Maybe I should just bite the bullet buy the XRM for my 301 mkii Denon and be done. My regular old Zphono slays the internal phono of the 2200. I was seriously thinking of getting a jc3 jr but maybe I will be more than happy with the XRM .. I mean I have a great pair of Klipsch RB 5 (my Dads May he rip ). But I wonder if I really need to go all the way to the jc3 jr. I may even get a VM750SH to have an alternative.. anyways otherwise the 2200 is the best amp I have ever owned I can’t for the life of me figure out how they designed the phono stage lol!!!
Definitely agree with that distinction, and I can see how it's easy to perceive fullness as loudness in practice. I'm going to pay more attention to that to make sure I'm separating the two properly. But my general impression has been that I'm getting audibly more gain from phono pre than any of my DACs, especially if I set the phono pre to higher than 40. Vinyl just fills the speakers and the room more than any digital source I've had.
I really think it's a very deliberate design choice. Very neutral and not imposing. I can appreciate it, but it doesn't kick me in the gut, so listening to the built in phono stage is more of a conceptual experience. I much prefer my external pres and the native PM8006 phono pre (fuller and more muscular, but still very clean).
I think that's it. I just replied to an earlier post with the following, but thought I should post it here: I found this article from Audio Technica that explains why vinyl is typically lower in volume: Why Is My Turntable So Much Quieter Than My CD Player? I thought the following was interesting: The mastering process for vinyl records does not use nearly as much compression as a digital master, and is more focused on having a wider dynamic range at lower volumes. This can potentially make the record sound warmer, brighter, and more detailed than the same song on a CD. I do know Yamaha touts "natural sound". I'm guessing that translates into sounding neutral and presenting the audio as it was mastered. It's possible other phono preamps add warmth and color to the sound vs. being flat in the EQ sense of not over or underemphasing frequencies. I will have to check out the PM8006 phono pre. You definitely have me curious. Edit: I just saw the PM8006 is an integrated amp. Are you using it direct to your speakers, or a line out into a Yamaha AS amp? I hear Marantz is generally warmer sounding than Yamaha. The PM8006 looks like a very nice amp.
So, here is the good news. I couldn't let it go and connected my turntable to the A-S2200 again and lo and behold, it sounded much better than last time around. And I think I figured out why - when you leave the internal pre-amp of my turntable on, it totally impacts its performance, even when you use the "to phono preamp" out. But, I think I still prefer the sound of the Parasound Phono stage significantly. I also created a fun comparison video for you fine folk here if you want to chime in on which phone stage you find better. I did not alter the audio in any way, that means if it clips, it clips, if it's low volume, it's low volume. The only thing done to alter the audio is whatever YouTube does to the video. Thanks to everybody that chimed in and helped out! Really appreciate it.
Interesting comparison. Adjusting for volume, Bass has more punch on Stage 1, but the trumpet sounds smoother, more natural on Stage 2. I'd be worried about ear fatigue on 1, but I do like the energy. On the rock piece I didn't notice much difference after adjusting for volume. The difference reminds me of why I have both Harbeths and Heresy's. Harbeths for that pro studio sound, and Heresey's for that outdoor live event sound. Love them both.
I've actually done both. Right now my PM8006 is driving Klipsch 600s, and I really like that combo, but before I got the HD DAC1 I often used the 8006 as a preamp to give digital sources more warmth. (I love how lush and warm and musical Marantz is.) I really like the phono stage in the 8006, but I actually prefer the Pro-Ject DS2, so that's how I listen to vinyl 95% of the time with the A-S1200. I think it's a really nice combo--warm but detailed.
I liked sound from source 1 but I'd be worried about ear fatigue too. The sound from 1 stage is more live, vivid but it is important how it will sounds after 1 or 2 hrs later... I have listened 5 times now and I prefer stage 2.
