|
|
Post by briank on Feb 4, 2013 23:15:52 GMT -5
Weird23, most of your gear is listed in your signature except for cables? Doesn't sound like Emotiva cables, so what cables are you using? The power cables and balanced interconnects are Oyaide, the speaker cables are BJC Canare 4S11. Cool. I may try out the Oyaide sometime. |
|
|
|
Post by briank on Feb 4, 2013 23:21:38 GMT -5
Sounds very good. I don't really hear any "excessive" sibilance in that recording. Sounds like what I would expect to hear if Norah was singing those lyrics live. Most excessive sibilance issues I've heard in the past were from hot tweeters or silver coated speaker cables. I never noticed any sibilance issues when I previously owned the XPA-5. This may be more of an opinion issue as to what sounds like excessive or un-natural sibilance. Maybe the slight Butler tube distortion was masking it previously??? Thanks, your speakers sound really good as well. They look very similar to the Salk Song Towers. Do you know if they sound similar? I think it's just the source material as well as I stated previously. I don't listen to much of that style of music but when I do the singers usually sound like that. A movie that has tons of sibilance is Angels and Demons. At least it did when I was using the Paradigm Sigs, haven't watched it with the Dyn's. Thanks, The Selah Prestigio's sound pretty much the same as the Supercharged Salk Songtowers. Both use Seas Excel drivers and RAAL ribbons. The main difference is the Salk's are ported and the Selahs are a sealed design. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2013 23:41:25 GMT -5
The Butler and the XPA-5 are not the 1st amps I have ever owned. I have had Acurus, NAD, Adcom, and H/K before I got the Butler and the XPA-5. The NAD did not exhibit undue sibilance. The Acurus did to a mild degree. The Adcom more so. And the H/K was as sweet as can be. The XPA-5 has more than the Acurus and about the same as the Adcom. The NAD, H/K, and Butler do not exhibit this trait. So you cannot lay it off on tube amp euphony...
-RW-
|
|
|
|
Post by weird23 on Feb 4, 2013 23:45:55 GMT -5
The power cables and balanced interconnects are Oyaide, the speaker cables are BJC Canare 4S11. Cool. I may try out the Oyaide sometime. I had some Oyaide speaker cables at one point in time, sold them when I got the XPA-1's though. They didn't have enough spread to reach the binding posts. The only problem with Oyaide is they don't really seem to have much of a dealer network in North America, luckily I've got a dealer 5 minutes from home. Oyaide makes some really nice products IMO. I've been wanting to try some speakers with ribbon tweeters for some time, the only exposure I've had to ribbons is the Monitor Audio GX 100's. When I was looking for speakers to replace the Paradigms I had at the time I demoed Dyn's and the MA's back to back. Obviously I preferred the Dyn's but still would ike to try out some ribbons one day. Do you usually keep ARC engaged all the time? I use the Audyessy Pro Kit with my Integra and am roughly 50/50 on keeping Audyessy engaged. Thinking about trying out a two channel pre amp as my next gear purchase. The Circondare's look interesting, those would probably be my first choice to try from what I can see on the Selah website. |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,256
Member is Online
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 5, 2013 0:23:44 GMT -5
Nobody said "euphonic voicing" was limited to tube equipment. And, of course, even slight variations in frequency response will cause slight differences in whether sibilance is emphasized or de-emphasized. The Butler and the XPA-5 are not the 1st amps I have ever owned. I have had Acurus, NAD, Adcom, and H/K before I got the Butler and the XPA-5. The NAD did not exhibit undue sibilance. The Acurus did to a mild degree. The Adcom more so. And the H/K was as sweet as can be. The XPA-5 has more than the Acurus and about the same as the Adcom. The NAD, H/K, and Butler do not exhibit this trait. So you cannot lay it off on tube amp euphony... -RW- |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,256
Member is Online
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 5, 2013 0:38:09 GMT -5
