[Robert57]

George, we listened briefly to my Ultimate II (copper bybees) at the outset and then switched to the Ultimate IV, which Woodsyi just received a couple days ago and is not yet fully broken in. I had a hard time telling any difference between the two, but the IV still hadn't come into its full song, so we didn't spend much time comparing the two. For all our detailed comparisons among preamps we used the IV, and it sounded very sweet with the analog out of the Bolder SB2. No complaints here! We focused our listening session on the preamps, minimizing the variables.

Rob

[doug s.]

first of all, i also wanna ad my thanks to rim for hosting yet again a bunch of audio nuts.   

i need to say that, having heard rim's system several times now, i think he's really got it dialed in supurbly, what w/the addition of his tubed marchand x-over & all - it really sounds sweet.

now, as far as preamps go, in rim's system, w/the modded squeezebox as the source, the modwright definitely was the #1 choice for me.  It just did everything right - detail, soundstaging, neutrality, dynamics.  The sas came in a wery close second - for me, it may have had a tiny edge in the extreme treble, noticeable only on cymbals, but this was ever so slight.  otherwise, the the sas's total presentation seemed to me to be a bit leaner, & not as full in the bass.  i could easily be happy with it in this system; it's only in direct comparison to the swl 9.0 that i preferred the 9.0's overall presentation. 

(of course, for me, even if the sas came in first, i would never consider owning a preamp w/o a remote control wolume pot.  i have mentioned this to steve sammit, in private pm's, when he queried me about comments i have made on this board about my own highly modded melos ma333r preamp.  steve insists that a remote pot degrades the sound.  i insisted not, & i showed him a link to the ayre k-1xe's optional $250 remote control, which ads a completely mechanical gear driven drive to their esoteric wolume pot. 

the reason i digress here, is because i think all serious preamp mfr's need to offer a remote option, regardless of which potentiometer option they prefer.   and, i think a coupla folks at rim's may have preferred the sas overall, & i suspect the sas might swap positions w/the modwright with winyl, something that we never got to, due to time constraints.  perhaps rim will give us his own personal feedback later, as he has these preamps at his home for a while.)

now to the odyssey candela.  i really liked this, & could be happy w/it in rim's system, even tho i thought it a bit off on detail & neutrality, when compared to the sas & the modwright.  it was a bit on the overly warm side of neutral, & its initial attack of the notes wasn't as sharp.  its owner bunky sez that can be changed by tube rolling.  and, perhaps it would work better in a system with solid state (odyssey?) amps.

the bbb didn't do it for me at all.  on a technical level, i would hazard a guess that this is the most accurate preamp we listened to.  it was by far the most detailed.  it had the blackest background.  it was extremely neutral.  but it didn't make music, imo - it struck me as extremely sterile, & i had no desire to keep listening to music, like i did with the other three preamps.  ( a component like this is, imo, at the crux of what so many folks in this hobby - both hobbyists and mfr's - argue about: accuracy vs musicality.  my take is that it may be clinically accurate, but in the case of redbook digital, this means it won't make music.)  listening to the bbb reminded me of when i couldn't enjoy any digital playback on any system, until only relatively recently - like when i first bought & modified my art di/o back in ~2000.  again, the bbb may sound better to these ears with winyl playback, but i didn't get a chance to hear it.

which leads me to my final observation.  after the back-n-forth of hearing 4-5 songs repeatedly, on the different preamps, & then re-listening to them again, on the bent, & the modwright, so we could re-confirm (or question, in a few folks minds), our opinions, rim hooked up his nice analog rig (oracle mkv deck, sme mkiv (i think) arm, koetsu redwood sig cartridge, art audio fono stage), to the last preamp we auditioned the squeezebox system to - the modwright.  now...  THIS was music!  The cowboy junkies trinity sessions (which we had also heard thru the squeezebox), was phenomenal!  made the squeezebox iteration sound like a cheap portable radio, in comparison.  (ok, mebbe i am exaggerating, but only a bit!    )  a sonny rollins album was also intoxicating.  if it weren't awreddy 11pm, i woulda wanted to play these on the other preamps to see how they would fare.

so, all you digital junkies can pick all the nits you want in your rigs, but get an analog set up to hear MUSIC!!!   

thanks again, rim, for a fantastic day.

doug s.

[Steve]

(Edited 9-19-07) I reread Doug's previous post and felt a need to edit, in ().