That's so interesting. I find stage 1 really soothing. I would never worry about fatigue. (Stage 2 just sounds kinda forgettable to me.) What do you find potentially fatiguing about it? It's really helpful to see examples of how subjectively we experience the same sound. Thanks for posting this comparison, @Gutek.
No worries! I always enjoy these comparisons, so I thought it might be fun for others here on the forum. Personally, I can see why someone might find #1 potentially fatiguing. It’s very dynamic and bright, the highs cut a lot more than with #2. Personally I prefer that over a more veiled but smooth sound.
It's kind of like oversalting your food. Some people prefer less is all. Too much makes it pop but can ruin it. You also have to have a revealing system and speakers to appreciate a more neutral sound. It just sounds beautiful and pleasing to the ear imo. Over EQed gets tiring. There is something amazing about a natural open sound. The music feels more present and natural vs. impactful. But enjoy both if you have both! Turn it up with the A-S1200 preamp and just listen to how natural it sounds over time.
I don’t know about “natural” sounding, cymbals are pretty loud and obnoxious normally, but I get what you are saying. The interesting thing to me is that you describe it as a more open sound, while I find #2 to be more of a veiled and kind of small sound. I don’t associate open with that sound at all. To me something opens up when I can hear the dynamics and the details in things. But hey, that’s what makes this hobby fun! It’s highly subjective and exploring all the different shades of sound is fun.
How to start? In the past I have had Canton speakers they are bright side speakers. I usually got ear fatigue after let's say one hour of hearing. Now I have Monitor Audio Gold 300 5G. Speakers are veeeery balanced. I could hear more than two hours without any fatigue. So, therefore I had ptefere stage 2 because stage one it appears to me "nicer" but too bright. Stage Nr. 2 is from Yamaha right? I'm using Project Tube Box S2 as phono preamp. It's very balanced phono stage. Of course phono box RS is even better but for different money
Agree with this. "Natural", at least to my ears, sounds very polished and controlled, so that no single frequency range dominates, and I'm not sure that's really natural. Stage 1 sounds more realistic to me because there is more midrange and more messiness, which to me is a big part of the musical experience. I don't love it when things sound too clean and perfect, even if that presentation is more revealing.
I preferred #2, but only by a small margin. Neither one seemed like it would be fatiguing to me. #2 just sounds more realistic to me, which I really like for the music I listen to. I can see preferring #1 for studio albums that have a lot of dynamics and bells and whistles though. For straight up instruments #2 is where it's at for me.
It then comes down to how the band and the engineer want it to sound. There are two things to consider. One, how it was recorded, and two, what they were listening to, not only the gear but the space they listened to it in. Did they listen on headphones and sign off on it, or did they listen to it in the studio in an enclosed, or open, space? Ultimately, somone listened to it, in a given space, and signed off on it. When you listen to it on your system in your space you are hearing what they signed off on with your system and in your space. I think the Yamahas try to be neutral in that representation, leaving any influence to the speakers and space your are listening in. Yamaha receivers have treble and bass controls to compensate. I'm not saying anything is better than anything else, it's just something to be aware of. Ultimately all that matters is whether it sounds good to you or not. Ultimately we should all pursue what sounds best for us in our unique space. I do think it's worthwhile to be open to different listening experiences through different gear. You also have to consider there are different producers out there with their own signature sound, from George Martin and the Beatles to Martin Hannett and Joy Divison. They all bring their own sound. I'd like to think if you want to hear what they have to bring to the table, have as neutral a sound system as possible, but then who knows how they were listening to it back then. Most recording engineers work with as flat as a system as possible with this in mine. During the "loudness" wars engineers mastered for iPods and cars. That's why everything during that period sounded compressed and less dynamic. Yes it sounded fuller, but that came at an expense.
