[SageM]

I did listen to it 3 times now.

Going through the catalog starting from the first album. I go on these Zeppelin benders occasionally, but the CA + VM-1a is the best experience so far.

BTW - most importantly, ZERO FATIGUE.

Having gaps in the pads, allows the CA to vent really well. Gaps balance the audio spectrum, reduce air pressure within the chamber and allow air flow. All of that reduces fatigue quite noticeably.

 

[Aleksandar R.]

Having gaps in the pads, allows the CA to vent really well. Gaps balance the audio spectrum, reduce air pressure within the chamber and allow air flow. All of that reduces fatigue quite noticeably.

Gaps are only possible due to the working regime that we can put the ribbon in. We don't need to create the bass by sealing and the working regime allows very little use of acoustical resistance in the vicinity of the ribbon, which in turn, delivers the uncompressed dynamics in bass and mid, one of the reasons for so much energy and impact in the sound.
Rock before "Loudness War" and Classical are very impressive.

 

[FLTWS]

Sounds like Mahler could be a treat on the CA-1a with VM-1a.

 

[Aleksandar R.]

As someone who regularly uses digital correction, they are more flexible than the analog implementation in general, and I personally like them. You can both implement near-exact copies of the analog filters and new types of filters not possible in analog.

There are 2 basic "best" digital filter forms to use for those uninitiated:

1. "Minimum phase" filters - This is very similar to the way it happens in analog if using enough resolution. It delays the phase of the input based on the frequency, but takes only a tiny fixed amount of time to process. This is almost always the way "SW equalization" is implemented, and works a LOT like a HW equalizer, and sounds like them too. The exact form of the filter will determine how much phase delay you get on which frequencies. Humans are notoriously bad at detecting phase differences, so most people find this more than adequate.
   • To be clear, all standard analog filters are some variation of this, and the digital processing is just reproducing those filters.
2. "Linear phase" filter - This category of filter is something that you can basically only do digitally, and it produces a variable delay based on the filter configuration, but your output can then have frequency-specific level shifting with phase preserved or even "corrected" to some other phase profile in the more sophisticated variants. I.e. for any particular configuration, you get a fixed delay for the whole signal, but changing the configuration can change the delay.
   • I have noted that using linear phase filters makes the "stereo image" seem a bit more natural/real with speakers (using a DEQX HDP-5 box for correction), but tonality-wise I can not tell any difference whatsoever. In headphones where the stereo image is already partially defeated then I'm not sure the advantage of linear phase filters will matter in a human-perceivable manner.

So, the analog OB correction, be it in the RI box, the various "ribbon headphone" amps, or in the OB correction line signal filters Raal has built recently, are the analog "phase delay" sort, and usually a simple version that ends up with say a 90 degree phase delay in the upper frequencies.

Having said the above, I have 3 sets of digital filters that I'm using on a DEQ2496 box, which has 31-band digital equalization built in using 96 Khz sampling rate using minimum-phase style EQ with 0.5 DB resolution. I.e. I can layer them and they just add together.

• OB correction:
  • 315 -0.5
  • 400 -0.5
  • 500 -0.5
  • 630 -1
  • 800 -1.5
  • 1000 -2
  • 1250 -2
  • 1600 -2.5
  • 2000 -3
  • 2500 -3
  • 3150 -3.5
  • 4000 -4
  • ... -4
• Bass correction to match "typical headphone bass profile":
  • 160 +1
  • 125 +2
  • 100 +3
  • 80 +4
  • 63 +5
  • 50 +5.5
  • 40 +6
  • ... +6
• Compliance correction outside of bass zone to match "typical headphone profile":
  • 1600 -3
  • 4000 +3
  • 8000 -2

With the standard RI box, I have been appling the 2 "correction to match typical headphone profile" items. After modding my RI box with a switch to allow removal of the analog OB compensation, adding in the OB compensation digitally as a decrease in response in upper frequencies matched my mod.

To be clear, any difference between doing the OB compensation in analog in the RI box or in digital in the DEQ2496 equalizer is so small (or human ears don't care) so I cannot detect it, and they sound literally the same to me. I like doing it all in the digital domain, so I tend to prefer that, but I'm sure that's just my bias.

