shed light on the treble problem with class D. Testing when correlations are positive = good. Testing when correlations are negative = bad. What more can I say?
Quote:You are omitting a bit, aren't you, TAR? Like the full page of my review in which I explained why the Minis and their stands weigh as much as they do--and how that relates to their sound? As I recall all you did was tout the sheer tonnage of Wilson speakers. And, on what basis, do you claim that the Minis wouldn't be "degraded significantly" by using a different (less expensive) stand. I happen to know an audiophile in California who tried this very experiment. Guess what, Braniac? He bought the Mini stands.
Well color me convinced! I happen to know ten audiophiles who would poop their pants if they saw me spend $5k on a pair of stands. Does that count in the realm of anecdotal evidence as well? If I was inclined to spend that kind of money on a monitor that looked like the mini, for aesthitic reasons alone I'd spend the extra $5k for those stands. Those speakers look born for stands as much as those stands look born for those speakers. But on the basis of performance alone? Hell no.
Quote:How is it beside the point, TAR, to say that we chose the NuForce--as we choose all of our Products of the Year nominees and winners--on the basis of the strong enthusiasm of the nominators who had the most experience with it a full year before we conducted our Class D survey? Each of us cannot hear everything that is nominated for a POY award, and we must, perforce, rely on the opinions of others on our editorial staff. The Class D survey, in which the NuForce fared not so well, wasn't even a gleam in our eye when we awarded our 2005 Products of the Year. In hindsight, were we to vote again the NuForce would occasion considerable debate. But hindsight is famously 20/20. At the time, the choice seemed reasonable.
Because if the Nuforce is as bad as you describe them, then all those who supported the Amp of the year award either don't know their treble, or don't have the gear to reveal the problems, or simply aren't as bothered by it as others are. Differences of opinion like THAT dear boy, are a major issue for a group of "experts" on audio exquipment. The Class D survey is besides the point. The treble would have been as bad in 2005 as it is today. So why didn't anyone else pick up on the hugely offending problem with the treble in 2005?
This is getting us nowhere, and it is New Year's Eve.
I wish all a Happy New Year--even you, TAR.
Gents,
I'll chime in briefly and belatedly on the subject—and yes, between wrapping up an issue of TAS and the holidays, I was actually trying to take a breather!
To clarify, and I’ve tried to make this point in other posts, my opinion of the Class D amps I heard and reported on in Issue 160 are all in the context of a given system, which is true of all reviews, to one degree or another. Sure, we may have the luxury of living with a given component over several months, and ideally will hear it with a wide range of gear (and often do), but it is critical for readers to understand that all component reviews are in the context of a system, systems, or a certain combination of components. While I still believe the NuForce amplifiers have problems that, for me, disqualify them from being considered as high-fidelity products, and I believe these problems exist whether one is comparing them to either a cost-no-object linear amp or to a $2000 linear design, the fact remains that I listened to them in the context of a very revealing system in which the speakers ($45k Kharma Mini Exquisites) go out to 100,000Hz and are unusually revealing of all that comes before them. I had also lived for several months with the amplifier that is pretty much by consensus the finest Class D amp currently made—the Kharma MP 150. If I’m not mistaken, my colleague Chris Martens first heard the NuForce with Magnepan 1.6 speakers, which are lovely and perhaps the finest value in the high-end, but are not extended in the treble, nor are they very detailed overall, and benefit greatly from the punchy bass the NuForce delivers. We may seek the absolute sound, TAR, but remember that it’s all about context. Taste, too. These are observational reviews, and subject to the individual biases that come with them. It is interesting, though, that there has been little to no disagreement on the merits of certain outstanding designs—the Kharma amps and MBL 101 E speaker being two obvious choices.
Thank you, thank you, thank you! It was the context and nuance that I sought. This is precisely what you have provided. Simply put, those with less revealing systems are less likely to be put off by Class D amps. If I understand you correctly, then one should still be first considering Class A, A/B if they ever intend on purchasing the most revealing gear in the future. This is also assuming that they can detect these issues in the first place, and that they would be bothered by them (some might not).
