Best Hardware for Classical Music

Discussion in 'Audio Hardware' started by George P, Dec 29, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Rushton

    Rushton Forum Resident

    Location:
    Huntsville, AL
    Since this thread is about the gear we've chosen for listening to classical music, I thought I'd come back to that theme with some thoughts about the process of putting a system together. I'd love to hear others' thoughts on what has worked for them.

    I enjoy seeing the multiple turntables and tonearms people have to play around with. Looks like it's been great fun. Some of my audio friends have followed this path as well and it's fun listen in their rooms and be able to compare differences in tables, tonearms and cartridges all in the same system. To have a dedicated mono cartridge for playing mono records is a joy. It simply sounds better that way - IF the cartridge is at the same level of quality. And there's the rub.

    Is it better to have multiple arms and cartridges so one can match to the particular LP on hand? Or is it better to have a single arm and single cartridge but done at the highest performance level one can achieve within one's means? I've chosen this latter path, but recognize I miss out in some other ways.

    So here's what's worked for me... In addition to adhering closely to my sonic priorities listed in an earlier post, I've followed three guiding principles in building my audio system over the years:
    1. Don't upgrade unless you're making a material improvement in performance. This comes from my belief that incremental improvements just satisfy the itch for a new toy and end up costing a lot of money over the long term.
    2. Keep it simple. The best signal path is the least complicated with the fewest connections.
    3. Stay with one primary source but optimize that source as much as you possible can given the budget available. So, my listening room has always held only a single turntable at a time, a single tonearm, a single cartridge, a single phono stage, etc. Oh, yes, it's all rather boring this way. But, I've felt I get more sonic enjoyment out of my budget by doing this.
    What's worked for you?
     
  2. Rushton

    Rushton Forum Resident

    Location:
    Huntsville, AL
    What cartridge do you use? Why did you choose it?

    Wes H and Thorensman have commented about their cartridge choices and why. Thanks! Very interesting.

    For me, it's currently a Magic Diamond from Bluelectric, a one-person cartridge builder in Switzerland. This is a moving coil cartridge with a moderately high output of 0.4mv. I love it for its very natural mid-range and neutral tonal balance, coupled with a nice quickness and good transient response. And I very much like it's moderately high output (for a moving coil) because I'm committed to using all tube active gain stages in my phono stage and avoiding step up transformers (another topic).

    [​IMG]

    If I had the budget, I'd love to make a further step up in reproduction capability to either the Air Tight PC-1 Supreme cartridge or Peter Lederman's new Hyperion cartridge. I've listened to both in another system similar to my own. Both take many of things I like about the Magic Diamond to that next material improvement in detail, speed, transparency and frequency extension. And both are currently beyond what I'm able to afford. Still, one dreams...
    [​IMG] [​IMG]

    For decades before the Magic Diamond cartridge, I avoided moving coil cartridges. The ones I heard just had too many frequency balance problems. They never sounded musically natural to me, particularly the hyper-analytical ones, or the ones with sizzling top ends. Or their output was so low as to be completely untenable. Seriously, under 0.2mv???? Why? That's just insane.

    My preference were Grado moving iron cartridges of medium output, 1.5mv and a bit less. I used one or another Grado cartridge for over 20 years gradually moving up the line to my last one which was a wood-bodied Reference Reference. For me, the Grado's had a wonderfully natural and balanced mid-range (my priority #2). They weren't incredible fast, they didn't have the highest levels of resolution, they didn't plum the depths of powerful bass response, they didn't have that airy extended high-end. But what they had for me was pure satisfying musical naturalness. I could listen to strings, lutes, woodwinds and suspend disbelief for hours on end.