Actually, what the aural exciter does is to add distortion. The original Aphex Aural Exciter, which can be heard at its most distinctive on Linda Ronstadt's album with Blue Bayou, was designed to create and add controlled amounts of second harmonic distortion; the new DSP versions do that plus a few other things. Now, a lot of people *perceive* the extra distortion as "extra warmth"; and there have been studies that show that, at least sometimes, adding second harmonic distortion actually *improves* intelligibility as well as adding "punch" to voice. Technical details aside, sometimes it sounds very nice. (And it may even make certain studio recordings sound more like a live performance.) However, it is *not* the job of *high-fidelity* equipment to change the sound - even for the better; that is the job of the recording engineer. (And, of course, it may *not* make *every* type of music, or even every song, sound better.) If a recording engineer wants to record on an AKG, then use post-processing to make it sound like a Neumann, well, that's his (or her) prerogative. But, as an audiophile, that isn't my goal (nor my decision to make). BTW, the aural exciter is primarily used to mimic or enhance the characteristics of microphones such as a legendary Neumann U87Ai )which is considered to be the finest vocal mic in the world). www.neumann.com/?lang=en&id=current_microphones&cid=u87_descriptionThis mike reproduces every nuance of the human voice - perhaps to a fault. This, in part is what the exciter does.. |
|
|
|
Post by goat1981 on Feb 5, 2013 1:44:47 GMT -5
The Butler and the XPA-5 are not the 1st amps I have ever owned. I have had Acurus, NAD, Adcom, and H/K before I got the Butler and the XPA-5. The NAD did not exhibit undue sibilance. The Acurus did to a mild degree. The Adcom more so. And the H/K was as sweet as can be. The XPA-5 has more than the Acurus and about the same as the Adcom. The NAD, H/K, and Butler do not exhibit this trait. So you cannot lay it off on tube amp euphony... -RW- What kind of H/K did you have? I've always wanted to buy a used Citation 16A and rebuild it... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2013 2:28:28 GMT -5
I once dated a girl with sibilance.  Cybill Shepherd?  (Try singing her name close mic'd without spitting all over the mic!) (Is it true that she wasn't much of an aural exciter? .... well, that's what RW's Cybill's butler claimed) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2013 2:37:25 GMT -5
..... I have had Acurus, NAD, Adcom, and H/K before ..... -RW- Yeah RW, but wasn't that before Norah released her first album?   |
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Feb 5, 2013 2:47:48 GMT -5
Cybill Shepherd? (Is it true that she wasn't much of an aural exciter? .... well, that's what RW's Cybill's butler claimed) You sure you spelled that right?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2013 3:07:45 GMT -5
Goat wondered:
"What kind of H/K did you have? "
It was a Signature 2.0 - 100 watts/ch., 5 ch. 100 amps current = a current *monster*.
Keith offered:
"Nobody said "euphonic voicing" was limited to tube equipment.:
Keith, I put that in there because some folks are saying the Butler is "softening" the sound because it is a toob amp and is distorting. I wanted to point out that there do exist SS amps that do not exhibit undue sibilance. It could be that the Butler does not do this because it is better designed and uses higher quality parts.
And remember these points:
#1: It is not a traditional toob amp, it is a hybrid using MOSFET output devices.
#2: The freq. response is flat (+- 0.5db) thru 20kHz and only down 3db at 50kHz. Those are pretty linear specs and truly exceptional for a tube amp.
#3: The Butler has 60% more secondary capacitance than does the XPA-5 despite being 25% less powerful. Could it be that the sharp transient presented by sibilance is taxing the XPA-5's reserve capability?
I have also seen claims that Emotiva does not "voice" their amps. I find this hard to believe. Any competent engineer would certainly listen to what he has created and then make circuit/parts adhustments based upon what he hears as well as what he measures. As BD has stated, very good measuring amps can sound like crap. You *must* listen to it in order to validate the design...