I can see another speaker upgrade in my future in the next 5yrs, so I'll have to consider if the current Class D offerings would limit their potential for my ears. For my current set-up, Class D might fit the bill given the what I might be prepared to spend on amp in the short term. Ultimately I need to find a dealer to compare Class D to more traditional amps. I have a funny feeling that the treble problem won't bother me if I'm not looking for it. Based on that, the Nuforce appears to be an outstanding value.
Again, thanks for the feedback.
With all the debate in this thread over switching amp treble, the question of whether treble issues are inherent in switching amp architecture remains unanswered.
From the TAS participants, we have suggestions that sophisticated linear amps have wider bandwidths and this may be why their treble is more natural-sounding on wide-band speakers. This is a post hoc fallacy, as a little physical reasoning will reveal.
The speed of sound at sea level and room temperature is about 344 meters per second. The wavelength of sound depends inversely on frequency and is given by the speed divided by the frequency.
Thus, at 100 KHz, the wavelength is 3.44 millimeters. This is comparable to the diameter of the human ear canal. If the human ear could make use of information at this frequency, it would need a much different shape of ear canal to do so without severe resonance problems.
I suspect the true reason is much more mundane. All switching amps use low-pass filters at their outputs. The obvious consequence is to limit the frequency response, if the input circuitry has not already done so. However, a not-so-obvious consequence is that all the audio signal has to pass in intimate contact with the materials from which the low-pass filters are constructed, in particular the inductor insulation and core, and the capacitor dielectric and wire connections.
Personal experience is that steel endcaps, PVC jackets, some ferrite cores, and most common capacitor dielectric films, impart strong sonic flavors when used in contact with the speaker signal. Audiophile obsession with certain parts and materials has a firm practical basis.
I've not heard the Nuforce amps, but many good friends whose judgement I trust have told me they are unacceptable. I believe this is because of poor power supply design and lack of control of RF noise. Whether the materials used in the low-pass filters also contribute to their treble performance is an open question. Hopefully, you will soon have better amps in the same or lower price range to choose from.
TAR, the NuForce may or may not be a good value, that depends on what they do for you when you play music through them. The only way to know is to to hear a pair—and compare them with comparably-price linear amps such as the Parasound Halo A21 reviewed by Jon Valin in Issue 168 or any of the other many fine choices you'll find in our annual Editors' Choice Awards. I think Class D has tremendous potential. But I do wonder about the stability of any product that evidently sounds so radically different from system to system.
(Devil's advocate) But why would I want to even entertain the possibility of a treble problem when there are linear amps that don't have this limitation?
Al,
You make an interesting point about the way the raw parts in a Class D amps low-pass filter may be affecting their sound. As I said earlier, I think the filtration used to remove switching-nose may, indeed, be having an effect on the top end of Class D amps.
BTW, I'm not sure how pointing out that Class D amps have limited bandwidth (often very limited, e.g., 40kHz) constitutes a post hoc fallacy and am not at all sure what your "physical reasoning" means.
Up to the limits of our hearing, limited high-frequency bandwidth is plainly audible, e.g., the sound of an FM tuner versus an LP. And beyond the limits of our hearing, the by-products of limiting bandwidth can also be audible in so far as artifacts generated by such limiting "spill back" into the range of human hearing (which I think is part of the point you are making about the way parts quality affect a Class D amp's high end). This is not to say that unlimited bandwidth in and of itself is an unmitigated plus--just that one of the things one notes in the specs for all Class D amps is how relatively curtailed their power bandwidth is in the high frequencies compared to Class AB amps (tube or solid-state). When one asks oneself why this should be the case, as you have, one can't help speculating, as you have, about how the low-pass filration of massive amounts of high-frequency switching noise may be affecting both bandwidth and treble quality.
