Off topic but wonder if JK’s transformer will change any aspect of the measurements beside Lower distortion?
No. It cannot fix the ultrasonic issue. Tho it improves the ringing that the XS4400 can’t
1 Like
You may have a point here. I just read the review, and I’ve come to really find JA’s attachment to the LS50s to be a head scratcher. To me it seems to symbolize the hold measurements have on him. On this line of thinking, keep in mind that these are speakers that Amir from ASR has praised as well.
I used to own LS50s years ago and enjoyed them at the time when paired with a $2500 Parasound Halo Integrated. I then went on an upgrade path that started with the speakers and had me selling them for a pair of Amphion Argon 3LS. I instantly realized that I had an unlistenable amp that was way too forward and gritty. Went through a couple lateral moves and then up to a Hegel H390, which was nice and laid-back.
When the Metas came out, I thought I missed the LS50s and got a pair to mess around with. I found it disappointing. Six feet off the wall, it did not extend to the lower frequencies in a remotely satisfying way and was not very resolving. There’s definitely a rolloff in the treble (much written about) that I really felt as a loss of timbral detail in a way that could not compete with $4000 floorstanders. I also felt that it lost the signature of my equipment and oddly couldn’t place what was doing what like I can usually can. But is that really a surprise? KEF used to cheekily classify the LS50 under their “reference” category. The inertness of the cabinet is genuinely impressive, but that’s the only thing about it that punches above its price range. Chalk it up to sentimental memories, but they just didn’t scale with $6000 amplification and a DSJ.
Fast forward to today with an Accuphase paired with a DSD MKII, and I find it jaw-dropping that this is what JA used to benchmark this DAC. Anyone who follows Stereophile might remember that it was JA who drove the hype behind the speakers. I agree that they offer incredible technology and refinement at $1500, but I could never find them to be satisfying to my ears today. It knocks a lot of credibility off for me that he isn’t even curious enough to pair it with resolving speakers. He seems to have earned the reputation of thinking differently, but if it was any other reviewer, such a pairing would come across as being totally uninterested in the DAC or having lost any semblance of pleasure in music—no wonder he’s aggressively EQing the bass. Based on my personal experience, I would never put any stock in a dealer audition of any equipment north of $5000 based on these speakers.
2 Likes
Just came to mind that for some contrast, I should mention that I also have a pair of Magnepan LRS+ that I can sometimes take out of the closet to play with (apparently black monoliths don’t reach the standard of permanent residency in the living room), and boy, do those scale. They are definitely not maxed out with what I’m running today.
I should also note that while I don’t have particularly sensitive speakers and haven’t gone searching for a hiss, the backgrounds are far blacker than anything I’ve heard from my system before. Maybe that isn’t saying much coming from the DSJ, but based on how much some of the commentary is getting a bit out of hand over the mere mention of a cheap Benchmark DAC, I thought I’d share. A bit like JA suggests himself, I’d suggest getting some experience with this DAC before making a damning judgment. The kremlinology is getting a bit contrived.
2 Likes
I pretty much knew JA had been doing audio reviews about as long as I’d been alive, but I didn’t know much about his technical qualifications, so I was searching on that and found this video from our friend Adrian at Audio Excellence.
In it, JA addresses his insistence on including measurements with the subjective assessment of a product, and towards the end discusses his principled approach of always telling the truth about what he hears, even when he doesn’t like a component and even when it is directly adverse to what Stereophile’s advertisers would want to hear. To paraphrase, you have to tell the truth, even if it pisses off the advertisers (they’ll come back), because if you don’t tell the truth the readers will eventually see through it and then you won’t have a subscriber base and it won’t matter if you have advertisers.
Posting because some of these aspects have been discussed above.
This is concerning isn’t it?