Thanks for all the comments. Much appreciated. There are a few things that need to be  cleared up, to help one appreciate the audition. Woodsyi may add additional information with his comments.

The Modwright preamp was actually the SWLP 9.0SE Preamp, with premium tube rectification, blackgates, teflon capacitors, silver Bybees. I believe Doug stated the basic SWL 9.0SE Tube Linestage Preamplifier.

The power cord for the SWLP 9.0 was not stock but an aftermarket Black Sands power cord reference silver MK 5, which adds some weight to the presentation from my experience. Woodsyi disclosed this up front at audio nervosa last week.

(I don't understand your comment.

" i have mentioned this to steve sammit, in private pm's, when he queried me about comments i have made on this board about my own highly modded melos ma333r preamp."

My first post simply asked why Melos went out of business. Later you addressed the issue of a remotes. You also mentioned that the alps controls were inferior sounding. I address your comments below.)
     

I am sorry you could not obtain a remote model from me. The problem with the remote system is what pots does one use? I need to stay accurate to the music, (plus other physical problems as well. edited 9-18-07)

Individual pot sections are matched in a single pot. However, differences between two separate pots can be quite high when considered on a rotational basis. So when changing volume, the balance can be off, necessitating a manual adjustment each time the volume is changed.

I have multiple methods of testing, took years to develop and are proprietary, my preamps for accuracy. Those methods are quite different than simply 'voicing'. Lowering those standards for convenience seems counter productive to me.

I suppose that Woodsyi may mention this, but the 11A has a variety of controls to tailor the sound a little. AC power polarity switch, Bass control, and High frequency switch; all can be adjusted on the fly.

Hope this helps those reading the comments, and again I appreciate all the comments presented, and those still coming.

Thanks Woodsyi for your time, efforts, and expense hosting the gathering.

[doug s.]

...The problem with the remote system is what pots does one use? All pots are not equal. I cannot use an inferior pot in my designs and stay accurate to the music.

Individual pot sections are matched in a single pot. However, differences between two separate pots can be quite high when considered on a rotational basis. So when changing volume, the balance can be off, necessitating a manual adjustment.

I have multiple methods of testing (took years to develop and are proprietary) my preamps. Those methods are quite different than simply 'voicing'. I do not want to degrade that sound for convience sake...

that's easy enough to work around - separate remote for each channel - that's how my dual-mono melos works.  one pair of buttons operates both pots, the second pair operates only the left channel.  so channel matching can be done from the listening chair.    aa

i really would like to hear the sas preamp w/vinyl, where i would think it would be even better than it was w/the digital, & it was really nice...  or at least, i'd like to hear rim's comments about it.   

doug s.

[Wayne1]

In case Wooodsyi didn't mention it, the 4B (Bolder/Bent/Burson Buffer is a PROTOTYPE unit. One of a kind. It was sent out to get user opinions on the interface and on the sound.

It finally had the correct transformer installed 2 days before being sent to DC.

John Chapman did have some misgivings about some readings he was getting from the set-up. It turns out his misgivings were correct. The Burson circuit does not like some of the impedances it sees with the stepped attenuator modules in front of it. We JUST found this out two days ago.

Woodsyi, when you get done with the listening tests of this prototype, please send it back to John Chapman. He does believe he might have a solution to this problem. If he does, we may ask for a pre-amp comparison, round 2 

You may also want to try just the buffer section by turning the volume all the way up and running it either direct into your crossover or into a pre-amp. The modded SB has had it's gain stage removed. The 9 db gain supplied by the buffer will give it back and more.

Thank you all for listening and your comments. Hopefully we will be able to correct the problems with this unit shortly.

[Robert57]

In case Wooodsyi didn't mention it, the 4B (Bolder/Bent/Burson Buffer is a PROTOTYPE unit. One of a kind. It was sent out to get user opinions on the interface and on the sound.

Wayne, as you and John tweak the prototype 4B, one mechanical issue we had trouble with was the phase switch on the front panel. Pressing the button to reverse phase didn't seem to do anything-- the LED did not respond. Maybe Woodsyi has since figured out how to work this. It would be great if the remote could add a phase reversal button as well.

Rob

[Jazz and Baroque]

Thanks Rim and Robin for hosting the listening session.

I have a passive TVC in my home system that I enjoy listening to and I was interested in hearing the new BBB unit.  My ears are still learning how to listen, but I have been dissatisfied with how some violin sections are reproduced with a thin sound in the upper range (poor harmonic structure on top of the high fundamentals).  Then again, maybe some violins sections just have poor upper register sound.