In any event, something is going on "up there" that is plainly audible on most Class D amplifiers.
JV
Back to the topic of the thread, would it then be fair to say that those products that have received annual awards have been heard and endorsed by how many editors? I'm also wondering how the Kharma won speaker of the year, but the Magico Mini won overall product of the year. I would have thought that by default the overall product of the year would have won its on sub-category. How many editors have actually spent time with each of these speakers, or any winning product for that matter? As for Class D, there is just way too much vacilltation on its merits for it to be taken seriously in my opinion.
On the Kharma Mini-Exquisites...I have heard them in my home and Wayne has heard them in his home and uses them as a reference. I think all of the rest of the editors have heard them at shows (CES and Rocky Mountain). There is no dispute about their excellence.
On the MAGICO Minis...they were named Best of Show (at last year's CES) by virtually the entire editorial staff (Robert, Pearson, Wayne, me, etc.) and are currently my references (along with the MBL 101 Es). They were a unanimous pick for Best Product of the Year.
As for why the Minis didn't also win Best High-End Loudspeaker of the Year instead of the Kharmas...we reserve the Overall Product of the Year Award for the piece of hi-fi gear that we think is the single best we've heard, individually and jointly, in a given year. As I said, there was no debate about which product that award should go to--the MAGICO Minis.
Rather than giving the Minis two awards (Best Speaker and Best Overall Product), we gave the high-end loudspeaker honor to the Kharma Mini-Exquisite, so that it could garner some well-deserved credit, too.
I hope that explains it.
Quote:Rather than giving the Minis two awards (Best Speaker and Best Overall Product), we gave the high-end loudspeaker honor to the Kharma Mini-Exquisite, so that it could garner some well-deserved credit, too.
:?
Sounds like charity :D Either it is best of the year, or it's not. Joint products and speakers of the year would make more sense, or maybe even honorable mention to the Kharma. Obviously, by default the Mini is the de facto loudspeaker of the year. Awarding Kharma loudspeaker of the year makes about as much sense as the Nuforce winning amp of the year last year. But hey, it's TAS' perogative.
Back to form, I see.
I think it's a fairly logical expectation that the product of the year should win its own sub-category, unless product of the year is judged under a different set of criteria (like Ms. Photogenic vs Beauty Queen). You don't have two Ms. Americas, but you can have two loudspeakers of the year if you couldn't make up your mind. But if the Magico is hands down the better speaker, then it should have won both awards.
The MAGICO Mini is, hands-down, the better speaker. Which is precisely why it was given our highest honor, Overall Product of the Year.
I'm cool with that. Just saying that it's farcical to then give the Kharma speaker of the year.
Valin, Martin and Garcia,
It always amazed me why you spend so much time answering to the sarcasms of audio realist. 90% of his posts are to:
- criticize everything which costs more than 3k (and in particular the Magico Mini that I had the pleasure to order 3 weeks ago and that I listened to before reading JV review)
- criticize TAS reviewers and their lack of professionalism / honesty
- criticize all hifi magazines which are just advertising papers
etc...
with the time you will save, you will perhaps have the time to answer my unanswered posts as well as other audiophiles who find very valuable your expertise (even if it doesn't replace direct listening)
As for Audio Realist, I am sure you will be much happier in life by being less negative... Perhaps your 2007 resolution should be to:
- stop buying "useless magazines" such as TAS
- stop posting your sarcasms on this forum
- go to listen Magico Mini to build yourself a fact based opinion
it would help everybody!