I go back and forth on this. I'm not sure that giving each frequency range equal stage presence is more reflective of the source. For instance, just as an example, if the midrange is more present on the source but the amp pushes it back so that it doesn't overwhelm the other frequencies and so it sounds more balanced, then it's modifying the output, even though it sounds flat/not colored and therefore "neutral"/"natural". It's just a less obvious form of coloring. So if that's what the phono pre is doing, is it more accurate really? I just tried the phono stage again with the Amethyst, by the way, just to see if maybe I was being too harsh on the native phono stage. Busted out '79 pressing of the Wall and also Kind of Blue. Both sounded really nice. The DS2 sounds warmer and fuller, though, and, to my ears at least, more three dimensional. I don't know on what basis I could say that one is more accurate than the other, though. How can you really know? I 100% agree that the Yamaha reveals the source really well, by the way. That's one of my favorite things about it--you can really hear differences between different components.
A neutral preamp, amp, or cart/stylus, wouldn't modify any frequencies. It would just present the recording as is. So instead of adding warmth it would remain neutral. I'm guessing that's what Yamaha is going for with their "Natural Sound" thing. I thought this was pretty funny from another forum: I do believe in Yamaha's "Natural Sound"....................In this case I think it is real. But just like the Marantz's "Three Tequila Sound", it has its supporters as well as opponents. Part me thinks of it like a good steak. You can have it plain, with salt, with salt and pepper, with spices, with butter, and so on. If there's zero spice, you get the steak as is. With vinyl, you get what was recorded on it. That's the space and natural sound aspect and the easy on the ears aspect. It just sounds natural. But... It can also lack that extra spice from other preamps. But honestly, this is all coming with a huge leap of faith. I have no idea if Yamaha is truly flat. I just hope it is and I do like how my system sounds.
I think I get stuck on the fact that I've heard some stuff that was meant to be neutral and it sounded different from other stuff that was also meant to be neutral. So then neutral stops sounding so, well, neutral. It just starts to sound like another subjective set of engineering choices. In other words, if there really were an objectively neutral component, then it would sound exactly like any other neutral component. But if they sound different, can they both be neutral? Deep thoughts, haha. I think I need to listen to the A-S1200 native phono stage more to see if I hear differences between recordings and also carts. For whatever reason, right now the native phono pre just makes everything sound kind of the same to me, which is why I started questioning the actual neutrality of it. But after this chat, I'm starting to think that maybe I just didn't give it enough of a chance.
I agree with that. I think most claim to be neutral, so who knows. Some argue there is no difference in amps if they are up to spec, but clearly that is not the case with pre-amps at least. You are fortunate to be able to try different ones. One of these days I might branch out and try another, but it feels like such a gamble. I think I'll reach out to a local hi-fi shop to see if I can compare some when I have the extra cash to burn.
The Yamaha house sound is very much a “V-curve.” It also has saturated, colored tonality. It’s a tailored sound that does alter any upstream source. Though it’s very enjoyable, it’s not what I’d call “true to the source.” I would not hold this opinion whatsoever had I not experienced many other amplifiers over the years. I think the sound is often mistaken for neutral because it is high resolution, and does reveal more detail than many similarly priced amps. I consider it a “wet” sound. This comes through most when focusing on cymbals, hi-hats and similar instruments. Compare the Yamahas to an Exposure, Parasound, or Sony integrated and this character suddenly becomes evident, especially in a well damped room with fewer reflections. It’s probably the result of Yamaha’s designers attempting to emulate the sound of tubes, in which they largely succeeded Don’t get me wrong, I personally enjoy the Yamaha sound immensely, but it isn’t neutral.
I've always been a fan of Yamaha electronics. My first AVR served me well for 20 years before retiring it in 2018. My current AVR (3070) sounds great to me in Pure Direct for 2 channel listening, so I can say that I favor the Yamaha house sound as well - mostly for the reasons you noted above. That said, I have limited experience with other brands, but do enjoy vintage Marantz sound as well. The A-S3200 is on my sight for future purchase as a gift to myself D), but also considering a Luxman integrated.
