ying and yang--Lamm ML3 and darTZeel 458

[morricab]

DING, DING, DING, DING! RogerD and morricab back to your corners!

We should all be past this basic fencing. Not every post needs to start with the Big Bang.

RogerD, why are you having so much trouble accepting the fact that some people prefer the sound of tube amplifiers?

morricab, why are you having so much trouble accepting the fact that some people prefer the sound of solid-state amplifiers?

Why don't one of you please start a whole new thread on this subject, and let Mike get back to the subject of his opening post?

What post are your talking about? Not at all clear what you mean here. I have no problem if people like their SS amps...that's their business.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Okay, Roger and Brad!

All good!

 

[Al M.]

What post are your talking about? Not at all clear what you mean here. I have no problem if people like their SS amps...that's their business.

Brad, it is very obvious that you have a single-minded obsession with SET amps (and horns!), and do not even tolerate the idea that for some people tube push-pull amps, even triode push-pull, can sound as good as SETs. Not even to speak of SS amps.

So yes, your single-minded obsession that also manifests itself in claims that SETs can drive all sorts of difficult loads, which other people reasonably deny they are capable of, is somewhat aggravating and tiresome.

It seems that you think your perception should apply to all people -- if they would just know and were enlightened enough. Well, it just doesn't (I for example have heard fantastic SET amps, but I find other amp types just as fantastic sounding).

Time for you to back off.

***

I of course have also my obsessions, like monitor/sub combos. Yet I am not dogmatic about them, and while I often rave about their virtues I also regularly and honestly point out their limitations, which are fewer than most people would think, but which are there nonetheless. Why can't you just live with the idea that the SET approach has its limitations too, and is not for everyone?

 

[spiritofmusic]

I think we’re going round in circles. I believe Mike w his Darts is not playing super loud all the time, but his amps/room have the equivalent of unlimited headroom (in a domestic environment) so that when those really dynamic and dramatic peaks strike (rim shots, trumpet bursts, cymbal chokes, shards of audience applause, vocal high notes, uber low bass hits, orchestral bass drum strikes), there is no apparent limitation/clipping/smearing/diffusing at all w his Darts.
And this obviously this massively adds to his Darts presenting music in the most realistic way possible.
My guess is the Lamms just can’t compete here.
The rest of the time, even when the music starts to become extra juicy/challenging, the Lamms are just fine, and maybe in many ways superior over the Darts.
So if I’m right, Mike has a choice. Plays music that stays within the Lamms performance limits/comfort zone on the Lamms if he feels more is on offer this way. And music on the Darts where those limits are going to be breached regularly.
So I think the “running out of steam” description is maybe more accurately described as a “lack of absolute ease of acceleration”.

 

[christoph]

Wisnon, it’s all well and lovely looking at these pics. But what do they have to do with this thread?

You of all people ask this question? Really?

 

[spiritofmusic]

Apologies, I skipped over the post asking for comparisons btwn the amps.
It’s hard to keep up w every comment on this thread LOL.
“You of all people...”, why ME of all people?

 

[morricab]

Brad, it is very obvious that you have a single-minded obsession with SET amps (and horns!), and do not even tolerate the idea that for some people tube push-pull amps, even triode push-pull, can sound as good as SETs.

So yes, your single-minded obsession that also manifests itself in claims that SETs can drive all sorts of difficult loads, which other people reasonably deny they are capable of, is somewhat aggravating and tiresome.

It seems that you think your perception should apply to all people -- if they would just know and were enlightened enough. Well, it just doesn't (I for example have heard fantastic SET amps, but I find other amp types just as fantastic sounding).

Time for you to back off.

***

I of course have also my obsessions, like monitor/sub combos. Yet I am not dogmatic about them, and while I often rave about their virtues I also regularly and honestly point out their limitations, which are fewer than most people would think, but which are there nonetheless. Why can't you just live with the idea that the SET approach has its limitations too, and is not for everyone?

