I am back, folks. My system was the third most talked about system after Mike Levine's and Albert Porter's.
For some personal reasons I took a break from audio. But I am back with good news and not so thrilling news. The not so thrilling news is that the system is unchanged. And the good news is that it is so hard to improve it, regardless of the price -- I do not know what to upgrade, except may be cables -- as I hit the peak performance from my perspective. The sound thrills me still every time I listen. Still, 140plus tubes, embedded in the finest of amps and pre-amp driving a legendary speaker that can give a good run for money to speakers costing $100k plus, all making heat and magic at the same time. Wow, life is good.
Acknowledgements:
There are several people I wish to acknowledge who have helped me a great deal in building this system:
1. Charlie, who designed one of the finest preamps. Although, TRL Dude is marginally better, the Charlie X-2 will stay with me for ever and will continue to provide listening pleasures
2, Paul Weitzel of Tube Research Labs (TRL) for his helping on tuning the amps and on his feedback on many other technical aspects of the system at the micro and macro level.
3. David Royalty for building nice wooden battery casing for the TRL moded Sony CD player and also for numerous technical feedbacks.
4. Ivan Li of Hong Kong for showing me the insight into planar speaker placement.
5. Steve Dobbins of Xact audio for coming all the way from Idaho to install the tonearm and overall turntable tune up.
6. many visitors who have graced my listening room with their presence.
7. All audio friends who are not mentioned above.
8. Audiogoners who continue to post interesting and thought provoking comments here.
Thank you kmccarty for the kind words. The system is to the a point of saturation that I do not know what to improve I had lost a close audio friend (Paul Weitzel) who was like my brother, so I am still trying to come to grips with that loss.
What a spectacular system that I would love to hear! In my 40 years+ as an audiophile, there have been only a few demos of audio systems that I will never forget. One was in Palo Alto, CA. Your Apogees and the huge Mark Levinson Class A mono blocks (can't recall the models) made an everlasting impression on me. If I'm not mistaken, Wayne Garcia worked at that store and demo'd the system for me. Pleasant memory for sure.
Hello Gallant_diva, It's been a little quiet on the western front but I wanted to pop in for a minute just to hear how it's going with you, and to respond to Agear above. Last night I finished with the EH KT-88's and put the KT-150's back in the system. I'm letting them settle for a day or so before I start listening again (I've actually been busy serving jury duty as I postponed it so many times but finally had to 'do my civic duty'). I enjoyed the 88's quite a bit but want to listen to the 150's again before final comparisons... Agear: It sounds like we're on the same wavelength so far with both the 120's sound and your [earlier] TRL connection; not to mention the Lampi's (your GG AND new room both look amazing: congrats!). I'll be updating my page soon... G_d I am looking forward to hearing of your new developments/progress down the road.
Well, pretty much finished with my little tour of the tubes; in a nutshell I don't have any major revelations except that it was very ear-educational and I feel a bit more well rounded with regard to these particular tubes. Of course the big caveat is that obviously I'm only speaking for not only these particular tube types but these actual brands alone, and we all know how different brands will vary.
The KT120's ( Tung Sol of course) are a nice tube. In my system they had good extension, an especially potent bass and an essentially even ( though not especially rich) tone. I could certainly live comfortably with them and as a new production tube they are also a great value for the $$$. Their power reserves were not lost on the Apogees when they asked for dynamics and woofer control, a good match for each other.
Next into the TRL's were 8 of my 12 Ruby EL 34's straight out of my Cary V 12 ( actually they went into my BK Tube Tester first just to be sure they were all still healthy). The EL34's were what you'd expect: all about the mids. No surprise here, they were rich, full, and robust. Vocals were tangible, wonderfully present, and fully fleshed out in 3D space. On relatively simple/ non-complex passages they "pulsed" with the ebb and flow of the music. Highs weren't exactly sparkling but were sufficiently "exclaimed" such that they stayed connected to the midrange body as a whole. Unfortunately, bass wasn't so lucky when the tempo really picked up, and what a shame... Attack was sluggish and lackluster, extension was not impressive at all and notes had a softness that just couldn't strike a live sounding note. Loved what it did well but the caveats were too great IMHO to live with on a daily basis. In an ideal world there's a kick butt brand of this tube that can do all the goodness AND step up the bass? That would be a keeper... Could it be a Genalex or a NOS Mullard? IDK but would like to...
At this point I should mention a little more about the soundstage. Both the 120's and EL34's presented a broad lateral stage with well defined images in their own space. The 120's in comparison were of course slightly less meaty or naturally tangible but were perhaps a bit sharper and more edgy/ incisive which matches their overall description. As for the depth of image... I'm going to hold off on that aspect until I have seen ( heard?) all the cards on the table as I still have to finish up with the [remarkable!] KT88's and come back full circle again to the 150's. More to follow asap. Happy Lissn'n
Hello Gallant_Diva, Just a quick update at the moment...I've been re-auditioning my monos with different power tubes. So far I've run KT 120's, EL 34's and currently KT 88's ( all of which I had on hand) as I make my way back to the KT 150's. Would have liked to try a set of '90's but I've never run that tube in any prior amps. I'll let you know my personal findings when I'm finished. Hope all is well.