We listened to the BBB first and then the SAS.  My initial impression on hearing the Modwright was that it had better violin sound than the first two. 

There were some comments that the SB source was still warming up on the initial pass through and that the sound had improved when we went back over the BBB and SAS units.  By that time, my ears were tired and everything sounded the same to me. 

Anyway, it was a success for me.  I left with new ideas on what to do next for my system.  And I am still not ready to consider a computer hard-drive as a source for my music.

Thanks again, Rim and Robin,
Mike

[WEEZ]

Jazz and Baroque,

Can you expand on the statement "And I'm still not ready to consider a computer hard-drive as a source for my music". ?

thanks,

WEEZ

[Wayne1]

Robert57,

As I stated in the earlier post, the unit sent to Rim was a prototype. The case and controls were taken from John's TAP-X project and were originally designed to be used with transformers. Unfortunately the unit can not reverse the phase of a single ended input without adding a transformer or additional stages in the signal path. Pushing the phase button on that unit does nothing.

The Ultimate power supply used was upgraded earlier in the week. It does use a few BlackGate capacitors in "Super E" configuration as part of the new circuit installed. These take at least 24 hours just to start to sound acceptable, and a few hundred hours to fully form.

Perhaps you can all get back together to compare units later in the fall when the products have a bit more "age" on them. The Bent unit and the power supply were both updated and rushed out for the weekend get together. I am afraid I was very remiss in not stating that the items will need time to break-in and not being more adamant in stressing that the Bent unit was a "test mule" and not a production item.

[doug s.]

one other thing about the bbb was that one channel indicated it was two digits higher than the other.  but, i didn't hear any channel imbalance.  likely due to the prototype nature of this unit.  i would certainly be up for hearing a "non-prototype" unit.  the black background, & apparent detail & neutrality of it really was astounding.  now if it could only be made to sound musical!   aa

doug s.

[Jazz and Baroque]

Can you expand on the statement "And I'm still not ready to consider a computer hard-drive as a source for my music". ?

thanks,
WEEZ

I don't think that the hardware/software is fully developed.  It seems to be designed for college students who are pulling MP3 files off the internet.  Also, I don't like the idea of modulating RF carrier waves, sending to a source/receiver and then decoding the music.  It is an unnecessary step that can not improve the music.  I will stay with vinyl and CDs for a few more years.

Mike

[WEEZ]

J & B,

Thanks for your candid reply. My sentiments mimic yours.

WEEZ

[doug s.]

mebbe the hardware/software interface for computer-based audio systems isn't fully developed, but many fokls have ditched their uber-high-end multi kilobuck cd playback systems in favor of computer based systems at a fraction of the cost - because they like the sound so much better...  still doesn't compete w/winyl, tho, imo.   

me, personally, i am content w/my modest digital rig, comprising a ~$250 modded art di/o, used $80 denon 5-disc changer, & separate isolation transformers powering each.  i haven't heard anything beat it that's even remotely affordable.  and, i don't have the room to do a computer-based system...

ymmv,

doug s.

[Wayne1]

doug,

If one channel indicated it was higher, then the "balance" control must of been moved by mistake at one point.

The unit uses two separate boards, one for each channel, for volume control. The remote control will let you "balance" (adjust) each channel independently. That is the reason for two separate displays of "volume".



The + & - buttons control volume and the horizontal arrow buttons control balance


Did you guys change the phase of the system between the listening to tube pre-amps and the B4? Most tube pre-amps that I am familiar with invert phase. The B4 does not.

Rim, you might want to give this a try if you have time in the next couple of days. listen to the B4 with your speakers set up the way you have them now. Then reverse the polarity of the speaker wires. Do the same with the tube pre-amps you have on hand. Please let us know your findings.

[doug s.]

doug,

If one channel indicated it was higher, then the "balance" control must of been moved by mistake at one point.

The unit uses two separate boards, one for each channel, for volume control. The remote control will let you "balance" (adjust) each channel independently. That is the reason for two separate displays of "volume".



The + & - buttons control volume and the horizontal arrow buttons control balance


Did you guys change the phase of the system between the listening to tube pre-amps and the B4? Most tube pre-amps that I am familiar with invert phase. The B4 does not.