-RW-
PS: No more double-secret probation - woo-hoo!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2013 3:17:48 GMT -5
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,256
Member is Online
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 5, 2013 12:19:41 GMT -5
I don't disagree, and even relatively flat amps do have slight variations in frequency response which can make differences in how they sound.... although I DO stand by my statement that the Butler is specifically designed to smooth the sound (modify it). The white paper they quote as their inspiration describes "why tube amps are better" - and those claims revolve around overload characteristics that favor (emphasize) transients and add euphonic distortion (or that aim to produce specific types of distortion rather than to avoid distortion entirely - if you prefer to phrase it that way). Therefore, I see little room for doubt that the Butler *specifically* does aim for "euphonic tuning".... and it has nothing to do with the quality of their parts; it is a design goal. Your second point actually reinforces mine. The Butler has a MOSFET output stage - and MOSFETs can easily be designed into circuits with very low distortion. Butler specifically ADDED tubes to the circuit to ADD the characteristic overload and distortion characteristics of tubes to the sound; there is simply no other reason for the tubes to be there. They have indeed eliminated the main drawback of tube amps (other than distortion overall), that being the output transformers - with their characteristic high output impedance, distortion, un-flat frequency response, and high weight and cost. If you *LIKE* the characteristic overload characteristics and distortion of tubes, Butler has done an excellent job of "adding the strengths and not the weaknesses" of tubes to a solid state design. As far as secondary capacitance affecting sibilance, that is simply untrue. Sibilance in general does NOT require a lot of power from the amplifier. Additional capacitance improves the amplifier's ability to produce lots of bass, and very powerful transients; sibilance is neither. In fact, it is not at all demanding from a "power reserves" point of view. My guess would be that they need that extra capacitance to be able to deliver decent low-frequency response on an amp with relatively low levels of feedback - to "keep it on track" with difficult drive situations. Finally, yes, we *DO* voice our amps. However, when we make adjustments, we do so to make our amps flatter and *reduce* the amount of coloration they introduce. We believe the old adage "the best amp or preamp should sound like a straight wire with gain" and do our best to bring that to our amps.... and, yes, after extensive listening, we are quite willing to tweak or adjust as necessary to get closer to that goal. We believe that, if two perfect amplifiers existed, then they would sound the same - and so a "prefect" tube amp would sound precisely the same as a "perfect" solid state amp. So we simply voice our amps for "neutral sound". [In contrast, Butler flatly asserts that they like the way tube amps sound, and are doing their best to add at least some of that sound to their amp - while avoiding other major drawbacks of tubes.] Goat wondered: "What kind of H/K did you have? " It was a Signature 2.0 - 100 watts/ch., 5 ch. 100 amps current = a current *monster*. Keith offered: "Nobody said "euphonic voicing" was limited to tube equipment.: Keith, I put that in there because some folks are saying the Butler is "softening" the sound because it is a toob amp and is distorting. I wanted to point out that there do exist SS amps that do not exhibit undue sibilance. It could be that the Butler does not do this because it is better designed and uses higher quality parts. And remember these points: #1: It is not a traditional toob amp, it is a hybrid using MOSFET output devices. #2: The freq. response is flat (+- 0.5db) thru 20kHz and only down 3db at 50kHz. Those are pretty linear specs and truly exceptional for a tube amp. #3: The Butler has 60% more secondary capacitance than does the XPA-5 despite being 25% less powerful. Could it be that the sharp transient presented by sibilance is taxing the XPA-5's reserve capability? I have also seen claims that Emotiva does not "voice" their amps. I find this hard to believe. Any competent engineer would certainly listen to what he has created and then make circuit/parts adhustments based upon what he hears as well as what he measures. As BD has stated, very good measuring amps can sound like crap. You *must* listen to it in order to validate the design... -RW- PS: No more double-secret probation - woo-hoo! |