Not sure how much your post might be speaking to mine, but I can see how my comment about his thinking differently could be read as an attack on his integrity. I would argue that JA is highly respected and certainly not someone who deserves to be cut down or accused of being disingenuous. It’s just that I feel that he sometimes gets enamored with things that measure really well to the detriment of some of his reviews. I more often find his reliance on measurements more amusing than anything else. The craziness that ensued when Herb Reichert gushed about the Border Patrol DAC—a component that measured so poorly that JA farmed it out to another reviewer—comes to mind.
1 Like
The noise floor in both Stereophile and HiFiNews measurements is shown inside audible 20-20kHz range
I was the first to request this 8 days ago. Ted replied.
But so far nothing from Paul. Maybe they are working on it in the background ?
We will endeavor to prepare some AP measurements and help folks understand that the MK2 has lower noise/signal ratio than does the MK1 but a very different gain structure via the front panel (and the fact the MK2 has more level available than the MKI).
4 Likes
That was my point. This 300khz noise does effect the 20 - 20khz measurements. The result on the AP is noise at ~14khz.
.
MK2 noise floor:
.
.
MK1 noise floor:
1 Like
Nice. This should be the way for all new products.
As previously mentioned, you can then point to that, no matter who measures the products later and just shrug and say “here are our measurements”
What Schiit Audio are now doing. APx555 are published for all new products.
I think this is a winning formula.
No worries, and not directed to you at all, and I wouldn’t argue with much of what you said about the measurements and his fondness.
Separately, on the decision to test mk2 with the LS50’s, yeah, I think that is pretty odd as well but obviously it goes both ways and is Stereophile’s longstanding policy. When Fremer reviewed the $2k Stellar phono with six-figure ($109k) Wilson Alexx speakers, that was a MUCH more unrealistic and wonky combination than what JA used to review mk2. For example, there will likely be systems in the wild that include LS50’s and mk2, probably many. I doubt there is even one system in the wild with Alexx and Stellar phono other than that Fremer test system, but just a guess.
3 Likes
The Stereophile response here is an overreaction and may become media, competitor fodder for non-PSA forums
While I was slammed for holding off on my purchase based on the reported observations and responses in this thread, I note that many others here are also holding off for now. The response to my post last week, including deletion of my comments in defense from litigation against PSA, confirmed my decision to forego.
It seems predictable that a significant portion of potential buyers outside this forum would also forego purchase should they peruse this thread, potentially inhibiting purchase of thousands of units.
A fixed/updated/improved product in the hands of more reviewers and positive consensus will rule, and firm sales growth and product enjoyment.
1 Like
ya think??? 
6 Likes
Any gear so poorley designed that it would become unstable because of noise way beyond the operating band is something not worthy of owning and using in a system.
That all depends on what is realistically to be spec’d for and thus expected on an amplifier’s input in a “what is normal with hi-end audio” sense, and whether it is more reasonable to expect the amplifier to correct for such troublesome inputs received, or more reasonable to expect the source to not supply such troublesome inputs to the amp (output of the dac).
I have seen many “high end” audio components advertise, as one of their boasts, that the circuit is as minimal as possible (so probably minimal filtering), DC coupling, minimal or zero negative feedback.
There’s a lot to be said for that approach, but it seems to me this makes them more susceptible to effects such as differing impedance loading of different sources etc., and also in this case possibly less stability when presented with high levels of ultrasonics.
Not saying this isn’t a fault in the amp design.
So whilst PSA have seen this only once or twice as an issue (and recently described in a thread about a weird hissing fault that only happened with DSD, but was happening in the power amp nonetheless which seems very much like a similar problem), it is an additional potential issue to be excluded when fault finding so makes some folks uncomfortable.
Seriously? I wouldn’t consider using a Stellar Phono Preamp inappropriate with the Alexx. You could choose to use a more expensive phono stage but the Stellar should do every well.
My point was that the Venn diagram overlap of Wilson Alexx owners and PSA Stellar owners in the same system is almost certainly much less populated (if at all) than the Venn diagram overlap of Kef LS50 owners and mk2 owners in same system, under the theory some above put forth that the review should use associated components that would likely be paired with the component under review in the real world, a view I feel has merit.
4 Likes