Rim, you might want to give this a try if you have time in the next couple of days. listen to the B4 with your speakers set up the way you have them now. Then reverse the polarity of the speaker wires. Do the same with the tube pre-amps you have on hand. Please let us know your findings.

wayne, if the bent was able to have its balance adjusted, no one there was aware of this fact.  rim certainly wasn't - we talked about the fact that there was a 2 digit difference between channels, & rim didn't know how it happened, or how to make the channel imbalance go away.

re: absolute phase, this topic came up, & everyone decided it wasn't worth switching anything, due to the fact that absolute phase on recordings is so arbitrary from one recording to the next, even from one track to the next on different recordings.  and no one present said they could reliably distinguish between absolute phase changes.  i know i can't - my preamp has a phase reversal switch, & i have never use it, except out of idle curiosity, to prove to myself that i can't distinguish one phase as ever sounding any better than the other.  i guess the only time i might use the phase reverse switch on my preamp, is if i were a-b'ing, say, two cd playback systems, & their absolute phase was different from each other.  back to our audition at rim's, i can't recall what the exact phase discussion was about - whether the preamps had different phase, or whether the squeezebox was the phase inwerting culprit.  perhaps someone else heard that whole conwersation from start to finish.   

doug s.

[woodsyi]

Sorry folks for being silent for the last two days.  We had day trips to Winchester (Patsy Cline memorial service)  and a hike in the mountains (really no more than a foothill for you folks out west).  You see, tomorrow is my daughter's first day at Kindergarten.    She just settled down and went to sleep.

Thanks to Wayne and Steve for letting me audition the gears and much appreciation for those who came and took part in the listening session.  Special kudos to Courtney (Bunky brought her 12 year old daughter) for playing with Rachel all those hours.    Also a special thanks to Den for coming through yet again with a chiropractic adjustment on my wife, Robin.  Really, Robin is now asking me to have these sessions so Den can give her another of these fabulous adjustments.  She has been seeing chiropractors for a long time but Den, according to her, is the best she has seen.    I will also mention that SAS tour is a part of an equipment tour that was arranged by Carlman at Audio Nervosa.  Thanks Carl for letting me take part in the tour. 

Quick note on ancillary equipment.

VMPS RM40 with the following options:  Constant Directivity Wave Guide with dehorned tweeter, midwoofer upgrade, silver wire and Bybees on drivers.
VMPS larger subwoofers.
Marchand XM 126 3 way crossover with Telefunken 12ax7 tubes on all but the low pass on the subwoofers.
Response Audio Extreme Hurricanes (Bella Extreme 200) on ribbons.
Acoustic Reality eAR 1001s on "mid" woofers.
Crown K2 on subwoofers.
Bolder Nitro speaker cables on ribbons and "mid" woofers.
Audioquest Plus cables on subwoofers.
Blacksand silver ref V and Verrastar Power cables.
Preamp and source through Bolder Power-bar with Bybees.
Various and sundry acoustic treatments.

Music used for comparison:
Penny to my name by Eva Cassidy.
Prokofiev's Romeo and Juliet conducted by Aram Gharabekian (the uncompressed version)
Blue Bossa by Ray Brown
This Land is Your Land by Willie Nelson/Maria Muldaur/Tom Paxton/John McCutcheon and Ain't No Mo' Cane On Dis Brazos - Kelly Jo Phelps/Elouise Burrell/Cultural Heritage Choir produced by Earthbeat Records.

As many have already mentioned they were all good.  Seriously, what we are doing is really nitpicking on really small differences but then that's why we have boards like this to talk about it endlessly, right?  So This is my impression.  4B control center is eerily quiet.  I suspect this is what brings so many people to passive preamps.  Everything is pure and clear but it lacked the harmonic richness (even order?) to make voices come alive.  The strange thing is that the second listening session to 4BCC was better than the first.  With so much done recently, it just may need some more burn in time.  I also want to try vinyl with it to see how that sounds.  Wayne, I will send it back to John but let me play with it a little more with different configurations as you suggest. 

I will second the opininion that Odessey Candela surprisingy put out very musical sound.  Little less resolving power but it had very good balance top to bottom.  Considering the price difference, I think it is an excellent value.  The extra "mellowness" may also mate better with SS amps in a different system. 