Sometime soon(-ish) I'm probably going to set up an experiment to do the same filters as my DEQ2496 does but in linear phase, probably via using BruteFIR or similar on a text linux box. This way I could see if the linear phase vs minimum phase sounds identical to my ear or if there is some "naturalness" improvement. As mentioned above, I suspect the answer might be "maybe a bit" on the SR-1a due to the hybrid stereo image effects (i.e. partway between headphone and speaker kind of results), but that with the CA I suspect the results will be even more minor or not detectable, at least to me. We'll see.

Wonderfully explained FIR and IIR filters!

 

[yyzSB]

Sounds like Mahler could be a treat on the CA-1a with VM-1a.

Can you recommend something by Mahler.

I will be listening to some atmospheric stuff late tonight. I am curious how Lux Prima - by Karen O and Danger Mouse will sound on this. I think the SR1a will be champ on that.

 

[Aleksandar R.]

Sounds like Mahler could be a treat on the CA-1a with VM-1a.

The only thing that is missing in presentation of dynamics is the room reverb that will lift up some phrases and passages for up to 10dB, but in headphones we can't get the benefits of a well treated room.
As far as extracting every last bit of dynamics in the recording itself, we got the hang of it.

 

[Aleksandar R.]

Can you recommend something by Mahler.

I will be listening to some atmospheric stuff late tonight. I am curious how Lux Prima - by Karen O and Danger Mouse will sound on this. I think the SR1a will be champ on that.

Try 5th, Vienna Phil. Bernstein

 

[FLTWS]

Can you recommend something by Mahler.

I will be listening to some atmospheric stuff late tonight. I am curious how Lux Prima - by Karen O and Danger Mouse will sound on this. I think the SR1a will be champ on that.

Most of his symphonies are epic in scale but #5 would be good place to start. The bass drum strokes through the first movement, performed at all levels of volume, are a great system tester. I like Solti and Chicago on Decca in their first go at it from 1970. The remastered (in 1991) sound is quite good and I have both the early 80's CD and 91' remaster. Here are some of my notes on Mahler 5 from some years back when I was doing a lot of performance comparisons of all Mahler's symphonies.

The 5th like the 1st has no shortage of top notch recordings available. For a comparison with this recording I also listened to my first love and first hearing by Solti and Chicago on Decca. But the 1991 re-master of the original 1970 recording is the one to have. It is still my fav for its sonics and Solti’s aggressive take on the score with about the best 5th movement closing at unmatched speed and ensemble playing. I had the 1970 on LP, then the first CD issue (1984 I think – still have it) and then the 1991 remaster of the original which is truly remarkable.

This:1991 remaster

Not this: original CD release 1970

Solti also did 2 live recordings of the 5th. A 1991 “Live” with Chicago, and his very last recording done July 1997, before he passed away in Oct of that year, with the Tonehalle-Orchestra Zurich. The 91’ live is with the Chicago again but I feel the recording is not as good as the 1991 remaster of the original 1970 or the Tonehalle recording which is very good for “Live”.

This: 1997

Not this:1991 "Live"

All 4 of these are London/Decca’s, The difference is the recording locales. The original 1970 was made in Medinah Hall, Chicago and is vivid and dynamic, clean and clear especially in the remaster. The 1991 “Live” was with Chicago but they must have been on tour as the recording location was the Musikverein, Vienna and it is too soft around the edges for my liking. The 1997 recording was made in the Tonehalle’s regular performance hall and it’s a keeper for me as well.

There are many very good recordings of the 5th (and 1st too). Among 5th’s Barbirolli on EMI, Bernstein on DG, Abbado on DG, Tennstedt on EMI, and Boulez on DG come to mind. But with 24 different recordings on my shelf it’s tough for me to keep track!

I hope that helps.

 

[genefruit]

Try 5th, Vienna Phil. Bernstein

Coincidentally on my Qobuz CanJam playlist for this weekend.

 

[Aleksandar R.]

Most of his symphonies are epic in scale but #5 would be good place to start. The bass drum strokes through the first movement, performed at all levels of volume, are a great system tester. I like Solti and Chicago on Decca in there first go at it from 1970. The remastered (in 1991) sound is quite good and I have both the early 80's CD and 91' remaster. Here are some of my notes on Mahler 5 from some years back when I was doing a lot of performance comparisons of all Mahler's symphonies.