What are you talking about Al??? I seriously think you might be losing your mind...

I have never said my perception should apply to all people... your perceptions, likewise, are no more valuable but you peddle them here with abandon...so look in the mirror buddy if you dare.

I have owned all types of amps and speakers. I currently own a set of non-horn speakers in addition to my horn speakers. I have had 5 diferent pairs of electrostats in the last 15 years, a small Apogee (Caliper Signature), Large Infinity (IRS Beta) and a small Infinity (Modulus sub/sat system). I have also owned several more conventional speakers (Genesis VI, Reference 3a (three models), Dynaudio, Odeon Orfeo (other than horn tweeter it is conventional, IMO).

As far as amps go, I have had SS (two or three different ones), Class D(couple models), hybrid (Sphinx Project 14 mKIII), PP tube (Vac 30/30 being most notable), SET (Wall Audio M50 monos, Ayon Crossfire III, Aries Cerat Diana and soon Genus), Hybrid SET (KR Audio VA350i and NAT Symbiosis SE), SEP (Mastersound Dueundici) and OTL (Silvaweld OTL reference monoblocks).

In addition I have reviewed a number of pieces that are not listed here.

I never said that SET doesn't have limitations...please point out where I stated this. I can live just fine without the world converting to SET amps...I have been asking Mike about what he hears and why he thinks there are limitations. I also supply supporting psychoacoustic information for people to digest.

What is not clear to me is why you think you should suddenly become an attack dog on this thread where I have not done any of what you are accusing me of doing. What is it to you if I question Mike? I find it fascinating his decision to try out a SET...Why do you feel the need to be nasty to me on this thread?

 

[jep123]

748 posts and counting ...

We can all agree that Mike has a SOTA system, probably better than most participants in this thread. I cannot understand this "debate". Why not let Mike try the different amps in his own pace and then let him comment about his findings? It started with Mike`s post about the purchase of the Lamm amps and now we have some kind of pissing contest of which type of amps are the best?

I always enjoy Mike`s posts here, it is very interesting to follow his steps towards his dream system. He must be very close now . I also suspect that Mike is very capable of getting the most out of his own system without the "help" from us.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Mike absolutely needs no help from us.
I think he loves to see us squabble over crumbs from his table LOL.
I wish my thread on tt reinstall garnered 700+ posts.
Instead it’s stalled on 30, w most of those being me taking to myself.
Ra my GF is worried for my sanity .

 

[Al M.]

What are you talking about Al??? I seriously think you might be losing your mind...

Oh, c'mon Brad. its not just this thread, you've done this so many times before.

It's SET, SET and SET. Oh, did I forget -- SET? All the lack of zero-crossing distortion (or such), better agreement with human psychology and so on.

You constantly try to convince people that SET is the way to go -- the only way to go. If you can't see this then I can't help you.

I have never said my perception should apply to all people... your perceptions, likewise, are no more valuable but you peddle them here with abandon...so look in the mirror buddy if you dare.

And I have pointed out the difference between our two ways of presenting things.

 

[jep123]

Mike absolutely needs no help from us.
I think he loves to see us squabble over crumbs from his table LOL.
I wish my thread on tt reinstall garnered 700+ posts.
Instead it’s stalled on 30, w most of those being me taking to myself.
Ra my GF is worried for my sanity .

I have some challenges at home myself! The endless carrying of boxes in and out trying to explain the reason for why I have to change equipment again..... Not an easy task. A good idea would perhaps be to start a rehab center for audiophiles. Audiophile Anonymous with individual and group therapy. Maybe it is the only way out of this hell!

 

[spiritofmusic]

Jep, can you imagine the demand for its services? Huge!
But likely scuppered by the patients not agreeing on the terms, definitions and aims of therapy/treatment.
And indeed seeking more punishment, not wanting a cure/answer.
Nothing so hard as trying to help a masochist.