I will review the SAS 11A reference preamp in conjunction with my resident Modwight SWLP preamp.  They are actually more similar than different and do everything well.  It really is only in comparison, that you can hear any differences.  I happen to prefer the SWL presentation of bass and vocals.  Which is more neutral, I can't say.  To be fair to SAS, I have had much more time to adjust the SWL to my liking whereas I am still learning about 11A.  Given more time to play with it, I may be able to tweak it to my liking.  As it is, I prefer the SWL, but I really can be happy with either. 

I am being called.  I will post more later.  Ciao,

[Den]

It's a tough job, but somebody has to do it.     

[Steve]

Hi Doug,

I had not noticed some things before, but I reread your previous comments and it sounds like we have a symantec problem with the words, neutral and sterile.

I view neutral/accuracy as being at the venue of a beautiful orchestra, emotional with natural flesh in the music. I view sterile as just that, sterile. I think of sterile as thin, lacking flesh, washed out, not the original venue and emotional event at all. Sterile can be deceiving, depending on different factors. I can understand where you might think sterile is neutral, but is a live performance of an orchestra sterile?

"( a component like this is, imo, at the crux of what so many folks in this hobby - both hobbyists and mfr's - argue about: accuracy vs musicality. my take is that it may be clinically accurate, but in the case of redbook digital, this means it won't make music.)"

I personally developed multiple proprietary listening tests (to check for discrepancies in each testing method) to accurately compare my preamps (and ICs) to 'nothing'. To me that means that if my system is neutral and accurate, then the orchestra will have all the emotions, flesh etc of the live event.

If the system sounds sterile, then another component or components in the system are not right, but sterile, too thin, washed out. But it is not the preamp or IC's fault. The sterile component(s) need to be changed or upgraded until the system is neutral/accurate to the emotional event for better synergy. I do not see how an accurate system can sound sterile with using my definition?

I have had at least 10 people who have heard the 11A in and out of the system (some did not know what I did, others I stated I was doing somethng different {I apologized to them afterward}. In some cases, I suggested they would hear a difference, to influence them to hear a change (I did not tell them what change it was and the loudness was the same, measured). (And the amp and speakers were pretty top notch, with excellent drivers.)

In all cases, none could hear any difference when the 11A was in the system or out of the audio system. To me, the 11A is a true reference and creates a firm foundation to work from. If the system sounds sterile, then there is some other problem in the system that needs to be addressed. Again better synergy is the goal.

As far as noise etc; with the active crossover using 12AX7s, the transformer will be quieter because an active stage of amplification is removed. Remove the active crossover and one will find the noise level of the active preamps to be dramatically reduced, with results accordingly.
 
Also, comparing the passive to an active preamplifier means the first stage after the passive should also be included (although it was not possible) so we have a fair comparison. I think one would find the results to be quite different.
 
As far as redbook always sounding sterile, I have a modded Rotel 865bx (with blackgate caps throughout, stock) that does not even have a hint of sterility but 'makes music'. I am sure there are other manufacturer's as well who produce such components. In fact, in stock mode, its problem was a little too smooth and full. I corrected those problems.

As far as me not implimenting your suggestions concerning the remote, there are many problems which you yourself would not understand as per your PM, June 29, 2007, to me. I tried explaining things to you, such as sonic quality deteriorating, no physical space to incorporate motorized controls etc.

"hi steve,

again, being a technical novice, i cannot speak to the functioning of it. other than being told that the actual gain level is driven by the photo-resistor."

A photo resistor is used in TVs. They require a power supply, which is in the signal path, transmitter circuitry, receiving circuitry, many parts including SS parts.

"all i know, is that years ago, when i 1st heard a melos sha-gold at a local stereo shop, i was blown away by the transparency of it. and, nothing else in the system could be attributed to this - i don't recall the amp or speakers, but nothing really special; i know i have heard better re: those components."

I am trying to figure out how one would know how transparent the Melos was, and how one could compare it to other preamps if the other components were not that good, or accurate/natural? You mentioned hearing better later on.

I also have customers who care only for top quality sound, a remote is not necessary. I have to use the best control for the job or I lose those customers. I would also have to completely redesign the pre to handle any more power.

I guess finally, I use some exceptional parts in my components. However, exceptional parts are only part of the story as one could have exceptional parts and still not have the best sound. Design is just as important, and my designs (which are copyrighted) are not copies but unique of which I have not seen anyone else ever use.

Woodsyi made a comment that the differences were minute, nitpicking. In such a case, something as simple as a changing an IC, one internal parts value change, one part from a different manufacturer, certainly a component change would easily change the sound and results, such as the 11A being right on and the Mod sounding too full. I guess one would then rid the Modwight of the after market power cord.
 
