Over the past two weekends, I've spent some time with a system at a dealer. I went in expecting to love it and want it, but I didn’t. I think the reasons why it didn’t make me happy with my repertoire at my listening levels [loud] are indicative of the quandary you’re placed in as the owner of a medium-high efficiency speaker.
System
Musical Fidelity A3.2 CD cd player
conrad-johnson PV14L
conrad-johnson MV60
Reference 3A De Capo i - 'Pro' version - black ash finish, phenolic edging, internal phenolic webbing (according to the dealer this model is no longer available)
stock power cords to the wall (no visible power treatment)
Van den Hul D-102 Mk III interconnects
Van den Hul D-352 Hybrid speaker cables, bi-wired
Reference 3A adjustable phenolic stands; tweeter was at roughly 38-40” (just below ear level)
Music
Elgar, Cockagine Overture, Enigma Variations, BBCSO, Andrew Davis (W.M.B. to Nimrod) [tracks 10-15]
Brahms Cello Sonatas, Rostropovich, Serkin, first mvt, E minor sonata [1]
Schubert, String Quartet #15, Allegro molto moderato, Melos Quartett [1]
Messiaen, Petites esquisses d'oiseaux, Håkan Austbø
Ravel String Quartet, Alban Berg Quartet, Assez vif – Très rythmé [6]
Schumann Piano Concerto, Hélène Grimaud, David Zinman, DSOB [1]
Bach – Goldberg Variations, Glenn Gould, 1981 recording (‘A State of Wonder’ re-master)
It goes without saying that this is difficult repertoire to reproduce—none of it is dynamically limited, a lot of it uses a good-size orchestra (and I didn’t even play any of the big stuff!); some of it is close-miked piano or string quartet, both of which can generate violent dynamic contrasts (which I’ve never heard a system really resolve).
Disclaimer
This is not a ‘review’ of any of these pieces—at most I spent 3 hours with the system, and I only listened to it as it was set up. This is all quality equipment, I’m sure. But as we know, the devil is in the details, and the details are … system matching.
Listening
This system did a lot of things very well, and most of them were as expected. Instrumental timbre was very good. On the warm side, definitely forgiving, but still very revealing of nuance in musicians’ tone and intention (sort of—see below). The bass was also deep and natural sounding, if a bit full; room interactions being highly suspect. I’m just going to dive into musical examples because that’s the easiest way to convey the sound of the system.
In the Aria of the Goldberg variations, I heard lovely details and exceptional decay trails in the sound of Gould’s Steinway. The bass was excellent – quite extended for a tube amp and a monitor—and gave a rich sense of the instrument and the acoustic. It also did a good cello…
Rostropovich’s tone was believably rendered, and the interplay between the two players on this album (and the fact that Slava sways when he plays) was captured well; the system also revealed the too-close miking of the piano which made it appear that the lower octaves were coming more from the left speaker and vice-versa.
A standard test for a system’s resolution of space, air, and string tone for me is the Assez vif – Très rythmé from Alban Berg Quartet’s disc of the Debussy and Ravel quartets. In the opening, Ravel uses the strings like a percussion section, creating a sparse pizzicato texture that lurches forward 2 against 3. For the movement to work, a quartet must control the syncopated rhythm while avoiding the ugly sounds often produced by plucking the strings (and this is a difficult pizz part). ABQ rise to the challenge, continuing the lush atmosphere of the rest of the work while playing neither too slow or too fast; their pizzicato playing is really just gorgeous; one for the textbooks—and these gentlemen create a pizz sound that (not to anthropomorphize) “blooms” just beautifully, the decay trail strewn with colours and reverberation.
The c-j’s and DC’s captured this lovely bloom very nicely. I’ve heard it better rendered only by very quite expensive tubed systems. What they didn’t get was the transient power of the pizz attack. Upon the first repeat of the theme after the interposed lyrical section, there are heavy offbeat accents (at the interval of a fifth) played pizzicato by the violins. These are extremely demanding on an amplifier, and here they sounded hard and closed-in.