Hi Gallant_Diva, A question about room requirements for your 40% speaker placement: After Sandy I literally rebuilt the bottom 4 feet of my room ( which had been flooded with approximately 10" of seawater). I physically measured 4' up, snapped a chalk line and took a sawzall horizontally around the room ( I also ripped the floor up, including the carpeting, floor laminate, and 'Dri-Core' floor squares until I was down to bare concrete again then repeated the exact configuration on the re-build after all the clean-up and dry out...). When I replaced the [lower 4'] of wall I added additional layers of sheetrock and quietrock ( as mentioned in previous posts) [ to the lower 4' only] which added an additional " lip" around the room's entire perimeter varying in ' depth' from as little as 5/8" to as much as 1.25" upon which I screwed a small 2.5" moulding/ shelf upon which I place a few pictures and " nick-nacks" ... this done to obviously integrate the difference(s) in wall depth... My big question is do you think this [ mid-point seam ] may effect the clean dipole wavefront that will be bouncing into it and which is so important to the longer traveling waves...Might it reduce or obscure the effectiveness of this layout more than how I have it now which is somewhat controlled to a certain extent with some carefully placed diffusors / treatments. I know NOT to over- do these as we know Apogees generally prefer minimum or no front wall treatment... Your opinions? Thanks.
Maggies are fun. I did my medical training in MN (where they are made) and heard them many times. I have always been a planar fan but shied away due to room logistics, etc. I have several friends telling me to go with Sound Labs. My wife would shoot me...:)
lissner, the true potential of Apogees can only be realized with proper speaker placement such as the one described by me. Otherwise, you are only getting half of the listening pleasure. It is like driving a Ferrari as a utility truck and enjoying its trucking capability.
With soundstage synchronization, you get a totally holographic sound with a huge soundstage. The amazing thing is that larger the soundstage, the tighter the imaging, and more precise the instrument placement in the 3D space. Imagine box speaker have only left and right to be properly aligned for a good stereo effect. As Doug Sax's says on his test CD "this is left channel", "this is the right channel", "this is in-phase, and my voice should be heard tightly focused between the two speakers" and then "this is out of phase, my voice should have no appearance and it should sound like it is coming from all over the room". The wider the out of phase sound, the more focused the in-phase sound.
In the same way (although not exactly), planar speakers not only have to alighn both right and left channels but also the front and back waves. With my current setup, my central image is so precise, I feel I can stand up from the listening seat and touch it and measure the back of the image to the front wall with a measuring tape.
When I move forward all way to the front wall and turn around to face my listening standing, the sound image is very interestingly on the rear wall, actually the singer seems to be sitting on my listening chair...wow. like a ghost. When I stand to the right wall facing the left wall, the image is on the left wall and vice versa. When I am standing in the middle of the room between the two speakers, the sound is everywhere whichever direction I turn. Thus, the sound stage is all around in an enveloping fashion. The converse effect of that is when I go back to my listening seat, the images of different instruments are tightly focused, in the center, behind the speakers, front of the speakers, left wall, right wall, and sometimes even on my back. You can also get some such effects with box speaker but not quite like the planar speakers do. That is real amazing stuff. On top of that add the glorious midranges, the finest highs and most authentic bass of the Apogee Fullrange in a coherent manner, and it is a thrill, in fact every time it gives me goose bumps. Now that is call audio heaven :):)
A last note: I re-read your speaker placement article ( I had read it some years ago) and found it very interesting... The promises it makes are very tempting...
Hello Gallant_Diva, I am looking forward to hearing about the progress and details of your new room. Not only am I always interested in these types of projects for obvious reasons but your links to and our common connection with both TRL and Apogee certainly pique my interest even more. As for my room it began as approximately 13'6" w x 19'L x 7' H sidewalls peaking to a 9' centerline height. After multiple layers of alternating sheetrock and quietrock, etc. my final width was reduced to almost 13' exactly. For total length I decided to decrease potential sound transfer in/ out of the room as well as increasing rigidity even more by adding an additional interior heavily braced and insulated wall at both the fore and aft ends so I gave up over a foot total length in doing so. Actual finished length is 17' 6" centerline { and 18' total length into 2 L/R "notches" in the rear corners}. It serves me and my Duetta Ultimates quite well ( though I tried Diva Ultimates once and I just couldn't get them to sing as the bass in particular was overwhelming no matter what I tried...). Thank you.
Gallant, I agree with your approach. The Apogees are the sticky wicket in this whole equation, and they may be more room insensitive than a standard box speaker. In that vein, chasing rigidity or sonic stillness or inner silence or whatever that phenomenon is may be the way.
I chose to go after mechanical grounded walls (ala Starsound) in combination with a mass loaded horn structure on the front wall to create the Imax experience I now enjoy. I like to think about it (with a minimum of technical knowledge) in terms of efficiency. Like a good amphitheater or the "Whispering Wall" at my alma mater (http://uvamagazine.org/articles/five_quirks, efficient transmission of sound is bewitching. Most systems and rooms strain to do it. You have to crank it for life to spring forth.....
Whether people admit it or not, every room is an open experiment. Enjoy.
Agear, I plan to build the most rigid room and then tame it down. I am not someone who will copy or hire someone to do it. Instead, I like to do things myself, hear and experiment and modify until I am fully satisfied. Nor am I going to believe everything online, major of the information is incorrect anyway, which I call information toxicity.
For now the plan is to have 28 by 17.3 room. I am not going for the hologram that Cardas describes because planar speakers are different than the box speakers. Thus, his speaker placement is not applicable. I don't claim to know everything about Apogee speakers but I know enough to squeeze the maximum performance out of them.... for my taste at least. The room is going to be built not just for audio but for Apogee fullrange speakers as well.
For power, I plan to have, just like what I have now, several dedicated 20-30 amp outlets, for both 110v and 220v lines spread across the room, and separated from other appliances.
Gallant, a lot of the answers to your questions are dictated by your budget. Most sound rooms are some derivative of rigidity and sound isolation +/- aftermarket acoustic treatments. To go beyond that, you have to spend serious money...like what Mike L has into his tonearm and needle....:)