|
|
|
Post by Porscheguy on Feb 5, 2013 13:00:00 GMT -5
Actually, what the aural exciter does is to add distortion. The original Aphex Aural Exciter, which can be heard at its most distinctive on Linda Ronstadt's album with Blue Bayou, was designed to create and add controlled amounts of second harmonic distortion; the new DSP versions do that plus a few other things. Now, a lot of people *perceive* the extra distortion as "extra warmth"; and there have been studies that show that, at least sometimes, adding second harmonic distortion actually *improves* intelligibility as well as adding "punch" to voice. Technical details aside, sometimes it sounds very nice. (And it may even make certain studio recordings sound more like a live performance.) However, it is *not* the job of *high-fidelity* equipment to change the sound - even for the better; that is the job of the recording engineer. (And, of course, it may *not* make *every* type of music, or even every song, sound better.) If a recording engineer wants to record on an AKG, then use post-processing to make it sound like a Neumann, well, that's his (or her) prerogative. But, as an audiophile, that isn't my goal (nor my decision to make). BTW, the aural exciter is primarily used to mimic or enhance the characteristics of microphones such as a legendary Neumann U87Ai )which is considered to be the finest vocal mic in the world). www.neumann.com/?lang=en&id=current_microphones&cid=u87_descriptionThis mike reproduces every nuance of the human voice - perhaps to a fault. This, in part is what the exciter does.. No. The aural exciter does not add distortion. It realigns frequencies in time so some arrive at your ear sooner than others. I have one and I know how it works. I believe the THD is .003% on the Exciter... Aphex would love to hear you saying that  |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Feb 5, 2013 13:22:03 GMT -5
I have also seen claims that Emotiva does not "voice" their amps. I find this hard to believe. Any competent engineer would certainly listen to what he has created and then make circuit/parts adhustments based upon what he hears as well as what he measures. As BD has stated, very good measuring amps can sound like crap. You *must* listen to it in order to validate the design... -RW- PS: No more double-secret probation - woo-hoo! But in voicing amps (or any audio device), shouldn't the goal be to make them reproduce the incoming signal as accurately as possible? To "voice" connotes alteration or distortion of the original signal (by "distortion" I don't mean any value judgement as to whether that is good or bad, but simply that it alters the signal in some way so it is in effect distorted) so maybe tweak or adjust is a better word. I don't think any engineer should deliberately "voice" gear to emphasize certain ranges or frequencies or characteristics. There is so much variance in recordings and speakers, that to do so would then exaggerate the shortcomings of other devices in the chain as well as the original source. To me the best thing would be to make the output as accurate as possible and then let the listener adjust to his or her taste by using electronics that are designed to modify the signals. On top of that, because of the wide variation in recordings, some stuff is gonna sound warm and some will sound sterile, etc. no matter what so in the end, shouldn't we all just buy what sounds good to us? |
|
|
|
Post by vcautokid on Feb 5, 2013 13:23:41 GMT -5
I always thought an amplifier is like a great magnifying lens. It does not make the image any different, other than just bigger faithfully. Chroma, or other artifacts are distortion and untrue of the original image.
