Please send all questions to firstname.lastname@example.org. All questions sent to this e-mail address will be replied to online. If you do not wish to share your e-mail with other readers, please do not send it. But if you have a question, chances are others are wondering the same thing. Therefore, you will be helping not only yourself, but other readers as well when your question gets answered here.
To Hans Wetzel,
Thanks for the review of the NuPrime IDA-16. I would like to know more about the comparison with the Wyred 4 Sound in the conclusion. Is it a comparison with the W4S DAC-2, DAC-2 DSD, or DAC-2 DSDse? I´m thinking of buying the W4S DAC-2 DSDse, but it will be a little cheaper to buy the IDA-16, because I then can sell my Lyngdorf SDA 2175. It is so important for me how good the DAC in the IDA-16 is. Thank you very much.
Steen Boye Pedersen
Vince Hanada's review of the IDA-16 left me quite intrigued: DSD capable; 200Wpc (into 8 ohms); an attractive, slender profile . . . delicious. In looking back at what Vince wrote in the conclusion, I can only conclude that Vince was referring to the Wyred 4 Sound mINT, as it is the only current integrated amplifier-DAC in Wyred 4 Sound’s lineup.
As far as deciding between the DAC-2 DSDse and the IDA-16, it is worth noting that the former is a pure digital-to-analog converter, while the latter is an integrated amplifier-DAC. The IDA-16 does have an optical output, as well as pre outs, for what it’s worth. Having not heard either of the products in person, I can't tell you which is the better DAC, especially since each uses the same Sabre ESS9018 chipset.
On the flexibility front, choosing between the two is a no-brainer -- grab the NuPrime. You would save money, as you suggest, while also getting a complete one-box system that Vince thought very highly of. Considering I use NuForce’s (NuPrime’s progenitor) $549 DDA-100 integrated amplifier-DAC on a daily basis for my desktop system and continue to be impressed with its sound quality, I can only imagine what almost $2000 more will get you. If you're that unsure, it looks like you might be able to take a DAC-2 DSDse on trial from Wyred 4 Sound. Good luck! . . . Hans Wetzel
To Hans Wetzel,
I have the following components: Sudgen Masterclass PDT-4F Fusion CD player, Mark Levinson No.38 preamplifier, two Parasound Model 2250 power amplifiers (used as monoblocks), and Bowers & Wilkins 683 floorstanding speakers. As far as interconnects are concerned, I am using AudioQuest Diamond (both balanced and unbalanced). I am also using AudioQuest speaker cables. I have been looking for a Parasound 2250 review all in vain. Can anyone assist? How can I improve my system -- any ideas? Your assistance will be appreciated.
While I can't help you on the Parasound 2250 review front, I can assure you that you have a solid system there. Parasound's amps are excellent for the money, so I'm not sure you can do much better. The only standout suggestion I have right now is Benchmark Media's AHB2 power amplifier. While it doesn't look particularly inspiring, its sound is pretty spectacular. My review of it should be published in the next couple of months. Benchmark doesn't appear to be shipping to South Africa at the moment, but keep an eye out on their website.
Regarding your CD player, I'm not familiar with Sudgen's products, and I can't tell from their website too many details about your PDT-4F. That said, there are a multitude of CD player-DACs out there for $1500 USD or less that will allow you to continue to enjoy your CD collection, while also giving you the ability to transition to a computer-based solution in the future. Given the maturity of digital-to-analog conversion technology over the past five years, it may be something to seriously consider. Your Levinson preamp is a classic! I'm sure it's quite good, but like everything else, today's preamps -- even affordable ones -- are really impressive. Since I don't know your price parameters, or whether you want to replace one or all of your current pieces, it's difficult for me to say more. But a high-quality preamp-DAC might also fit the bill, which would allow you to continue using your Sudgen CD player as a transport. Personally, I would start with Parasound's Halo P 5 and go from there. Though it's not priced like a Levinson, being $1095, I think you'll be surprised by just how good it is.