    Today, the Magic Diamond cartridge does this for me, but with hugely greater speed, resolution and ability to fully render the soundstage that's captured on some of the most well engineered recordings (sonic priority #3).
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2015
    Shiver and bluemooze like this.
  3. hesson11

    hesson11 Forum Resident

    This thread, while interesting, seems to have provided answers that don't have much to do with the question posed by the OP. In reply to that question, I'd say that the best investment I have made in my love of classical music is my Harbeth Compact 7ES-3 speakers. Nothing has ever gotten me closer to the sound of natural, unamplified instruments.
    -Bob
     
    morris_minor, dale 88 and bluemooze like this.
  4. coopmv

    coopmv Newton 1/30/2001 - 8/31/2011

    Location:
    CT, USA
    Indeed, Harbeth has been the BBC monitor ...
     
  5. Rushton

    Rushton Forum Resident

    Location:
    Huntsville, AL
    Bob, I've always liked the sound that Harbeth achieves with its speakers. The mid-range naturalness is addictive. Seems like many people who enjoy classical music also set a high value on the sound of unamplified instruments - I certainly do. And the Harbeth speakers I've heard over the years are a nice match for this.
     
  6. jupiterboy

    jupiterboy Forum Residue

    Location:
    Buffalo, NY
    I wonder if there is a general preference between paper and poly cone drivers.
     
  7. Larry I

    Larry I Senior Member

    Location:
    Washington, D.C.
    In general, the demands of classical music are not much different than other forms and good gear will play all types of music well. Also, classical music is so variable, tailoring choice of gear it the demands of the particular type of music would mean tailoring the choice to a specific type of classical music--chamber vs. symphonic, for example. Because of the greater dynamic range of classical music over most popular forms of music, there is some premium on the gear being able to sound good at extremely low volume; a lot of gear sounds dynamically flat and lifeless at low volume. The gear that tends to favor good low volume dynamics include large, high efficiency speakers, electrostatic speakers and low-powered tube electronics. But, the demands of big symphonic works also mean that the system has to be capable of moving a large amount of air; again big speakers help in this area; some high efficiency wide range single driver speakers are hindered in such ability. What is not so important for most classical music is the ability to deliver the extra sharp bass "punch" that is the one particular area where modern speakers seem to excel at (much more important for pop/rock music). With classical music, deep and punchy bass is not as important as being able to deliver subtle tonal changes in the bass (deep bass is mainly required for organ music).

    Tonally, I think having upper bass and lower midrange being a little bit fuller and richer sounding is MUCH better than having a sound that is leaner and thinner in that region when it comes to classical music. To me, there is nothing worse for classical music than a lack of weight in that region and having a thin "bloodless" sound.
     
    Ozoid, Shiver, russk and 4 others like this.
  8. Bill Hart

    Bill Hart Forum Resident

    Location:
    Austin
    I am a member of the same church, perhaps a different pew. I know your name from Audiogon. Nice to see you here! (You could have been here since the Flood, but first time I realized you were here was when I saw you post about your Walker table. It's nice to own something that is enduring and gets you off the gear merry-go-round). I've focused on a single source--vinyl, two channel, relatively simple signal chain pretty much from the beginning. No real "extras" for the reason in your #3. Upgrades at this point are not something I focus on; perhaps a larger scale version of what I now have, eventually, in a bigger room. (I never integrated home theatre into hi-fi; two separate things for me and for the past few years, I've lost interest in the 'theatre' thing altogether).
    For years, I got my bliss via vinyl, tubes and Quad electrostats- they made great music, and were somewhat forgiving, although they can't scale to full orchestra size; rather, it sounds like a portrait in miniature (on the '57) and maybe a picture window on the '63. I jumped on the horn, SET thing a decade or so ago, and couldn't be happier. Although I have a substantial pile of classical music, much of it still unculled, or (un)listened to in years, I'm now less constrained by system limitations: hard rock is convincing in a way that the 'stats couldn't do (yeah, I could pile on the subs or super tweeters, but I wound up with more complexity and less coherence). I could be happy with a pair of restored '57s as a 'modest' system, with a good table/arm and amp, particularly if I weren't listening to hard rock/psych. Despite their limitations, they bring something to the party you rarely hear, even on far more elaborate, state of the art systems- that midrange is pretty much unparalleled in my book, though the horns do a fairly good job on that front.
     