The 5th like the 1st has no shortage of top notch recordings available. For a comparison with this recording I also listened to my first love and first hearing by Solti and Chicago on Decca. But the 1991 re-master of the original 1970 recording is the one to have. It is still my fav for its sonics and Solti’s aggressive take on the score with about the best 5th movement closing at unmatched speed and ensemble playing. I had the 1970 on LP, then the first CD issue (1984 I think – still have it) and then the 1991 remaster of the original which is truly remarkable.

This:1991 remaster Not this: original CD release 1970


Solti also did 2 live recordings of the 5th. A 1991 “Live” with Chicago, and his very last recording done July 1997, before he passed away in Oct of that year, with the Tonehalle-Orchestra Zurich. The 91’ live is with the Chicago again but I feel the recording is not as good as the 1991 remaster of the original 1970 or the Tonehalle recording which is very good for “Live”.

This: 1997 Not this:1991 "Live"

All 4 of these are London/Decca’s, The difference is the recording locales. The original 1970 was made in Medinah Hall, Chicago and is vivid and dynamic, clean and clear especially in the remaster. The 1991 “Live” was with Chicago but they must have been on tour as the recording location was the Musikverein, Vienna and it is too soft around the edges for my liking. The 1997 recording was made in the Tonehalle’s regular performance hall and it’s a keeper for me as well.

There are many very good recordings of the 5th (and 1st too). Among 5th’s Barbirolli on EMI, Bernstein on DG, Abbado on DG, Tennstedt on EMI, and Boulez on DG come to mind. But with 24 different recordings on my shelf it’s tough for me to keep track!

I hope that helps.

WOW! Much obliged!

 

[yyzSB]

Thanks for the Mahler info. I am playing

on my speakers now. I will listen on the CA + VM-1a tonight when my baby-sitting duties are done.

 

[FLTWS]

AND, one more recommendation in a very current release. (I made these notes 2 or 3 years ago)

Mahler 5 - Vanska & Minnesota Orchestra on BIS label.

Listened to the Vanska Mahler 5 today. Excellent performance and recording. I’m beginning to suspect the SQ with these Minnesota / BIS recordings has to do with the natural qualities of their orchestra hall. I am really taken by the sound. So much so that when I saw Vanska / Minnesota /BIS had a complete set of Sibelius and Beethoven Symphonies, I checked out some comments at Amazon and ordered both sets.

I have about a dozen or so BIS CD’s from before 2010, including some 90’s and 80’s: some Sibelius, some Tubin, Nielsen, and few others recorded in various locations in Europe with different orchestras, but I don’t think they have the sonic qualities of these Minnesota / Orchestra Hall recordings. I’ll revisit a few of them soon to confirm for myself.

Right off the bat, Vanska’s Minnesota M5 is a top shelf performance for sure. Pacing throughout is just about perfect. Especially in the 2nd movement which may just be one of the toughest Mahler movements to pull off in his whole symphonic output.

1st Movement: A lot of M5 recordings push the gain too hard on the opening trumpet notes so that when the full orchestra makes its intro it sounds anemic. BIS got it just right. The bass drum, tympani , and double basses are very well balanced and recorded. His pacing makes this a true funeral march with all the dark undertones. Seems Vanska is going with the European orchestra layout with divided first and second strings in this whole series. (I'm curious to hear how he lays out his forces for the Sibelius and Beethoven cycles).

2nd Movement: As I previously allude to, I think this is one tough movement to get across but Vanska has done it admirably. (He is right there with Barbirolli’s 2nd movement in his classic performance from decades ago). Much of the music in this movement is agitated and chaotic, a bit of uncertainty as to where the music is going. It’s easy to get it tripping all over itself and lacking in clarity. About 2/3s of the way in Mahler introduces a magnificent chorale for the brass but just at the point where you expect the music to reach a highpoint it fades away in uncertainty followed immediately by the agitated music that opened the movement but that too fades away to uncertainty closing the movement out. (The brass chorale will return and fully unload at the end of the 5th movement).

3rd Movement: This largest of the 5 movements is a complete turnaround from the music of the first two. This is idyllic, pastoral-like, light-hearted music that alternates with darker moments but is basically of a different world than the first two movements. Vanska and the musicians pull off these alternations with extreme clarity. One of the qualities Vanska seems to have (like Tennstedt) is the ability to pace music in a relaxed manner, and yet one that never feels slower than it should be.