Your Bowers & Wilkins speakers are likely quite good. I would not be in any rush to replace them. If you are itching to, however, consider brands such as KEF, Dynaudio, GoldenEar Technology, Monitor Audio, Paradigm, and PSB. You'll find each makes a full-size floorstanding model that likely betters the 683 in one way or another. Hope this helps! . . . Hans Wetzel
To Hans Wetzel,
I read your column about the Devialet Phantom with interest! How would you compare this product (Silver version) to the Bang & Olufsen BeoPlay A9?
In order to answer this faithfully, I should state two things at the outset. First, I have yet to physically hear the Phantom or Silver Phantom. And second, I haven't spent more than a few minutes listening to B&O gear over the course of my life.
That said, I definitely have a few comments. B&O has a reputation for distinctive luxury products, and while they've done some serious audio work over the years -- think of their pioneering ICEpower research -- I don't think anyone other than the average consumer would equate their products with cutting-edge hardware. I don't doubt that their products sound very good, but their marketing and design efforts seem to point to sonic considerations taking a definite back seat to aesthetic ones.
As far as the B&O A9 is concerned, it looks like an interesting loudspeaker at $2699. Dual tweeters and mids, a ported 8" woofer, built-in amplification, and wireless connectivity. Note, however, that the frequency response is listed at 33Hz to 25kHz, but without qualification, so 33Hz may well be -10dB, or worse. Moreover, the A9 appears to use several generic class-D amps, probably of the ICEpower variety. Finally, the A9 looks to be pretty sizable, at 35" high with a stand, and 28" in diameter.
For $2390 per pair, the Silver Phantom is a different proposition. Its design is, believe it or not, totally geared towards maximizing sound quality. In terms of acoustics, it's pretty much ideal, with a single apparent point source for treble, midrange, and bass drivers. Further, its amplifiers aren't the now-common class-D variety, but a proprietary and patented design based on the company's high-end amps. The French company's amps aren't just different, but to my ears, as well as to those of SoundStage!'s Doug Schneider and Jeff Fritz, better sounding than just about everything else on the market, irrespective of price. I've been told that the Devialet team set the target of equaling, or bettering, the performance of their $6495 Devialet 120 amplifier and a pair of $20,000+ loudspeakers. I've also been told that they met their performance-related targets. If this were any other company, I would have dismissed such a claim. But given what the company has been able to do since they debuted the D-Premier in 2010, and how much cleverness they appear to have built into the Phantom and Silver Phantom, I'm incredibly excited to find out how they sound.
So, on the one hand is a pretty cool wireless floorstanding speaker that probably sounds pretty good, and on the other is an even more flexible wireless loudspeaker that promises nearly state-of-the-art sound. Interestingly, I suspect Devialet is targeting roughly the same kind of consumer that the A9 is. I suspect that the Silver Phantom will be the better loudspeaker, and by a wide margin. We won't know until the Phantoms begin shipping in the coming months, though. I hope this helps. . . . Hans Wetzel
To S. Andrea Sundaram,
Thanks so much for your thoughtful response [to my question in October].
I am auditioning the [Lehmannaudio] Black Cube SE phono stage, which is not tube, but still sounds better than the Bellari in my opinion: tighter bass, more defined mids and highs. We're trading out the resistor to give it more oomph. Your suggestion to improve the front end is wise.
I'm still surprised that more component makers are not creating DAC/ADC functionality, especially with a headphone amp and a decent phono stage. With more and more powered speakers, this is the one piece missing.
Thanks for all your help and research. I look forward to staying in touch!
Thanks for writing in again. It's always nice to hear when advice has been helpful (and helpful to hear when it hasn't been). . . . S. Andrea Sundaram
To Hans Wetzel,
First of all, I wanted to say thank you very much for the time you invest replying to our questions. It really means a lot for us who can barely afford the financial luxury to have a decent sound system and who are not able to demo equipment on the fly with ease.