A uniquely entertaining feature of Gould’s ’81 reading is the abandon (and arm weight—oh wait—how did he make that sound?) with which he bangs out the opening note of the first variation. It wrenches the listener away from the deftly-delayed resolution of the theme’s last suspension to Gould’s meta-rhythmic choreography of the rest of the piece. In a sense he is flagging the downbeat, because he intends to use it for the entire piece. (His commentary on the third disc is very enlightening in that regard.) My only reservation with the rendering here was the slight change in tonal character on this and other suddenly loud notes. Of course the character of the piano changes when it is banged; but this was beyond that. When you bang on a piano it sounds harder, but larger. Here, the sound got smaller, spatially. (I’ve spent some time banging on Steinways.)
In the Schubert, tone was lovely, and the spatial relationship between the instruments was remarkable. But it didn’t sound happy when things got loud (which they do very early on in the first movement).
The Elgar didn’t have the sweep and macrodynamic swings I usually hear out of those gorgeous middle variations. The orchestral forces seemed strained on swells, and I found that I enjoyed the climax of the Nimrod variation much less than I had expected to. The trumpet, particularly, in its golden moment, sounded pinched.
I’m using all these musical examples because I find it a bit difficult to quantify what I didn’t’ like about the system; even though I expected to like it a great deal.
I guess it was: Over-warm—I thought instrumental timbre was compromised by the warmth. It sounded great, but too lush to be ‘right’ (I am aiming for ‘right’, but the way), as if the system had magically added maple paneling to the hall that wasn’t there before, and pulled the mics back into the audience just slightly. It was also: not quiet. There was a noticeable tube noise floor. It was often helpless with macro-dynamics, but that is pretty easily dismissed as ‘just’ a power issue (although this isn’t really a small problem). There was also an over-arching ‘tube haze’ –- I don’t know what else to call it – that was apparent only after a while; everything seemed blanketed with it.
Unfortunately, I also noticed a lack of musical involvement – the results were not sufficiently dynamic (I found myself not listening until the end of a track—a sign my partner in audio crime always looks for). And there was an unusual fatigue at the end of my sessions – not the fatigue you get from bright SS systems, but something else… Difficult to explain, but it didn’t make me want to keep listening.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
There are a number of caveats; a lot of tweaks, etc. that weren't done. This system was more or less put together just to have the gear hooked up; it wasn't optimized, and was located in a small room (about 12x12x8) with another small system consisting of a wall-mounted lcd, a high-end receiver and a set of 5 small surround speakers.
The obvious things I would do to this system are:
0) Better placement of speakers -- for example, not right next to the electronics; further from the wall
1) Install serious vibration control for all three pieces. (to address noise floor and hopefully increase perceived micro-dynamics)
2) Upgrade power cables
3) Upgrade the CD player. My player, or any other well-rated player (However, the A3.2 is, in my opinion too dynamic if anything.. I don’t think this would ‘solve’ any of my problems here…)
4) Upgrade interconnects (to whatever), probably silver.
5) Raise the De Capo i's several inches.
6) I might well prefer the 'SE' version of the MV60. (As reviewed recently in Hi Fi +, it’s ‘transformed into a caged beast’ or something to that effect with the 6550A’s)
I also notice that the MV60 is (as well as its big brother the Premiere 140) quite sensitive-- it's listed as .8 volts rms to rated power. I wonder if using a passive here would be possible? (Not to re-open the passive debate.) This system sounds to me like it could use a little less between source and amplifier.
The dealer noted (with some pleasure) that the amp was running out of power on the climaxes at my relatively high listening level. As a big proponent of the too-much-power-is not-enough theory ("Horsepower Rules!"), he recently related to me the improvement in a system that he upgraded for a customer from a Krell 600-watt stereo amp to 750-watt monoblocks--powering 93db Wilson Watt/Puppy 7's in a very small room. He had recommended the Krell Master Reference monoblocks (apparently cost means nothing to this customer), but there was no way to get them into the room.. He also mentioned that at one point he had powered this pair of De Capos with a Krell 600 in the front room--wish I had been there to hear that! So much for the theory that you should spend 60% of your budget on speakers... in that system it would have been more like 6%!
Anyway. I hate to go on so long, and I really don’t have a point; I just thought this was a very interesting case study in the ferocious demands on amplifiers when you’re listening to live orchestral or chamber music. I know lots of people (probably most people) are using even less power than the c-j, and seem very happy. Any thoughts?
Poll