4th Movement: Vanska seems right in step with many of the other conductors who have recorded this symphony in terms of pacing. However, I would like a little more intensity from the strings.

5th Movement: The Rondo Finale continues the quality of the previous movements in terms of interpretation and execution. The stymied big brass chorale of the 2nd movement at last breaks loose towards the end of the movement. My favorite performances always have a measured slowing of the tempo leading into the final brass chorale to bring more drama and give the horns their big moment. Not quite like going from 60 to 0 in 3 seconds but the effect is most notable. But wait, there’s more! LOL. The orchestra now takes off like it got stung by a bee and rushes ever faster, screaming, (or laughing depending on your point of view), to finally get squashed by a final, full orchestra bang with bass drum. I must have seen this performed live at least a dozen times and with a few different orchestras, always a crowd pleaser so conductors love to program and perform it.

 

[yyzSB]

I had some time to listen to the 1991 remaster of the Mahler that I posted the album cover above. Thanks for this new discovery, some very powerful and exciting music. I listened to Part 1 twice, once with the CA-1a (Pentode mode with switch positioned on CA) and again with the SR1a (Pentode mode with switch positioned on SR). I do not know much about live classical concerts; I have just seen 2 by a university orchestra (not very good). My take with the Mahler was that on the CA-1a the sound seemed like I was sitting in with the orchestra. Some incredibly powerful sounds from the instruments, especially in movement II of Part 1. A little scary sometimes.

With the SR1a, I felt like I was sitting in the middle of the concert hall. The SR1a had a more expansive sound though the power of the instruments was not as impactful. However, I liked the 'virtual concert seating' position better with the SR1a. The physical scale of the orchestra seemed larger. When I was listening on the CA-1a I was thinking I need to hear this music with a KEF Blade in a great room. The Blades have the same impact as the CA-1a but bigger scale. This is my 2-channel bias creeping in.

I played the music both times at the same volume level. Halfway through Movement II I decided to increase the volume for the SR1a by 2 notches. That brought out some of the power that was not as prominent before.

I wanted to go back to "When the Levee Breaks" to compare with the SR1a. Here again. I had a similar experience. With the SR1a I felt like I was watching the band perform on stage. With the CA-1a I was in the studio with the performers. I happened to prefer being in the studio for the Led Zeppelin stuff.

I am now listening to Lux Prima - Karen O and Danger Mouse. I am using Pentode mode, mainly because I do not want to shut down the VM-1a to change to Triode or Ultra Linear. I never knew this album had this level of bass. It sounds a bit more exciting on the CA while more spacey or relaxing on the SR1a. Another one of my recent favorites is KIWANUKA - Michael Kiwanuka. This one has what I perceive as a wall of sound with a great singer singing in front of it. That 'wall of sound' is a pretty nice effect on the CA-1a (I love the song "This Kind of Love").

I think I am coming to the conclusion that getting the CA-1a was not for just listening on a pillow. It has benefits over the SR1a depending on mood and type of music. Even for music where I prefer the SR1a the CA-1a is so tonally similar to the SR1a that it is not a drop-off to switch to the CA-1a.

Some of my conclusions are based on the fact that I am not a headphone guy and love the non-headphone like sound of the SR1a. My earlier comment stands. The CA-1a sounds like a much better sounding Meze Empy (my only prior headphone, which I liked a lot). If I were to recommend one of the 2 headphones to my friends. I would recommend the SR1a to my 2-channel friends and the CA-1a to my headphone friends. Getting the VM-1a amp is bullet proof. Trying to get close to the VM-1a sound with a 2-channel setup is much more complicated and I now think impossible to equal it. I would also tell my 2-channel friends that in my not-so-great room, my 2-chennel is no longer better than the SR1a and VM-1a. The SR1a + VM-1a is something that must be heard.

 

[FLTWS]

Your impressions of the SR1a versus CA-1a lend credence to the claim that the SR1a is a more speaker-like listening experience while with the CA-1a we have a classic headphone-like presentation.

 

[Aleksandar R.]

I completely understand the preference for a 2-channel kind of presentation.

I use Crossfeed in about 20% of my listening on headphones. I have 3 different plugins and they all differ, but they are very helpful in narrowing the stereo image and moving it in front of my head, so more speaker-like experience.