    Rushton likes this.
  9. Wes H

    Wes H Forum Resident

    Location:
    Virginia
    Thanks for posting this. I enjoyed reading about the restoration and TLC you've given this classic. I've been down some of that same road with one of my Empires (one was immaculate and well-cared for; the other I restored). There is a special gratification in using a machine that one has worked on and knows inside & out.
    It's also interesting to read about your journey through different cartridges... finally just "use your ears and make your own choice based on the sound produced." Absolutely! You'll get a thousand different recommendations here, but ultimately you have to decide on what sounds right to you, and at a budget you can live with.
    I have a costly new Thorens 2030 and expensive (for me) MC cartridge (Blue Oasis) in it. The stylus has been re-tipped, but I'm always worried about wear and the day it will need to be re-tipped again -- not cheap and not easy to tell when its time is up, but I don't want record wear. With the Empire and a MM cart, I can change the stylus easily and cheaply. There's a slight compromise in the ultimate sound, but with most recordings the difference is insignificant.
     
  10. Rushton

    Rushton Forum Resident

    Location:
    Huntsville, AL
    Larry I, agree with what you say here. Nicely summarized. I find that my choice of speakers over the years have all fallen into the category of speakers that are able to sound good at extremely low volume. Meaning that they can resolve the musical lines and differentiate timbre and reproduce the micro dynamics that bring life to the music, while still playing at a low volume.

    Often though, the trade-off in my speaker choices have been the ultimate volume at which they can reproduce cleanly is limited. This has tended to work for my listening because, overall, I tend not to listen at volumes higher that 95db in my listening room and typically lower than that.

    Speakers that can deliver that bass "punch" simply have never appealed to me musically - they get that punch, but they miss so much else in the delicacy and timbre of the instruments that is important to my preferred musical choices: classical and acoustic music. As you observe so well, I'd far prefer to have "subtle tonal changes in the bass" than to have deep and punchy bass. Case in point: the timpany captured in the Arnold English Dances on Lyrita SRCS 109. It floats from way to the back left of the orchestra and captures that incredible timbre of the skin of the drum. So many speakers tuned for deep punchy impact simply loose the magic of that tympani.
     
    Wes H likes this.
  11. Rushton

    Rushton Forum Resident

    Location:
    Huntsville, AL
    Yes, this. :thumbsup:
     
  12. Rushton

    Rushton Forum Resident

    Location:
    Huntsville, AL
    Bill, thank you for the welcome. I've been around these forums, but mostly just reading and getting some good information about various vinyl pressings. I'd looked at the classical thread a number of times, but didn't recognize that people posting on that thread included a community of fellow vinyl lovers until recently. When I find folks who enjoy vinyl, but are really into the music more than the gear, I'm attracted to spend more time!

    Your focus on keeping the system to a single source, playing vinyl, two channel, and keeping the signal path reasonably simply certainly sings from the same song book I enjoy.
     
  13. coopmv

    coopmv Newton 1/30/2001 - 8/31/2011

    Location:
    CT, USA
    You are right! Until recently, most members at CMC only listened to CD's. I have not listened to vinyl for most of the past twenty years until early this year when I was inspired by two relatively new members who are really into vinyl.
     
  14. Wes H

    Wes H Forum Resident

    Location:
    Virginia
    As you've seen in my picture earlier, I have multiple tables & cartridges. Why? Mostly for the fun of it, but also because some records simply sound better with a different 'table/cart match-up.

    The Thorens is where I sunk most of my budget. Based on auditions of that 'table and a Blue Oasis cartridge (a one-off, like your Magic Diamond) that just hit the sweet spot for me. The BO's .4 mv output, 15-40k hz range, microridge diamond, boron cantilever and Samarium Cobalt magnet just work magic--at least, to my ears--with the most neutral/natural sound, while the Thorens just gets out of its way.