 

[PeterA]

Peter, I'm not suggesting this is a fact, I'm stating that this is what I always hear when I compare the two topologies. So, if one were to say that the ss sound can and should bridge the gap towards tube and vice versa, then I would agree---in theory. So far, this has not been my experience.
Last Saturday, I had the pleasure of hearing another great tube amp ( well except for the fact that one could boil eggs on top of it ). This amp was the new AirTight 2001 Reference stereo model. Utilizing 6550's and with a separate power supply box, the amp sounded wonderful. Much more interesting (to me) to listen to than the new D'agostino mono's or the Dart's that I have heard. Not to say that these amps are in anyway bad, just not what I feel elicits the more 'realistic' sound that I am looking for. So personally I am in the tube camp...and once in awhile in the ss camp--IF I want to hear more low end slam and authority. All depends on the music I'm trying to playback. Which is why I totally understand where Mike is coming from with his desire to have both topologies in his system.

Thanks Davey. I quoted you but was actually thinking in a more general sense. Many people still refer to "camps" when discussing tube vs. SS. I agree with you that they can sound different and have, in general, particular sonic traits unique to the particular typology. I just wonder why that is after these many years of advancements in technology. There was a discussion before about the sounds converging, in the sense that the best examples of each typology are sounding more real, so their sound is become more similar. I wonder if one day one amp will have all the best characteristics of both SS and tube and none of the weaknesses. That day is not yet hear as Mike's decision to buy the ML3s makes clear. And the few comments so far about the differences in sound from those who have heard both in his system only confirms it. Each is bringing "something" to the experience that the other can't quite bring.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Peter, why wouldn’t they remain sounding v different?
Indeed I’m glad they do.
The world would be a massively more mundane place if there was convergence on everything.
Love him or loathe him, Trump is contrasting radically versus every other world leader.
What that’ll lead to, I don’t know.
But the divergence is already producing results.
We need more divergence in politics, not the convergence of the mediocre (try looking at the UKs pitiful performance in trying to enact Brexit).
Back to hifi.
MikeL still makes the call for vinyl despite his uber MSB, top tts still provide sufficient divergence from digital to make the experience of listening to an lp or cd/stream totally different.
Indeed in my case, my digital has improved in leaps and bounds. But is still a long way away from the total immersion thing I’m getting from my recently reinstalled analog.
Top horns, modded Apogees, SOTA box speakers, all converge in providing better than ever listening experiences, but all diverge in the overall presentation, and very few listeners are going to be speaker technology agnostic.
Similarly, few will be vinyl/digital agnostic.
Or indeed tubes/SS agnostic.
Embrace the difference!

 

[morricab]

Oh, c'mon Brad. its not just this thread, you've done this so many times before.

It's SET, SET and SET. Oh, did I forget -- SET? All the lack of zero-crossing distortion (or such), better agreement with human psychology and so on.

You constantly try to convince people that SET is the way to go -- the only way to go. If you can't see this then I can't help you.



And I have pointed out the difference between our two ways of presenting things.

You forgot hybrid SET and SET OTL !! ...

 

[jep123]

Jep, can you imagine the demand for its services? Huge!
But likely scuppered by the patients not agreeing on the terms, definitions and aims of therapy/treatment.
And indeed seeking more punishment, not wanting a cure/answer.
Nothing so hard as trying to help a masochist.

!!!

 

[morricab]

Thanks Davey. I quoted you but was actually thinking in a more general sense. Many people still refer to "camps" when discussing tube vs. SS. I agree with you that they can sound different and have, in general, particular sonic traits unique to the particular typology. I just wonder why that is after these many years of advancements in technology. There was a discussion before about the sounds converging, in the sense that the best examples of each typology are sounding more real, so their sound is become more similar. I wonder if one day one amp will have all the best characteristics of both SS and tube and none of the weaknesses. That day is not yet hear as Mike's decision to buy the ML3s makes clear. And the few comments so far about the differences in sound from those who have heard both in his system only confirms it. Each is bringing "something" to the experience that the other can't quite bring.

I think someone will have to invent a new amplification device that is more linear than either a triode or a transistor.

 

[spiritofmusic]

I’m serious Jep.
Over two decades I’ve spent a small fortune (in hard cash, and soft Grey Matter) culminating in my current system that I’m really happy with.
But just one slight hint of less than ideal performance, and I’m already daydreaming of £40k horns.
Problem solved today, w me adjusting my subs settings by a cat’s whiskers, and I’m happy as Larry again.
Now, you tell me what deep therapy is going to help me.
Unless we’re talking shopping therapy...

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Why? 96db towers should be no problem for 32 watts...or am I missing something?

you and Davey seem incapable of even reading answers given to this question over......and.....over......and.....over again. you just keep asking the same question, then questioning the specs. it can't be that an SET has limits even though it's obvious.

I guess if you ask the question enough times you don't need to accept the answers. like watching the damn news shows. question things enough times and you create your own truth. why actually ask if you are going to ignore responses?

open your own thread, buy a high level solid state amp, and see what conclusions you come to. you clearly have no interest in my conclusions.

 

[853guy]

almost completely contextual. it all depends on the load the amp sees. a 1 watt DHT 45 or 2 watt 2A3 on the right horn will sound better than a higher watt SET typically (ignoring the low noise solid state horn crowd). but stress the lower powered amp with a tougher load and the context of what the first watt has to do changes the equation of which amp sounds best.

so for each topology their are generalities that sort of apply. specifically with those Jadis there are sweet spots in the line up and it's hard to generalize. but i'd say it seems that quality of transformers and power supplies (ML3's are more powerful than the ML2.2's, but have more special transformers and obviously a separate tube power supply) seem to be the biggest difference in sound quality beyond load verses power. and then there is the issue of headroom. all other things being equal more headroom (allowing the amp to be in it's performance sweet spot) makes for a better amplifier. but rarely are all other things equal.

Hi Mike,

I agree with your sentiments, expect that I would amend the above to read “Always completely contextual”, and “but never are all other things equal”.

The interesting thing for me about this thread is it uncovers some flaws in our thinking. By introducing a new variable into a system that many of us believe we understand (without ever hearing it) because so far it’s matched some of our preconceptions about large, multi-way two-tower speaker systems and large, powerful SS amplifiers, it’s caused eruptions of verbiage in an attempt to validate those preconceptions, and double down on our thinking.

To me, however, it suggests that we still prefer to view things statically, rather than dynamically; prefer to think in terms of first-order effects, rather than second- and third-order ones; and, think in terms of actions, rather than interactions.

In other words, we miss the reality that our hi-fi systems are complex system of interdependencies that empirically speaking, do not have one-dimensional cause and effect mechanisms. Specifically to your points above, our amps and speakers are always completely interdependent on one another - the load the speaker presents influencing not just the way the amp performs, but also, the way the amp performs influencing the way the speaker performs, which influences the way the amp performs, etc, etc.

Given that most of us play music through our systems, which is of course, not static but dynamic, constantly modulating over time in frequency and amplitude, we soon end up with results that defy conventional logic, because we are subjugating a dynamic, high-order, interdependent complex system to a dynamic, high-order and interdependent complex signal.

The result is an interaction that becomes less predictable given the multiplicity of variables all changing individually, and doing so dynamically, which creates its own interactions (the amp with the speaker and vice versa, the speaker with the room, and vice versa).

So, again, I fully agree - it’s completely contextual, and as you say, it all depends. If all things were indeed equal, we could judge things from afar as we sometimes seem want to do based on paradigms fostered solely in theory. But given our complex systems are (always) subject to a complex signal, we’re better off learning from the practitioners on the ground in the real world - like you. Thanks for sharing your experience.

Best,

853guy