What I am saying is, don't make too much of auditions. They can only give relative differences and similarities in a given system, unless multiple rigorous listening tests are performed.

[woodsyi]

Steve,

You are right in that one has to consider any shootout results location dependent.  That is why I have listed the equipment and songs.  Also, it should be remembered that everything I have done in my system is geared toward to making music the way I like it using my equipment.  At the moment that is the Modwright SWL preamp (going on a year).  So, it is no wonder that it would sound the best for me.  BTW, I had the eq pot at 11 for the meet since you said that is the most neutral position and the toggle switch up to get the most treble extention.  So a different setting would have given different sound.  Right now I have it at 9 and toggle down for further listening. I also switched PC to Black Sand. There is more bass now.  I also have my Art Audio Phono Stage connected and will listen to some vinyl later to see how that sounds. 

Beyond a certain point of competence, it's hard to say which equipment is better than another.  It comes down to personal taste and musical preference.  Just in our group, Scott thought your SAS11A was the best.  For me, there was more texture to vocals with the SWLP than the other pres and that's what rocks my boat.  Now when it comes to vocal texture, my Von Gaylord Legend LAD2 preamp with Red Base RCA 5692 does it the best but it lacks PRAT.  The LAD2 mates well with 300B SET and single driver speakers playing vocals and strings and small jazz ensembles, but I wouldn't play orchestral music with it.  Modwright does both well.  Your 11A amp also does everything well and it really is very consistent.  If I put Amperex pinched waist in place of the JJ tubes, would I like it better?  Possibly.  I would have to have more time to play with it and roll tubes to see how I can tweak it to my liking.  I am sure there can even be upgrade paths possibly with different coupling caps if I push it.   I will keep playing with different settings and configurations until I have to ship it up to NY.  I will do a follow up later at that point.

[doug s.]

...If the system sounds sterile, then another component or components in the system are not right, but sterile, too thin, washed out. But it is not the preamp or IC's fault. The sterile component(s) need to be changed or upgraded until the system is neutral/accurate to the emotional event for better synergy. I do not see how an accurate system can sound sterile with using my definition?...

symantically, i understand your definition.  what i am hypothesizing, (as i really don't know for sure; i don't think anyone really knows for sure), is that, when it comes to redbook cd playback, the more accurate the system, the less musical sound you will have.  i am saying that, mebbe, redbook is sterile.

...As far as redbook always sounding sterile, I have a modded Rotel 865bx that does not even have a hint of sterility but 'makes music'. I am sure there are other manufacturer's as well who produce such components. In fact, in stock mode, its problem was a little too smooth and full. I corrected those problems...

i would submit that it makes music because it is not accurate.  your corrections made it more musical, but not accurate; otherwise it would have become sterile.   

...I also have customers who care only for top quality sound, a remote is not necessary. I have to use the best control for the job or I lose those customers...

i understand it's your biz, & you need to do what you feel you should do, to accommodate your customers.  whether or not you lose some customers & end up gaining more customers, doesn't matter - you have to do what's right for you.  if you cannot make a remote & keep the sonics the same, that's ok - i completely respect your choice.  it doesn't mean that some of us can't be disappointed, tho, does it?   

...Woodsyi made a comment that the differences were minute, nitpicking. In such a case, something as simple as a changing an IC, one internal parts value change, one part from a different manufacturer, certainly a component change would easily change the sound and results, such as the 11A being right on and the Mod sounding too full. I guess one would then rid the Modwight of the after market power cord....

that's woodsyi's take.  my take is that woodsyi's comments hold for your sas & for his modwright preamp.  both were outstanding in woodsyi's rig, imo., & it was nit-picking, for me, to choose between these two.  the other two - the bbb & the candela - i would not say comparing either of them to the each other, or to the first two is nitpicking.  i enjoyed the candela, tho i found its presentation a lot warmer, less neutral, less detailed.  i found the bbb left me cold, even tho i appreciated the blacker background & the detail.

...What I am saying is, don't make too much of auditions. They can only give relative differences and similarities...

i agree, to a point.  as you have said, other components in a complete system can change things.  and, what you hear from one component in one system may not translate to what that component may sound like in another system.  but, there really is no other way i know to decide if you may like something in your system, other than to try it.  and, hearing stuff in other systems gives you a clue as to what you might wanna hear in your own system.

regards,

doug s.