    The Thorens/Blue Oasis combination is amazing in it's clarity, speed, accuracy... and yet, sometimes I encounter a recording where the EQ is lean, or bloated, or has some odd frequency peak, and I'll move the LP over to one of my Empire turntables and find the sound a bit more pleasing... just because the characteristics of the Denon, or Shure, or Empire cart seem to suit a particular (usually older) recording better. Nothing wrong with the Thorens, but maybe it's just a bit too analytical (or too honest, too revealing?) with the odd record, that a different 'table/cart will provide a more relaxed reproduction. It may also have something to do with the different stylus tips... microridge, conical, nude elliptical... that track grooves differently.

    Then there's the "fun" aspect I mentioned at the beginning. This thing is, for me, a hobby. I love music, and I love tinkering with this gear that makes music. Sometimes I'll just try a record on all three TTs, just to hear the differences, just for the fun of it. Or I'll just throw an old 6-eye Columbia LP on one of the classic Empires and sit back to watch it play (and I can't wipe the grin off my face!)... just enjoying the music and the making of the music on that gold instrument, not giving a thought to any compromise in sound. If I want the absolute best, I know I can always put the LP on the Thorens. I just like having the choices.

    It's a hobby. Have fun with the gear. Enjoy the music!
     
    Rushton likes this.
  15. Wes H

    Wes H Forum Resident

    Location:
    Virginia
    I agree with all you wrote... Excellent points, especially the part about bass. Thin bass on classical recordings can sound "bloodless," indeed!

    I actually have a powered Quad subwoofer (with remote!) which I rarely use for classical, but I sometimes turn it on for jazz or rock. It adds that low punch-in-the-gut one gets in a "live" club setting. Accurate? Who's to say... It just adds to the fun of playing some pop & jazz records.

    Enjoy the music!
     
    Rushton likes this.
  16. Thorensman

    Thorensman Forum Resident

    Th
    thank youguh
    thank you Wes, going to the music i hear little bits of detail especially on choral, where the system i am using is clearly superior in clarity in massed voices. Triangles appear from nowhere.
    I hear clarity and clean reproduction, where tenors are-hitting top "c,s"
    Where on the opening of Andre Previns 1812 there are 8 cellos and are there in the room in front of you,where Sherril milnes voice is rich yet blessed with great tinbre.
    This is lost on some systems, which are highly rated. I use my ears a lot more these days,
    I think reviews of equipment can sometimes prejudice your opinion.
    Some old bands maybe jazz not sure about what jazz really is,but Ted Heath, Glen Miller can really boogie through the music on this set up.
    Will leave system well alone as it does for me what it should, connect me with the music.
    I have 2 Nakimichi cd players which are quite satisfactory also.
    Records vary in quality but can open up a wonderful gate to the past.
     
    Wes H and Rushton like this.
  17. Thorensman

    Thorensman Forum Resident

    Much the same! I mean that i
    run a couple of turntables.
    As records are cut and equalized differently ie Decca FFRR columbia EMI, all used different settings or curves till the 80,s, this is or may be denied, as the record companies agreed to use theRIAA corve in 1958, but did not , this is an area iv,e been investigating with the purchase of my IFI phono stage this year, which caters for most curves (eq) and cartridge loadings.
    When you upgrade your turntable somtimes a favourite record sometimes loses something, swings and roundabouts.
    Two turntables and a variety of pickups can be the best of both worlds.
    Going back to phono stages, they can do so much to lift the music to the state it was meant to be.
    I find some records sound good on any equipment, then you come across a difficult record. 8 0ut of 10 its an audiophile recording, and it shows up the poor turntable from the very good. I have a Ted Heath " Hits from around the world on Decca Lk series. Its mono and was mediocre on my 401(garrard) sme4 Benz Glyder.
    Guess what? Its superb and comes to life on the Thorens.as you say if one record is a bit too clinical(no offence) on your Thorens then the Empire synergises a tad better, this is what i find sometimes.
    Its all about getting to heart of the music then just floating on air when i grabs you. Nice thread, "a very happy new year to you and your family,
     
    bluemooze, Rushton and Wes H like this.
  18. TonyACT

    TonyACT Boxed-in!

