Jump to content
IGNORED

Metric Halo review


Recommended Posts

 

I scanned the review pretty quickly, and only noticed that he wasn't listening via Devore 9s, as I had hoped. I don't even remember if it was him, or someone else at 6moons, who found the combination of F-something and Super 8s to sound exceptional.

 

Thanks for pointing that out. I had assumed (ugghh!) that he was using one of his super high efficiency speakers, and that perhaps his setup was more optimal than mine. As you pointed out recently, my Virgos are not exactly in the sweet spot of the J2, but they still sound pretty fine to me, as they did to Srajaen.

 

You'd think that a reviewer would use a more optimal combination, especially one who's listened to ever amp in the F series.

 

checking the Stereophile measurements (gotta love Google) I get:

 

"The Audio Physic Virgo is a reasonably hard load for an amplifier to drive, as shown by its plots of impedance magnitude and phase against frequency (fig.1). Not only does the impedance drop below 4 ohms for pretty much the entire midrange"

 

I'd always imagined the load wasn't that difficult. Guess I should have read the measurements section more carefully.

 

Gotta make that appt at ILS, this amp offers better than I'm hearing.

 

thanks again,

clay

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment

 

Guido,

below are comments from one of the guys who visited Nelson's home studio to listen to his new amps in comparison to existing stock.

disclaimer, these comments are from an avowed Nelson fan.

 

This in excerpted from page two of the 6moons review.

 

"During the listening session, the F3 sounded just like a tube amp. I think I never heard an amp so tube-like. Great liquid mids yet very nicely defined sound, not too loose or wooly. The top end sounded nice but was not too pronounced. Then we played the J2 and I was blown away by the beauty of its sound. Awesome mids and the top end was just like a dream, the closest possible treble to the Aleph 30 there is. It is hard to find anything even remotely close to the Aleph's top end but the J2 is similar. There is that great tone to it, some kind of openness that's not metallic and not forced but clean and natural. My feeling is that it has a better sound than the Aleph, more rounded and with better mids as well..."

 

Vladimir, you may know him from DIYAudio, preferred the J2 to your current amp F3, and mine, Aleph 30.

 

clay

 

 

Link to comment

Hi Clay,

 

"Not sure how this translates as solely a DAC in an audiophile playback only environment, but folks like Barry think it sounds better than anything they've ever heard (although presumably short of DXD / DSD)."

 

As an audiophile, I think the ULN-8 translates extraordinarily well as a DAC (and preamp) in an audiophile environment. Why some folks think the Sonic boxes, which are essentially the same thing, are "more" audiophile escapes me.

 

My ULN-8 drives my Magnepan system beautifully, whether with music or when used to decode the stereo PCM tracks on DVDs. (I'll do surround audio when the video projection surrounds me too. ;-})

 

As to DSD, I've heard lots of it and find it fatiguing and discomforting. Better than CD in many ways, below the treble, for my ears, bad enough above that, that it isn't for me. DSD (or any variant of same) against a ULN-8 running 24/192? My experience is that DSD is a headache (often for me, literally) while the ULN-8 at 192, for the very first time in my experience, gives me the sound of the mic feeds. I don't feel the two are in the same class, by quite a few orders of magnitude.

 

For my ears, the Weiss sounds nice, where the ULN-8 doesn't sound at all, it just gets out of the way. Reminds me in some ways of the Prism, with its (to my ears) "silky" sound. It depends on what one is seeking.

 

I used the ULN-2 for years but never compared it with all the devices I've gotten to compare the '8 with. If I couldn't have the '8, I'd still prefer the ULN-2 to anything up to triple its price - at least among the competition I've heard. While it isn't a ULN-8, it does share the same designer, with the same sensibilities. And the 2d update freshened it up quite a bit, even the clocking (which was no slouch before).

 

Just my perspective.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

Link to comment

 

Thanks Barry for your frank, detailed comments, as always.

 

"If I couldn't have the '8, I'd still prefer the ULN-2 to anything up to triple its price - at least among the competition I've heard. While it isn't a ULN-8, it does share the same designer, with the same sensibilities. And the 2d update freshened it up quite a bit, even the clocking (which was no slouch before)."

 

Re the 2D card, for those looking to get a ULN-2 on the cheap, you can find older ULN-2s on ebay, or gearslutz, etc., and stuff the 2D card in them for $550.

 

List is $1695, and so if my math is correct, Barry is saying that unless you're gonna spend $5k or more on a dac, the ULN-2 should definitely be on your shortlist for consideration.

 

And of course, if you're gonna spend $5k, what's another $995 to get the ULN-8? ...especially if that $5k purchase might be a Berkeley Alpha, since you've got to spend another $700-800 for a Lynx card (or more for the Weiss Firewire interface), plus the upgrade breakout cable, etc.

 

And he's also wondering why anyone would pay the Sonic premium for Amarra Model 4, or Sonic Studio 305.

 

To each his own. I'm always happy to hear when people pick up either Metric Halo or Sonic/Amarra. I don't think anyone here was listening to either when I arrived a year ago, or at least they weren't talking about it here, if they were.

 

"Silky" sure does sound tempting though. I've heard the same comment applied to the Weiss DACs from others here.

 

Maybe I'll need to amend my comment above that the DAC2 is perhaps the best value in high-end DACs, to include the ULN-2, albeit it at a lower price point.

 

thanks again, Barry

 

enjoy,

clay

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment

Hi Clay,

 

"And he's also wondering why anyone would pay the Sonic premium for Amarra Model 4, or Sonic Studio 305."

 

Not sure if I'm the "he" but if I am, to be clear, that isn't at all what I said.

I said "Why some folks think the Sonic boxes, which are essentially the same thing, are "more" audiophile escapes me." I said this because some folks seem to feel the Sonic boxes are more "audiophile" and the Metric boxes more "pro".

 

In fact, I know pros using the Metric and others using the Sonic boxes and both can be found among audiophiles I know. Sonically, in my view, they are the same machine. (Some folks I know like Sonic's EQ and that is one of the differences between the packages.)

 

Just didn't want anyone to have the impression I made any value judgements. The only judgement I made was for myself and based on my experience owning a Metric Halo 2882 and a ULN-2 (as well as SpectraFoo and ChannelStrip software) and in dealing with the wonderful folks at Metric Halo for several years now, I auditioned a ULN-8, compared it with other "contenders" and very happily bought one.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

Link to comment

 

"Not sure if I'm the "he" but if I am, to be clear, that isn't at all what I said."

 

Yes, those were my words, not yours, and now that it's clear I misinterpreted your words by dint of mixing my OWN VIEWS into them, let's rephrase to say that I, Clay, am not sure why people pay a premium for the Sonic boxes.

 

Even that you've answered quite nicely, with your comment on the EQ comment, but... dyed-in the wool audiophiles just plain don't even consider using EQ.

 

I posted a comment about Algorithmix/Bob Katz's Stereo-K just this week - which seems quite similar to the much craved benefits of Amarra that audiophiles pay $1000 for - and I got almost no interest, presumably due to the fact that it appears to be manipulating the sound. In fact, I'm almost positive that's the reason.

 

Apologies again for mixing my own views onto a comment of yours and thus mischaracterizing what you said. Thanks greatly for clarifying it.

 

Clay

 

 

 

Link to comment

Man, my ears are jealous, it sounds like you guys have pretty fantastic setups. Love hearing about your gear as I live vicariously through your listening. But that's half the fun of all this, reading about nice shiny toys. I am, however, happy to have a pair of monkeys myself (the 7.1's driven by a battery powered kingrex setup). Incidentally, I didn't see them on the devore site, does anyone know if they were discontinued?

 

Speaking of reviews, I'd love to see Chris do some low cost pieces. Maybe even a shootout (I think a head to head would be cool) between a kingrex, a devilsound, an hrt streamer, and maybe a lower priced piece of "pro" gear. Also, interested in the new centrance dacport. Get to it Chris! Just kidding, sounds like you have a full plate as it is so keep up the good work.

 

PS Audio Quintet > Powerbook (iphone with apple remote app) > HRT Streamer II > Kingrex Pre-amp > Kingrex QS-01 > Devore Fidelity Gibbon 7.1\'s

Link to comment

Sorry about hijacking the thread (which forum can I post impressions/evaluation?) but I wanted to give an update on the J2.

 

I received my FirstWatt J2 today and I immediately hooked it up to Amarra Model 4 and DeVore Super8's. Without any burn-in, I played my familiar demo songs. Compared to FirstWatt F1 and Red Wine Audio Signature 30, one thing I noticed right away was that I can locate sound sources more easily. Instruments and singer(s) seem to occupy less space than what I used to hear. This is not to say that sound stage got smaller; it's actually the opposite. Sound stage seems wider because each sound source is much more focused. Another thing I noticed was that sound has more depth. In my small den I sit 8' away from the speakers and with the J2, it seems like I gained 3' of depth than before.

 

In my first post, I said Sig 30 and F1 give me "I am there" sound but after a quick listen to J2, I am happy to retract that statement. I plan on having long listening sessions this weekend.

 

Ken

 

 

 

Link to comment

"I posted a comment about Algorithmix/Bob Katz's Stereo-K just this week - which seems quite similar to the much craved benefits of Amarra that audiophiles pay $1000 for - and I got almost no interest, presumably due to the fact that it appears to be manipulating the sound. In fact, I'm almost positive that's the reason."

 

The above is not clear.

I am going to evaluate Algorithmix for EQ (i linearize the response on a driver-basis and i have no passive XO).

 

So you're saying that Amarra copied it or that they both "manipulate the sound"? This sounds silly, as long as the EQ is done BY YOU and not by the software without your knowledge. Algorithmix does the first, and it's one of the best in it. Yeah, it costs 1k.

 

Link to comment

" - which seems quite similar to the much craved benefits of Amarra that audiophiles pay $1000 for - "

 

Guido,

with respect to Amarra, what these words intended to say is this: it seems to me that K-Stereo would provide the bulk of the 'magic' that people report hearing in Amarra, i.e. soundstaging/ambience/body/etc.

 

"So you're saying that Amarra copied it or that they both "manipulate the sound"?"

 

I'm not saying that Amarra copied it, NOR am I saying that they both manipulate the sound.

 

"This sounds silly, as long as the EQ is done BY YOU and not by the software without your knowledge. Algorithmix does the first, and it's one of the best in it. Yeah, it costs 1k."

 

With this you've hit on what I think the crux of the issue is - whether or not sound is being manipulated with or without one's knowledge.

This issue affects both products to some degree - with respect to whether audiophiles will consider it for their use - although certainly it will affect K-Stereo the most. Many audiophiles will not consider any tool/product/control that does anything to the music other than what is/was on the LP/disc/tape. This goes all the way back to the analog days when having tone controls in the circuit affected sound even when they were not being used.

 

My comment that "it appears to be manipulating the sound" refers to K-Stereo.

 

That said, many have wondered - and I was one of them - how Amarra has an impact on the sound WITHOUT doing some form of manipulation. Indeed, some seem to feel that Amarra does NOT pass the test you articulated: "...and not by the software without your knowledge". This is compounded by Sonic's inability (or unwillingness) to explain it themselves in a satisfactory fashion to the skeptics, but I digress.

 

Back to the crux. Here's the bottom line as I see it. By and large Amarra users (seem to me to) believe that Amarra is revealing more details about ambience/soundstaging/etc. WITHOUT doing any sort of EQ or special, artifical, processing.

 

K-Stereo, for it's part, is a user-controlled ambience recovery process which might (in my opinion) provide very similar results to what people most enjoy about Amarra, albeit in a seemingly 'additive' fashion.

 

Some audiophiles will seemingly pay ungodly (apologies for use of a technical term ;-)) amounts of money for (what they believe are) non-artificial improvements to the 'you are there' aspect of music, but these same folks wouldn't likely use something like K-Stereo, even if it was free, due to it being 'artificial', even though they are (likely) using cables as tone controls. :)

 

Go figure,

clay

 

PS, one more note about 'artificial'. The market-ese for Algorithmix claims "nothing artificial added". To the stereotypical audiophiles, the very act of 'adding' is what makes it artificial, irrespective of whether K-Stereo is largely a gain control for embedded ambience information already in the signal.

 

PPS, So, there you have it. Amarra, by dint of PERHAPS somehow lowering the noise floor, or otherwise keeping this low level ambience info intact, is raved about, whereas K-Stereo is ignored for daring to 'recover' the ambience proactively (e.g. raising it above the noise floor)

 

YMMV.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment

Hi Clay,

 

Very interesting post, I agree with it in the most part.

 

I use Izotope Ozone for linear equalization, which is the same as using network filters in the speakers crossover, DEQX, etc. Ozone has an ambiance plugin, called "multiband stereo imaging" which i believe it is similar to K-Stereo, albeit less advanced. I use it. The difference is minimal in my setup (I have diy dipole speakers which do not lack ambience by themselves), better with headphones.

When I referred to Algorythmix I was thinking to their LinearPEQ plugins which are supposed to be the best in class.

 

"the very act of 'adding' is what makes it artificial". What most audiophiles do not know is that up/oversampling alters the signal, and i bet most of them do not dislike it. ;)

I prefer NOS/highres but that's another matter (see DAD filterless DXD topics on some pro audio forum for more on this).

 

I dont have a mac and I haven't tried Amarra, or AVS 3D, but i tend to agree that they do manipulate the sound to recreate the ambiance of the original event. I do not abhor it for the sake of it. If I did, I would avoid all CD (sacd etc) mastered with some studio effects which are often worse and poorly integrated than the ones that Izotope, Algorythmix or Amarra offer to the listeners.

 

Link to comment

I have not heard the Algorithmix software but since it applies a process, to my mind it isn't at all the same as Amarra. (I would hope the processing is switchable.)

 

Personally, I don't want ambience "recovery". I expect the producer and recording engineer to take care of that in the selection of the space and recording methodology.

 

I want to hear the recording with everything else just getting out of the way. Of all the audio software I've used, the Sonic engine is audibly the most transparent, not counting Metric Halo's absolutely superb Console X software but that isn't for music servers. That is where the "magic" of Sonic's software is: not from performing any tricks with the audio but just the opposite, in its transparence.

 

To be sure, it is not inexpensive. For inexpensive, I use iTunes.

But as I always say:

If you're lucky, you get what you pay for.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

Link to comment

Hi clay,

 

"many have wondered - and I was one of them - how Amarra has an impact on the sound WITHOUT doing some form of manipulation."

 

I believe what many folks don't realize, though they realize it for hardware, is that all audio software *sounds* different. In my experience, simply doing a Save in most software will apply a color to the file.

 

What makes Sonic's engine special to me is the *absence* of color. I am not sure how much of this is due to the fact that it is 64-bit internally instead of 32-bit like much other software. Reaper too is 64-bit and better sounding than most. Metric Halo's Console uses 80-bit(!) data paths.

Then again, Wave Editor is a 32-bit program and to my ears, gets much closer to Sonic's cleanness than most other programs (not counting the ones I mentioned above).

 

As I've discovered with many things in audio over the years, most of the time, what makes a component, recording or software app better is not what it does but what it does not do.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

Link to comment

Barry said:

"I want to hear the recording with everything else just getting out of the way."

 

I'm with you on this. I am one of those 'audiophiles' I was describing - of the purist variety.

 

I was quite skeptical for some time about Amarra, as I did not understand what it was doing that could provide the 'transparency', as you call it. I am now a user of Amarra (even helping them with testing new releases), even though I still don't know what it could be doing differently.

 

In my earlier post to Guido, I was pointing out where I saw the razor's edge. You, Barry, seem clearly on the same side as most audiophiles - i.e. 'leave it alone' after the mastering engineer is done with it.

 

And to be clear, K-Stereo IS intended for pro audio, not audiophile playback, though (I thought) it ought to interest some audiophiles as well.

 

clay

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment

 

Barry says:

 

"Wave Editor is a 32-bit program and to my ears, gets much closer to Sonic's cleanness than most other programs (not counting the ones I mentioned above)."

 

Not sure if you're aware of this, but Audiofile Engineering - the creators of Wave Editor - are apparently working on a music player program. I don't know anything about it, but if it sounds as good as Wave Editor, and is as cheap as the other Audiofile Engineering products ( which is to say, $79), they should have a winner on their hands.

 

thanks, as always, for the generous sharing of your opinions,

 

Clay

 

 

Link to comment

Hi Clay,

 

I've heard AE is working on their own software for this purpose. Should be quite interesting in view of how good Wave Editor sounds.

 

I'm quite sure that magic in the good stuff is not from anything it is doing so much as what it is not doing.

 

Same with everything else I've experienced in audio. I find certain cables more transparent, not because they play with the sound but because they're better at getting out of the way. These are not the "system dependent" sort often referred to in the audio press. A more transparent link improves any chain into which it is inserted to replace a less transparent one.

 

Vibration control products too - the real ones anyway. They don't add anything, they block the addition. They don't "improve" anything, they just don't degrade it.

 

That's my take on it anyway.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

Link to comment

 

Barry said:

 

"I believe what many folks don't realize, though they realize it for hardware, is that all audio software *sounds* different. In my experience, simply doing a Save in most software will apply a color to the file."

 

One year ago, very few audiophiles would believe that any audio software could sound different, let alone all.

 

Even today, many audiophiles, and entire audio forums (e.g. Hydrogen Audio) believe that it is NOT possible for digital playback to impact the sound if the bits are perfect.

 

Your point is very important, and helpful, particularly to those who might not yet believe.

 

clay

 

 

Link to comment

I appreciate Barry's opinion and I look forward to hearing the Metric Halo products. It's interesting that we aren't discussing specific technologies used in the MH gear or the latest $1,000 cable-of-the-month that has to be used with it. I noticed they use AES ins and outs so evidently non-asynch interfaces can sound good if properly implemented.

 

But, I have yet to read a review in an audiophile magazine or website.

 

Link to comment

Hi Clay,

 

Thank you.

I'm not sure those who "might not yet believe" will change their minds.

Like many things in audio, one either hears this or they don't - and software differences, while certainly appreciable, are not in my experience, generally of the "night and day" variety.

 

(As to places like Hydrogen Audio, there are many much more obvious audio phenomena those folks insist are impossible. That is a place I don't visit. My feeling is that when a person feels they can't learn anything, they tend to be correct. =8-0)

 

Not too long ago, I took a 24/96 file I recorded with the ULN-8, using the '8's own Record Panel (software). Since I record with lots of headroom, the test track had a max peak around -12 dB. For a simple test -and nowhere near as stressful for the apps test as it might have been, I imported the file into each of the four editing/mastering apps I use (each has strengths the others lack, so I use each when appropriate). Within each app, I adjusted the gain ~10 dB and saved the results.

 

What I found was the differences were not so audible when playing the four files in some of the programs (the ones that created the less good files). The program that created the most transparent files was the one that most clearly revealed the sound of the others as well.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

Link to comment

Hi labjr,

 

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an audiophile magazine or website to review a Metric Halo product, though John Atkinson of Stereophile uses a 2882 and a ULN-2.

 

In my view, the specific technologies using in the MH or any other gear, unless they are known to be flawed, don't matter. I don't care what DAC chip they use or whether the circuitry is discreet or not. I am only concerned with the totality of the design and what happens when I send music through it.

 

For example, a lot of other companies use the same converter chips but their products don't sound anything like the MH products. The analog stages are different, the clocking is different, *everything* is different, except those chips.

 

As to cables, well, I'll just say I've had a pair of mic cables for several years now (which double as feeds to my power amps in the studio) that cost...you don't want to know. I'm looking to make the best possible sounding recordings I can possibly make. These make *that much* difference in how clean the signal from my matched pair of Earthworks mics is. I couldn't believe how grainy, dull, simultaneously bright, two dimensional, thin, constricted and harsh they made my regular, top shelf "pro" mic cables sound in comparison.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

Link to comment

Hi Barry,

 

I've read Stereophile for many years. I probably wouldn't subscribe if John Atkinson wasn't the editor, because I think his sidebars and product testing are interesting. It's good entertainment for about a dollar a month. And I've known JA uses Metric Halo. I even emailed him a while back asking him to do a review. I don't expect a review to be forthcoming though. Obviously, they have to make money somewhere, and MH probably doesn't have a huge advertising budget because they seem to spend their money making a great product and providing outstanding service to their cutomers. That's okay with me but I like to ask questions anyway. Thanks for coming on to voice your opinion about MH. I think your advice is valuable to everyone out here.

 

Regards,

 

Larry

 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...