|
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Feb 5, 2013 13:25:44 GMT -5
Actually, what the aural exciter does is to add distortion. The original Aphex Aural Exciter, which can be heard at its most distinctive on Linda Ronstadt's album with Blue Bayou, was designed to create and add controlled amounts of second harmonic distortion; the new DSP versions do that plus a few other things. Now, a lot of people *perceive* the extra distortion as "extra warmth"; and there have been studies that show that, at least sometimes, adding second harmonic distortion actually *improves* intelligibility as well as adding "punch" to voice. Technical details aside, sometimes it sounds very nice. (And it may even make certain studio recordings sound more like a live performance.) However, it is *not* the job of *high-fidelity* equipment to change the sound - even for the better; that is the job of the recording engineer. (And, of course, it may *not* make *every* type of music, or even every song, sound better.) If a recording engineer wants to record on an AKG, then use post-processing to make it sound like a Neumann, well, that's his (or her) prerogative. But, as an audiophile, that isn't my goal (nor my decision to make). No. The aural exciter does not add distortion. It realigns frequencies in time so some arrive at your ear sooner than others. I have one and I know how it works. I believe the THD is .003% on the Exciter... Aphex would love to hear you saying that Technically speaking, if the Aphex realigns frequencies in time (and I am wondering, doesn't it then depend on how far away you are sitting from the speakers?) then that is distorting the original signal. I remember reading on the Linda Ronstadt album cover back in 1977 that they used one of those Aphex Aural Exciters (which I thought was a great name). James Taylor used it on one of his albums, too. I thought they both sounded great. I am not happy about the CD version of Simple Dreams, though. While I never directly compared the vinyl with the CD, I remember the vinyl sounding a lot better. The CD sounds lifeless. |
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Feb 5, 2013 13:37:20 GMT -5
No. The aural exciter does not add distortion. It realigns frequencies in time so some arrive at your ear sooner than others. I have one and I know how it works. I believe the THD is .003% on the Exciter... Aphex would love to hear you saying that Technically speaking, if the Aphex realigns frequencies in time (and I am wondering, doesn't it then depend on how far away you are sitting from the speakers?) then that is distorting the original signal. I remember reading on the Linda Ronstadt album cover back in 1977 that they used one of those Aphex Aural Exciters (which I thought was a great name). James Taylor used it on one of his albums, too. I thought they both sounded great. I am not happy about the CD version of Simple Dreams, though. While I never directly compared the vinyl with the CD, I remember the vinyl sounding a lot better. The CD sounds lifeless. Well, then. You need one of these! herbiesaudiolab.net/cdmat.htm |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Feb 5, 2013 14:01:36 GMT -5
Technically speaking, if the Aphex realigns frequencies in time (and I am wondering, doesn't it then depend on how far away you are sitting from the speakers?) then that is distorting the original signal. I remember reading on the Linda Ronstadt album cover back in 1977 that they used one of those Aphex Aural Exciters (which I thought was a great name). James Taylor used it on one of his albums, too. I thought they both sounded great. I am not happy about the CD version of Simple Dreams, though. While I never directly compared the vinyl with the CD, I remember the vinyl sounding a lot better. The CD sounds lifeless. Well, then. You need one of these! herbiesaudiolab.net/cdmat.htmHey, thanks for the link. That looks interesting. Has anyone actually tried these? JUST KIDDING JUST KIDDING!!! ;D DNTS!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Porscheguy on Feb 5, 2013 14:18:58 GMT -5
No. The aural exciter does not add distortion. It realigns frequencies in time so some arrive at your ear sooner than others. I have one and I know how it works. I believe the THD is .003% on the Exciter... Aphex would love to hear you saying that Technically speaking, if the Aphex realigns frequencies in time (and I am wondering, doesn't it then depend on how far away you are sitting from the speakers?) then that is distorting the original signal. I remember reading on the Linda Ronstadt album cover back in 1977 that they used one of those Aphex Aural Exciters (which I thought was a great name). James Taylor used it on one of his albums, too. I thought they both sounded great. I am not happy about the CD version of Simple Dreams, though. While I never directly compared the vinyl with the CD, I remember the vinyl sounding a lot better. The CD sounds lifeless. No, it does not "distort" the sound at all, it justs slows down and or speeds up certain frequencies smililar to a time alignment cabinet (think Thiel). High frequencies reach the listener sooner so a time aligned cabinet has their starting point further away. The thought is so they all get to your ear at the same time. The Aural Exciter goes one step futher and slows or increases certain high frequncies to emphisize that breathy sound and intelligibility. Barcus Berry makes some thing like that as well called the Sonic Maximizer www.bbesound.com/products/sonic-maximizers/882i.aspx |
|