    Discussion continued here from the Classical Corner thread:

    Coincidentally I recently purchased a new CD of the 1812; by the Los Angeles Philharmonic / Zubin Mehta and was a little surprised by how vivid the cannons were - the thought did cross my mind regarding speaker damage. I have blown out speakers with a bluray before - during some explosions in Star Trek movies - but not with a CD - so far ;)
     
  19. Ham Sandwich

    Ham Sandwich Senior Member

    Location:
    Sherwood, OR, USA
    I've blown a headphone driver with pipe organ music (Jean Guillou playing Pictures at an Exhibition). It was glorious for a moment and then suddenly no longer glorious. I accidentally had the headphone amp at full volume when I selected the track for "The Great Gate of Kiev" and hit play. It was the distortion more than the volume that killed the driver. The poor little amp clipped due to the bass. I've learned my lesson. I now use better amps that won't clip like that.

    I also see that the used prices for that CD at Amazon start at $43. I didn't realize it was that valuable. Maybe it's just crazy Amazon pricing.
     
    Ntotrar and TonyACT like this.
  20. scompton

    scompton Forum Resident

    Location:
    Arlington, VA
    I remember listening to some Buxtehude organ music on my iPod with vintage Audio Technica orthos and no external amp. It sounded fine until the first pedal was played then it distorted so bad that it was unrecognizable as music. I also got that combination to distort badly with some electronic music with deep bass. Fortunately, orthos can handle the distortion without ill effect.
     
    TonyACT likes this.
  21. Ham Sandwich

    Ham Sandwich Senior Member

    Location:
    Sherwood, OR, USA
    The headphone that burned out the driver was a Denon D2000. I really liked that headphone for pipe organ. Losing that headphone got me to buy my Audeze LCD-2 so I'd have a good pipe organ headphone again. So it all turned out for the better. And now I also have the Massdrop edition Fostex TH-X00 which is very similar to that old Denon and better than that old Denon. I'm re-experiencing what pipe organ sounds like with that Fostex. The Fostex has a fun style of pipe organ bass sound. Different than the way the Audeze does the pipe organ bass. The Fostex has more rumble. The Audeze is cleaner bass and better layering.
     
    TonyACT likes this.
  22. The Pinhead

    The Pinhead KING OF BOOM AND SIZZLE IN HELL

    Wow; is that billet aluminium under the platter ?:eek:
     
  23. Wes H

    Wes H Forum Resident

    Location:
    Virginia
    I'm relatively sure it is cast aluminum--finished in gold, like the rest of the TT parts.
    The platter is actually in 2 parts: The visible outer ring (or "beauty ring") that is visible above the plinth, which fits over the much deeper and heavier main platter. Both are finished in gold. The belt attaches to the main (inner) platter.
     
    TonyACT and The Pinhead like this.
  24. Rushton

    Rushton Forum Resident

    Location:
    Huntsville, AL
    Phono Stages: To vinyl listeners among the group... What are your preferences for the phono stage in your system? Are there other classical vinyl listeners who have found over the years that they have a strong preference for all tube amplification of the signal coming off the cartridge? Yes, it can be a huge challenge using just tubes in the active gain stage, but I've consistently found the resulting music more engaging and musically satisfying - it seems to come across with more life, more complexity of timbre, greater jump factor in the micro-dynamics. Whenever I listen to phono stages that apply transformers to boost the signal, I find the sound just never as "alive" - invariably a bit flat. When I listen to solid state, even when its very very good solid state, I find myself feeling relieved to return to my all tube phono stage.
    .
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2016
  25. Rushton

    Rushton Forum Resident

    Location:
    Huntsville, AL
    Yes, those first two tubes in each channel are a bear to achieve real quiet, but what a joy!

    [​IMG]
     
    bluemooze likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine