[James Romeyn]

John,
What are the settings at w/the 626R's?  If they are set from the factory at the same place my 40s were when I got them, they are WAY too high.  Mine were set at 1 o'clock for the mids, and about 2:30 for the highs.  I've ended up with my "final" settings MUCH lower, with the mids set now to 11 oclock, and the highs set to around 10 o'clock.  Much fuller, meatier, more dynamic sound.  Jason Wong has had the exact same experience with his 626R's, and I'm pretty sure that Wayne has also.  I can only con ...

I concur wholeheartedly.  With my RM40s tilted back as John Cassler suggests, my mids & tweeters both at about 10:30.  I don't know if Brian is loosing his upper frequency hearing, but it was pretty bright for me the last visit.

[James Romeyn]

One other thing I want to observe about the 626R's specifically - they cry out for a good tube amp and preamp.  The tubes help to fill out the specific area that the 626R's are a bit weak, the lower mids.  With every solid state amp I've heard the 626R's on, they sounded a bit weak in this area.  Tube gear fills in the mids and lower mids very nicely indeed.  Jason's 626R's with stock crossover and the HET tweeter sound better driven by tube gear than Wayne's 626R's with the Auricap upgrade and FST tweeter  ...

I'd agree, except the Ampzilla's appear to be an exception to this rule.  Have you heard the 626Rs with the Ampzilla monos?

[James Romeyn]

John Casler,

Sorry this answer is to a question about 7 pages ago! hehe

I said -"I'm sure it's still awesome (VMPS were 2nd place on my short list of world class speakers to get next), but that's not like some flawless miracle design from the hand of god."

And you asked -"Hey AZ, What speaker is in the front spot of the "short" list?"

The list is gone. I already chose the GR Alphas.
I finished the cabinets a few weeks ago and have never heard better speakers.
But nothing to hide... I never h ...

azryan wrote:
John Casler,

 


I never said speed was everything or the only thing.  I just plain believe that any 5" cone playing 2kHz while simultaneously being modulated by a 70Hz bass note is going to produce Doppler distortion very audible to my ears.  Maybe I'm wrong.  If I offended anyone by expressing too much enthusiasm about the product, I apologize.  If anyone felt I was invlidating a purchase choice that was not my intention, because I really really don't care what anyone buys. The best cone/dome I've heard is the $10,000 Krell LAT-2 mini standmount, two way 6.5". The 626R with only SC option beat it, according to a Krell dealer & several persons in the store. If the Onix blows away the Krell then I should hear the Onix. I predict the Onix does not beat the Krell, but I don't know, maybe it does.

[Tyson]

Never heard the Ampzilla, so I'll take your word on how they sound w/the 626R's.

[James Romeyn]

You go away, you come back, and the negativity of this thread just stinks!  I think I would be O.K. if Brian had just indicated that for his design, the driver did not work.  I think the 626r's are a great little speaker, but damn, the communication lately on VMPS products has given me a sour taste, and I think the product line will suffer due poor communication.  Too bad, and just MO.
Brad

Look you guys: Brian actually recently replaced the rock hard dirt & weeds in front of his house with one of the most beautiful lawns & sprinklers I've seen.  I think this succes is going to his head, & causing his humor to become even more potent.  Just my opinion, I am not stating this as audiophile fact or anything like that.  Only my 2c worth, & not even that.

[Mad DOg]

...May I humbly inquire what type components were used in the original comparison?...

the components were neither Beetle quality nor were they F-1 quality...

Source: Rotel RDD-980 CD Transport
DAC: Perpetual Tech P-3/A (Modwright Level 1) & P-1/A upsampler & jitter reduction engine
Preamp: Adcom GFP-565 (used in bypass mode)
Amplifier: Aragon Palladium II monoblocks (400wpc @ 8ohms)
Speaker cable: Onix SP-200
Interconnects: Onix Blue, ZuCable Disco, Onix Thunder Digital Coax

later added were(courtesy of Shokunin):
Shunyata Hydra power conditioner
Sony XA-777ES SACD player
Bottlehead Foreplay Preamp
Bolder Bybee Nitro Interconnects

[Jay S]

the components were neither Beetle quality nor were they F-1 quality...

Ah but the little Beetle spawned the Porsche 356 which spawned the 911 which is arguably one of the very best sports car in the world!

[Tyson]

I've heard the Aragon amps before, and I've also heard the 626R's with a passive pre before.  Neither are a good match for them.  What the 626R's need are these (or something like them):

[Tyson]

BTW, I'm not some overprotective owner here (I don't have 626R's), but I have heard them at Jason's with enough different gear to know that even very good Solid State amps (and the Aragon certainly qualifies as very good), just doesn't match up well.  And using a Solid State (or even a passive) preamp just makes things worse for them.  I'm not talking about the quality of the upstream components (although that is important), rather I'm talking more about a holistic system matching.  Good quality tube gear is the ONLY way to go w/the 626R's, in my opinion.

[Mad DOg]

I've heard the Aragon amps before, and I've also heard the 626R's with a passive pre before.  Neither are a good match for them.  What the 626R's need are these (or something like them):

neither of the preamps used were passive...the adcom 565 is solid state but the bottlehead is tubed...

i'm not really familiar w/ matching amps to VMPS speakers, but the Bottlehead connected to the Aragons driving the 626Rs produced a very satisfying sound albeit a bit too hot in the treble range to my ears which could be adjusted by messing w/ the pots or swapping out tubes...

i thought the 626s were fantastic sounding speakers (esp when hooked up to the bottlehead)...unfortunately my wife objects to their size and looks...if Big B could make the same sound emanate from a beautiful, elegantly styled cabinet from Mark Schifter, then we'd be talkin'...

also if anyone wants to send me some amps similar to those in Tyson's photo, i'd be happy to test them out and share my opinions...bioforce, will have to bring his 626s back or loan them to me!  

[James Romeyn]

the components were neither Beetle quality nor were they F-1 quality...

Source: Rotel RDD-980 CD Transport
DAC: Perpetual Tech P-3/A (Modwright Level 1) & P-1/A upsampler & jitter reduction engine
Preamp: Adcom GFP-565 (used in bypass mode)
Amplifier: Aragon Palladium II monoblocks (400wpc @ 8ohms)
Speaker cable: Onix SP-200
Interconnects: Onix Blue, ZuCable Disco, Onix Thunder Digital Coax

later added were(courtesy of Shokunin):
Shunyata Hydra power conditioner
Sony XA-777ES SACD player
Bottlehead Foreplay Preamp

Bolder Bybee Nitro Interconnects

OK, don't come to my house, but here goes: never heard the transport.  My personal experience of the preamp is that in bypass mode it suffers from lack of dynamics, weight, body, & bass extension.  But it has some transparency as do most passives.  I heard the Perpetual gear both stock & with mods at Brian's many many times.  I never liked it.  In audiophile static terms incredibly good (stage, image), but amusical, rather gritty etc...I prefer my stock Philips SACD1000.  Brian's succesive Bolder modded ADC/DAC was better, the CI DAC still better (his current piece me thinks).  Never heard the Paladiums & know nothing negative about them; look promising in the literature.  I'd not call a system with all that Onix cable a "fair & balanced" one for comparison.  Considering the MSRPs of the above pieces, I humbly submit I'd not employ anything with an outboard passive preamp.  Meaning possibly an integraed with a passive preamp MIGHT work better.  I'd certainly never build any system around the Perpetual piece, but that is only my humble opinion.  Was the Sony 777 heard playing Redbook at analog outputs?  How was it vs. the Rotel/Perpetual DAC?  Anyone wanting a universal disc player really must wait till the fall for the McCormack UDP-1, $3000 estimated, likely a true giant killer round the bend.      

BTW, Brian employs & has employed my suggestions in production.  He rather preferred the $130pr interconnect I just brought over to his $600 piece, & asked if they could stay in his system.

[soundguy3]

Thought this might  be of interest to  this thread........... .....interesting that here in 2003, 40 years later,  a lot of these same principles still apply

(Taken from the 1990 Stereophile Test CD)


J. Gordon Holt reads from Stereophile Vol 1 NO.4 March-April 1963


"Why Hi-Fi experts Disagree"

"The high -fidelity initiate, bewitched, bothered, and thoroughly confused by the staggering selection of components he must choose from, often turns to a high-fidelity expert to assist him in assembling his dream system. The expert may be a local consultant, a dealer, or a magaine that the prospective buyer trusts as a source of accurate, down-to-ear information.

If this seeker of high-fidelity truth is wise, he will consult one expert and no more. The more expert opinions he gets, the more confused he will become because every expert opinion will be different from all the other expert opinions.

About the only thing that all high-fidelity experts agree about is that hight fidelity is supposed to be realistic sound reproduction. They may even agree that Marants amplifiers are pretty good, and that Thorens makes a passable turntable. But try to pin them down about pickups or other amplifiers or tuners or particularly LOUDSPEAKERS, and one expert's preference is another one's anathema.

Of course any expert worth his alt can tell you why there is so much disagreement. The reasons?  Well, the other experts, althought very nice guys, don't really know what they're talking about.  Oh, they're pretty good techinical men, mindyou, but they don't really have the perceptice ear that's needed for a truly musical evaluation of reproduced sound.

This is the crux of the matter.  Measurements can help to describe a component's performance,  but the final criterion for judging reproduced fidelity has always been the ear, and when we start to fall back on subjective judgements, we always end up with a diverstiy of opinions.

A listener can train his ears to pick out all kinds of details in the reporduced sound-peaks, dips, phase shift, imbalance and the like-but many such trained ears have never heard a live orchestra, so they are hardly qualified to tell you what is and what isis not realistic. Also, if they have never heard a system with really low distortion or really smooth response (whichmany "experts" have not), they will be oblivious to small amounts of muddiness or roughness that will be quite evident to someone woh is accustomed to listening to a truly top-quality system.

Listeners with identical hearing acuity and identical standards of judgment will usually be hight critical of differnt aspect of a system's performance. Thus, expert A may be terribly, terribly critical of what happenes in the high treble range, expert B mayb e hypercritical of bass, and expert may have a Thing about middle-range smoothness or 'coloration.'

We can see how this might influence their judgment of, say, a loudspeaker system. If it is a bit rought at the top, smooth through the middle range, and bass-shy, expert A won't like it much; it will offend his critical ear for treble. Expert C wont' be too crazy about it either, because of the low-end deficiency, but expert B, even while admitting that 'the top isin't as smooth as I have heard,' and 'the lowend leaves a little bit to be desired,' will just as likely sum it up as 'one of the most natural, musical-sounding speakers' he as tested.

They can all hear the speaker's shortcomings, in the sense that the treble peaks and bass thiness will register on their hearing mechanism, but each picks out that aspect of it's performance that is of particular concern to him and tends to judge it mainly on the basis of that aspect.  

No equiptment critic worth his salt will judge a component soley by one criterion, but it is not at all unusual for an equiptment reporter to 'slant' his evaluations on the basis of a few things which he considers to be of particular importance. As a matter of fact, it is almost impossible for him to avoid doing this, at least to some extent.

High fidelity may be a science, but it isn't an exact science. There are enough things about it that aren't understood to leave room for a goodly amount of educated opinion.  This is one field, though, where one many's opinion is not as good as another's.  

Many writers of books and articles about high fidelity, advise the prosperctive buyer merely to choose what sounds good to him. Certainly there is no sense in anybody's choosing a music system whose sound he does not like, but in a field where definite standards of quality exist, simply liking something does not necessarily mean that it is a good by those standards.  A person who likes abstract art, for instance, may be judging it by any numer of criteria, but resemblance to the original scene is not one of them. If it were evaluated on the basis of its 'fidelity,' or resemblance to the original scene, it would have to be judged  a very poor copy.  Similarly, the listener who prefers his sound shrill and brassy is perfectly entitled ot his preference, but is not choosing on the basis of fidelity, either.

This raises the question of whether high fidelity can, or should be BETTER than the real thing. Certainly it can be made to sound richer or bigger, or more highly detailed in a recording then it ever is in the concert hall, and the net result may actually be more exciting than anything heard at a live performance. The gimmicked recording may even , on occasion, serve the intent of the music better than a concert hall performjance but whether it sounds better or worse than the original, it is not true to the original and thus cannot be considered as a high-fidelity reproduction.

Sound recording may eventually become a creative art in it's own right..(SGuy- hmmm, I think it has   )  producing musical sounds that bear no relation to any natural sounds. Indeed, some branches of it- pops and so-called electronic music- are already well on their way in that direction.
This is not high-fidelity, though, and there's no sense pretending that it is.

As long as we are concerned with the realistic reproduction of sound, the original sound must stand as the criterion by which the reproduction is judged."



Some of this stuff is, of course, very dated, but the general gist of the articlle still holds a lot of water today.        


Soundguy3

[Mad DOg]

I humbly submit I'd not employ anything with an outboard passive preamp. Meaning possibly an integraed with a passive preamp MIGHT work better. I'd certainly never build any system around the Perpetual piece, but that is only my humble opinion. Was the Sony 777 heard playing Redbook at analog outputs? How was it vs. the Rotel/Perpetual DAC?

i'd love to replace the preamp w/ something else but like most folks, i have a mortgage and other expenses that make this upgrade more of a luxury item at this moment.  

any suggestions for an inexpensive preamp (tubed or ss) that would be an improvement over the adcom are welcome. as are BIG donations...

while you might not build any system around the Perpetual Tech gear, it was definitely a BIG improvement over my old cdp...a carver SD/A-360...

the Sony 777 was played using both the digital out into the PT gear and through the analog outputs but unfortunately we had swapped out a bunch of other stuff and ran out of time to a/b the DAC sections of the 2 pieces...i was and still am curious about this comparison though...

[Ravi]

Previous comments deleted.

Sorry Jim.  I guess we could all just lighten up a little.

[Tyson]

Mad DOg,
Well, the tubed preamp in the Picture I posted is only $800, no tax and with free shipping.  I'd put it's overall quality at least on par with the Audible Illusions Modulus 3A I owned a while back.  Here's the link to it:

http://www.boldercables.com/Store.asp?m=TheBolderCableCompany&n=10&k=115401&s=Radii+Audio+Tube+Electronics

Of course, you can still find AI mod 3A's on audiogon for around $1200 too, and that is a really good pre, but the dual volume pots are a bit of a pain, and the steps between each volume setting is just a bit too large, IMO.

[Mad DOg]

thanks, tyson!

please keep them suggestions coming...

i'm new to tube gear...always heard that tube stuff is more of a hassle...replacement of tubes and what not...inability of tubes to control bass...

after some brief exposure to tube gear...bottlehead, asl integrated tube amp, and norh integrated tube amp...i'm sold on tube preamps...

any other suggestions?

[Tyson]

Well, the problem is that your speakers are too good!  So, you can't really cheap out on the amp and preamp (I think your amp is great, no worries there).  My advice on tubed pre's is to check audiogon everyday  Really, the Radii, IMO, is a steal, it was basically equal to or a bit better than my old AI, which is $2500 new.  Tubed pre's tend to not be much hassle at all.  Tubed amps tend to be a little more maintenance intensive since they run the tubes harder than pre's do.

Another suggestion would be the preamp that JayS recently reported about here on AC, something called the minimax.  I don't know much about it other than the fact that Jay was really impressed by it, and I think he has very good judgement and ears.  I think it's comparable in price to the Radii, but you should contact JayS for details on it.

[Jay S]

Tube preamps are really not very troublesome.  I've had my Joule for a year and a half and the tubes are still going strong.  

The Minimax is a killer little tube pre that is made in Hong Kong.  It is little in terms of physical dimensions but it is a big player when it comes to sound.  In my system, it managed better transparency and layering than my Joule (which is $3,800 new).  Kennethlhc (who posts here occasionally) owns this pre and he is very very picky about gear.. if your system has any sonic flaws he will notice them.  I have heard that there are some raves posted about the Minimax on www.audioasylum.com - you may want to try a search.  

I have no direct experience with the Radii pre, but from all accounts the upgraded version Wayne sells is a great pre at a great price.  I do have a Radii 300B single ended triode integrated amp (with parts specified by Wayne) that sounds very nice.  I am in the process of getting a pair of little bookshelf speakers with full range drivers (no XO, easier load) from Brian Bunge of Rutledge Audio.  They'll have a cherry wood veneer with a custom red/brown mahogany stain.  I think they'll match very nicely sonically with the SET amp, and visually with the rest of the furniture in my bedroom.

[Brad]

Here's a link to an ETM review of the minimax
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/equipment/0503/easternelectric.htm

[Jay S]

Tube preamps are really not very troublesome.  I've had my Joule for a year and a half and the tubes are still going strong.  

The Minimax is a killer little tube pre that is made in Hong Kong.  It is little in terms of physical dimensions but it is a big player when it comes to sound.  In my system, it managed better transparency and layering than my Joule (which is $3,800 new).  Kennethlhc (who posts here occasionally) owns this pre and he is very very picky about gear.. if your system has any sonic flaws he will notice them.  I have heard that there are some raves posted about the Minimax on www.audioasylum.com - you may want to try a search.  

I have no direct experience with the Radii pre, but from all accounts the upgraded version Wayne sells is a great pre at a great price.  I do have a Radii 300B single ended triode integrated amp (with parts specified by Wayne) that sounds very nice.  I am in the process of getting a pair of little bookshelf speakers with full range drivers (no XO, easier load) from Brian Bunge of Rutledge Audio.  They'll have a cherry wood veneer with a custom red/brown mahogany stain.  I think they'll match very nicely sonically with the SET amp, and visually with the rest of the furniture in my bedroom.