(of course I would be delighted reading your future posts on how GREAT you find a specific product!)
happy New Year to everybody
PS: hope to meet some of you guys in CES
jfk -- Good suggestions. Sorry we missed your posts, but I don't see any of them. Do you have another user name?
jfk,
I call it as I see it, and I will ask questions where I am interested. This is a forum, and people can ask or exchange ideas as they see fit. If your perception is that I critcize everything that costs more than $3k, then you honestly have not been reading what I have been writing, principally the notion that returns diminish (in speakers) tremendously above $10k. Where you get $3k from would obviously be a product of your own sarcasm. And if you think that a forum isn't a place to question the professionalism or outlandish comments thrown about this industry, then there isn't a place. In case you didn't notice, this is a business and ultimately the objective is to sell product. If these forums are only for people who wish to praise reviewers or question nothing, then perhaps it is time to open a church for Audiophiles so that you can ban the heathens.
my questions were:
- as any of you direct experience with the magico mini + ASR emitter II exclusive? (in Taipei it costs the same as a ARC ref210, so before moving 100k of equipment would be happy to know what may be a potential match)
- how would the Meridian 808 variable volume output compare with the use of a reference pre-amplifier? can it be a good alternative? (I use only CD anyway so don't need a switch)
thanks!
Audio Realist, agree that is good to keep distance and a critical eye. My only comment was that past a certain point it doesn't get very constructive. Again, would love also to hear from your experience on products you love (whatever the price point)! be positive, man!
PS: of course it is a business! (I am working in CE sector...)
Jfk,
The magico mini review was topical. The review itself hints at the controversy, and the adverts look like they give a nod to the issue as well. It took at least two people to drive that "discussion". And any frustration you might have towards me should also be shared by JV's responses (this thread would be a good example).
As for equipment I do like, there are plenty, and much beyond $3k. [since you mentioned it] I can't say for certain, but I think I heard the ASR more than a year ago (it was the speakers I was interested in at the time). My response? I actually wanted to cry. If the store owner wasn't with me, I probably would have shed a tear. Whatever piece or pieces were responsible for this, who knows. But the combination was heart-wrenching.
jfk -- I haven't heard the Magicos with the ASR. As for the Meridian 808 volume control, do you know whether the volume control operates in the digital domain? If so, I would be concerned about the impact on dynamic range.
jfk,
I haven't heard the Minis with the ASR Emitter II, either. However, I have heard them--at length--with both the ARC Reference 210s and the ARC Reference 610Ts and both are magical combinations.
JV
I like to read both sides of a discussion and I find it ridiculous when other posters berate someone who they disagree with.
Too often, people "gang" up on argumentative poster. If everything was perfect, this would be a dull world indeed.
I think the writer's of TAS have made enough clarification that most can understand their point of view(s). I understand TAR's questions, responses etc.
Enough said. I wish I could listen to this amp (Nuforce) and the speakers!
I have an ASR Emitter I HD, and I have heard the Minis many times including in the designers home. I have not heard them together.
The ASR is a superb solid state amp. It is a bit on the dark side. The Mini is an exceptionally clean revealing speaker and is ever so slightly on the bright side. I think the combination would be very good. The ASR has a beautiful way of revealing detail without spotlighting anything, I'd love to hear the combination.
The ASR can drive about any load, and the Mini needs some real power to really dance the two step.
Jonathan Valin, you are a patient person!
Realist, by reading your posts, I would think that you are an audiophile who would do best owning traditional and mature products and technologies. I'd stay away from Class D or new speaker companies and stick with the basics!
Class A/B designs have been around for over 50 years, current Class D implementations about 5 years. Which is going to have a more mature and balanced set of strengths? I don't think it's going to be a Nuforce.
Tuckers,
Does the ASR Emitter have enough power for the Mini, which, as you noted, needs some oomph? I know the Ref 610T does, while the Ref 210, though wonderful-sounding with the Mini at moderate-to-loud volumes, is a bit marginal if you like your music really loud.
JV
I have the Emitter I which is 150 watts a side. But it's more powerful than the 300 watt McCormack amps I had, or the 150 Spectral DMA 160, or the Spectron Musician II (500 watts). It was the most powerful solid state amp I have had. I used it primarily on the Vandersteen 5s (86db efficient, 6 ohms) which is an inefficient speaker, and it drived it very well. I believe the Emitter II can drive just about anything short of an Apogee.
Post new comment