A while back, I sent an e-mail about my existing system: a Marantz SR7005 [receiver], Marantz CD5004 [CD player], Marantz TT-15S1 [turntable] (a recent add-on in the family), Bowers & Wilkins CM8 loudspeakers, matching CM Centre [center-channel], and an REL T7 subwoofer. When I sent you an e-mail last year, I had an opportunity to demo the KEF R700 [speakers] with my Marantz SR7005, but I was not able to find synergy with my Marantz, at least sonically. Sorry, I might be totally wrong, as well, because I know KEF's R-series speakers have very good reviews, which is why I demoed the R700 in the first place.
You recommended a Hegel Music Systems H80 integrated amplifier-DAC, or better yet, H300. But I accidentally read your reply a year after I submitted the upgrade question and it so happened that I was in with my local vendor trying the Parasound A 21 amplifier to drive my CM8 speakers. I put a hold on the Parasound order after reading your reply and I was excited and astounded about the Hegel integrateds you mentioned.
My local vendor is willing to loan me a Parasound integrated, which I am very grateful for, and I will be buying a Hegel system (if I decide to choose Hegel) blindfolded, since it seems hard to demo them here in California.
The Parasound's retail cost is $2500, while the H80 is $2000, and the H300 is $5500, the latter of which will be over my budget. I will bite the bullet and sacrifice some of my other expenses if the Hegel will become my ultimate reference system for the long haul. I still want to keep my Marantz SR7005 for surround and movie watching. I plan to upgrade my speakers maybe in the next 2-3 years.
I am totally confused since there are so many out there, but your good judgment, unbiased recommendations, and expertise will be greatly appreciated. I dearly love my local Parasound dealer and I believe in Parasound products being some of the best, but if Hegel has an edge and is worth the extra $3000, so be it. And the big final question: Will there be a night-and-day difference between the Parasound A 21's 250Wpc, the Hegel H80's 75Wpc, or the H300's 250Wpc? Kudos to you and your staff!
Thanks for the kind words, Emmanuel. While I am a big fan of Hegel's equipment and sound, I think it would be a step too far to say that their equipment is clearly better than Parasound's. If you are unable to audition the Norwegian company's wares at your local dealer, I wouldn't worry too much about it. Parasound makes excellent equipment, as my brother Erich found out earlier this year after reviewing their A 23 amplifier and P 5 preamplifier-DAC. Moreover, the A 21 is a dedicated amplifier, unlike the H80 and H300 integrated amplifier-DACs, which have preamps and full-fledged DACs built-in. If your only need is for a powerful and highly resolving amplifier, the A 21 sounds like a fine choice, and I don't think you should have a single regret over either the H80 or H300. If you like the Marantz sound, I think the Parasound will suit your tastes better than Hegel's sonic profile, anyway.
As for your big question of power, remember that each doubling of amplifier power yields an additional 3dB of output at the speakers. If you're going to play your system LOUD, that pretty well rules out the H80. The 250Wpc on offer from either the A 21 or H300 should be more than sufficient for your needs, though. And with the A 21 being less than half the price of the Hegel, I think your wallet will thank you by going with the A 21, and you'll be able to start saving immediately for your speaker upgrade in the coming years. . . . Hans Wetzel
To Hans Wetzel,
I have bugged you before about Musical Fidelity's M6 500i integrated amplifier, but I have given serious consideration to switching integrated components. I would like to ask you about the Wadia Intuition 01 and the Devialet 250, and the benefits into the two speakers I have on my short list and if this is a good way to go. I have Wilson Audio's Sophia 3 or Sasha as one choice, and Revel's Ultima Studio2 as the other choice. Will the power delivered by these two products make these speakers sing?
Thank you, Hans.
I can't imagine you going wrong with either the Wadia Intuition 01 or Devialet 250. Both should have more than enough power to drive the Revel Studio2 or either of the Wilsons. In fact, you could probably get away with the Devialet 200 -- unless you're listening at obscenely high volumes, I doubt you'll need the extra 50Wpc.
I think you'll find the Intuition sounds more like the Musical Fidelity than the Devialet does. In either event, I believe the two integrated amplifier-DACs will be a step up in resolving ability and transparency from the M6 500i, despite how much I like that monster of an amp. I'd audition both options before pulling the trigger, however, as each has a distinctive sound. . . . Hans Wetzel
To S. Andrea Sundaram,
Thank you so much for your enlightening and thorough review of the ADL GT40 way back in 2011. I have been using the GT40 since about that time, and your review hit on all the reasons why it has been the perfect component in my simple, modern vinyl/digital system for over three years. I haven't seen any other components that offer the GT40's combination of DAC and ADC to allow the ripping of vinyl to hi-res WAV files. I think I'm looking to upgrade, and I wondered if you had knowledge of any similar products?
I say "I think" because I have been very happy with my system but am wondering what would be a logical upgrade. I rarely pay attention to the 80,000+ MP3s in my iTunes library, and instead only listen to vinyl LPs, usually ripping them as I listen. I only listen to WAV files ripped to 16-bit/48kHz in my iPhone 6 Plus and on the iPod in my car. The vinyl leans towards classic rock, jazz, and some classical. I'm collecting Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab records, vintage vinyl, and new pressings of contemporary bands.
My setup is simple: Rega P3-24-> Ortofon Bronze cartridge-> Bellari VP130 preamp-> ADL GT40-> Mackie HR824 MK2 powered monitors. Accessories: Spin-Clean MKII; Zerostat Milty 3; Primacoustic Recoil Stabilizers; HiFiMan HE-400 headphones.
I'm wondering if you thought the system would be most improved by better powered monitors (Genelec?); or with an improved turntable (Well Tempered Lab?); or an upgrade from the ADL GT40, if there is one.
When it came out, the GT40’s combination of features might not have been quite unique, but it certainly was rare. However, given that you are using an external phono stage, you do have other options. For A/D/A duties, you could look to professional or home-studio equipment, but the headphone amp will probably not have been a design priority, if it even works when you’re not connected to the computer.
The first similar product that comes to mind is also by Furutech -- the Esprit. Fellow SoundStage! writer Vince Hanada favorably reviewed the Esprit in 2013. In particular, he found it to be very quiet, which was one of my complaints about the GT40. It also has greater flexibility in setting recording levels, and gives an indication of clipping. For those reasons, it may be worth an audition. Furutech has also announced the Stratos, which appears to be an upgraded version of the GT40. No one I know has heard it, so I can’t offer any guidance on that product.
I haven’t heard the monitors you own, but they have a good reputation. Besides, it makes more sense to me to improve the front end, so that the recordings you have made from your LPs won’t let you down, if you eventually upgrade speakers or headphones. All of the equipment you’ve listed offers very solid performance. It may be worth looking into upgrading the phono stage, or adding structural modifications to the turntable/tonearm -- there are lots of these available for Rega turntables. The best way to start is to think about where your current system isn’t entirely satisfying: noise performance, neutrality, drive, etc. Then think about which component is most likely to affect that performance parameter. I hope that helps, and good luck. . . . S. Andrea Sundaram
To Hans Wetzel,
That was a nice piece you wrote on the relative affordability of great headphones and matching USB amplification. I concur. However, I just can't get as excited about head-fi as many do, even though I want to. To me, I've discovered that live and recorded music is just as much about the visceral experience of the sound waves hitting the skin as it is about them hitting the eardrum. Without the subtle feel of the plucked guitar string or the not-so-subtle thump of the drum, headphones seem never to be loud enough for me . . . and that's very, very bad. I do head-fi in a pinch or when travelling, but my preferred listening method at home has become nearfield monitors on my desk, which to me offers the best of both worlds. This arrangement provides much of the intimacy and detail of headphones but with the physical impact of a conventional stereo. Oh, and the price is very much in the portable audio realm. Now, if only I could take them on the airplane!
I know what you mean, Brad. I agree that headphones, no matter how good they are, simply can't recreate the experience of musical reproduction in quite the same fashion as a proper stereo system. But I was, and continue to be, deeply impressed by just how far you can hear into a recording with a few-hundred-dollar pair of headphones.
Regarding your desktop monitors, I'm going to be exploring that in depth for the first time in the very near future. I've invested in my first adult desk, which should not only be large enough to accommodate my work laptop and external monitor, but also my personal laptop, NuForce's DDA-100, and a pair of monitors like Amphion's Ion+. That should make quite the formidable desktop system, and I'm eager to hear how well that combination works over the long term. I suspect that it will offer much of the same experience as a regular stereo system, and at a great discount in price, too. Will it offer the same “physical impact,” as you say, of my reference KEF R900 loudspeakers? I admit, I'm a bit dubious on that front. But I think it's a very interesting middle ground between the traditional stereo and this headphone culture we find ourselves in. Don't be surprised if I start writing about my experience with it in the future. . . . Hans Wetzel
To Hans Wetzel,
Greetings. I'm considering a Rogue Audio Sphinx integrated amplifier for a pair of Totem Dreamcatchers. Would the Sphinx be a good match for the Totems? My source at the moment is a Marantz CD6004. Looking forward to your advice. Thanks in advance.
I don't see why not, Rafael. At 100Wpc into 8 ohms, the Sphinx comfortably exceeds the 20-80Wpc that Totem calls for to power the little Dreamcatchers. Though the bookshelf speakers are rated at 4 ohms, according to Totem, I don't think this will trouble the Sphinx. I do wonder if the Sphinx's slightly lively character -- a trait of its class-D Hypex amp module -- will combine with the Totem's titanium tweeter to sound a little bright. There is no question, however, that the Sphinx is a terrific hand-made integrated that sounds quite resolving. In fact, it's probably my top choice for integrated amps for under $1500. . . . Hans Wetzel
To Hans Wetzel,
I really enjoyed your BS article. Your article inspired me to do my own audiophile activism by writing a comment on the Sound & Vision website (http://www.soundandvision.com/content/onkyo-tx-nr838-av-receiver). Most audio review publications make me feel so jaded. Articles written on the SoundStage! Network, on the other hand, makes me feel excited to be an audiophile. Keep up the fantastic work.
Honestly after reading your post, the point you were trying to make was not particularly clear to me and wouldn't have been even had my name not been involved.
What "Bullshit" are you calling?
Was it a piece about measurements versus performance? Price versus measurements? Inept reviewers? Inept editor assignments?
Differences of opinion between what a reader hears and a reviewer hears?
So far I don't smell any bullshit.
Was it a piece about the "rise of the Internet" and the ability to instantly respond to a review instead of having to wait for publication of a letter to the editor?
Interesting topics but so far I don't smell any bullshit.
Then comes mention of the "$200,000 speakers" that while you don't name, the name of which is obvious to anyone who knows my name, which you do mention.
Then you call me classless by sarcastically calling me "classy" for insulting readers.
A small turd but still no "bullshit".
So what is it you are calling "bullshit"?
Answer: Wilson XLFs and my so-called "rave" review because the speakers don't meet your supposedly "objective" definition of good measurements and your
"firm conviction that the very best sounding products boast exemplary measurements".
I don't consider my review a "rave". I didn't "rave".
Rather, I set out a very clear definition of what a very expensive speaker should be capable of doing sonically. And then I made the case for why the XLFs met the standard. That is not my definition of "raving".
Your post defines "rave" the secondary definition of which is "to speak wildly and incoherently".
You claim the XLFs didn't produce "exemplary" measurements but you don't bother to define "exemplary".
That's the second bit of "bullshit" in the post, but that one is a large stinking pile of it!
You claim the XLF's measurements are "mediocre"—a pretty stinging accusation—but you are too busy "raving" to make a case for why the XLF's measurements don't meet your "standards" or in what ways they are, in your opinion, "mediocre" or even what you heard when you listened to them—something you don't bother telling your readers you actually did.
That's more "bullshit".
They might be interested to know how the speakers sounded to you or in what ways the measurements you read correlated (or didn't) with what you heard.
That omission is the post's next bit of "bullshit".
Then you state without bothering to explain why and how, that a two-way design's measurements indicate it was "relatively competitive" with the $200,000 speaker and the "relatively small difference in the two model's technical performance"—leaving aside bass response and limitations inherent in any two way speaker.
More "bullshit". Laughable bullshit.
That is like saying "Between 40mph and 65mph on a straightaway there's little difference in the performance between a Lamborghini and a KIA" and they both get you to the supermarket and have seats. How they handle on curves or off the line or in braking speed etc. is off the table. Or in your case not even mentioned.
You write that few readers commented on the two way review but even there you don't bother to explain your point.
The point Hans is that readers react strongly and negatively more often than not to reviews of expensive products regardless of how they measure mostly out of envy and they are incentivized to look for deviations from "perfection" in expensive products as a shield to assert their envy.
You point out that readers tried to "grasp how the speakers' retail price in any way reflected the manufacturer's cost to build them". Perhaps there you could have pointed out how ignorant readers can be about costs of doing business and how the "parts cost" of a product is an imbecilic measure that fails to take into account the true costs involved in running a business.
It was your choice to mention the unsubstantiated and untrue charge by a reader that Michael Fremer was "likely charged a deeply discounted price for his review samples".
Every product regardless of price has flaws both measured and heard. I have heard many expensive products that measured well but contained sonic flaws or better, sonic "characteristics" that I found unacceptable to my ears. These are still good products.
There's a reason why all of the very expensive and well-engineered, designed and built speakers out there--many costing more than the XLFs—all sound different from one another and measure differently: the designers chose different trade-offs, used different materials, etc.
That is a fact of audio life you failed to mention. A discussion of that would have made for a far more interesting piece. There are no perfectly measuring products. There are no sonically transparent products either—especially transducers. All have colorations. Chose your favorite.
Are there overpriced products out there? Of course. If you think the XLFs are overpriced you should make that case instead of an irresponsible insinuation.
Then you commit the laughable: "My intention is not to single out Michael Fremer or Stereophile...."
YES IT WAS! Because you did!
If your intention was really to not single out Michael Fremer, or Stereophile or Wilson, you could have written the piece without mentioning my name, Stereophile's or the price of the expensive speaker, which by mentioning the price and my name makes obvious "WIlson XLF"
I for one am always happy to have my findings "flagrantly challenged". That's been my lot since I began advocating for vinyl and writing, starting in the 1980s, that compact disc sound was awful despite the "perfect" measurements. However, I was correct: the early players and discs sounded poorly because what was causing the sound was not being measured, yet the mesmerized continued their "blind veneration" because the measurements were "perfect".
CDs still measure better than vinyl but vinyl sounds more life-like whether or not the cause is "euphonic colorations" or yet to be measured flaws in digitization or simply that they are two different technologies. Ultimately we listen, even after measuring.
You make this charge: "I was, and frequently am, bemused by the blind veneration some readers lavish on products like Fremer’s loudspeakers, presumably because of how exclusive the club of ownership must be. It is certainly not predicated on measured performance."
You "lavish praise" on readers who blindly lash out at products they've not heard and who make insinuations about manufacturer/reviewer transactions to which they are not a party, and then you criticize "some readers" who you fail to identify, who you "presume" have "blind veneration" for "products like Fremer's loudspeakers" because of "how exclusive the club ownership must be."
To quote a Motown song made popular by The Rolling Stones: that's "just your imagination running away with you".
Actually, without knowing their motivations I've accepted many reader requests to visit and hear my system for themselves. I guess when they say leave saying it's the best system they've ever heard or one of the best systems they've ever heard (the best I've ever heard was a gigantic horn system in Greece) I guess in your opinion I duped them or maybe they felt they'd gained "exclusive club ownership."
Finally Hans, after reading your piece I'm moved to leave you with your own words, which, for me, best sum up what you've written:
I have zero interest in the vacuous musings of Hans Wetzel whose proverbial 2¢ offer nothing to the greater discourse.
Rest assured that my intention in writing that was not to single out Hans Wetzel.
Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile
Thanks for reading, Michael. This really illustrates the stated point of my article, mainly that reader criticism of audio writers should be encouraged! Much appreciated. . . . Hans Wetzel