ying and yang--Lamm ML3 and darTZeel 458

bonzo75 · Mar 5, 2018

spiritofmusic said:
70W Class A 211s plus 400W Class D to subs in my 800sq ft/5500cub ft room on true 101dB eff spkrs do the 90-95dB loudness thing just fine, w no shortage of tone and texture.
My 250W SS amp went louder, but w less organicness.
In my case I’d rather swap the last degree of room filling loudness for texture and tone density that fill the room at lower volumes w my tubes.

Sets on the wrong speakers cannot give that texture they can on the right speakers. You need the drive to have the tone and the carry through of the note.. You will be surprised to see how wrong it goes when you put the NAT on an apogee

microstrip · Mar 5, 2018

Mike Lavigne said:
(...) myself and Micro are simply independently reporting on an observed phenomena we have experienced. high power combined with ultimate digital and large scale music in our experience has done something special and more analog like. accept it or not, maybe it's collective delusions. YMMV. alarm bells? no.

+1!

Neither the Lamm M1.2r or the ARC REF250 are able to do it the way we are referring. But the conrad johnson LP275s with KT150 (Power > 300 W, 8 KT150's) manages to approach it! The ARC REF750 could easily do it, but the 40 power tubes exceeded my devotion to the hobby, particularly as large power tube amplifiers need 1-2 hours warmup time before sounding good.

spiritofmusic · Mar 5, 2018

Ked, I’m not talking about NATs on Apogees, as you know I seriously considered that idea and dismissed it for all the usual reasons.
My point is a totally different one. I have “some” similarities to Mike’s setup. Same sort of sq area, although less volume, balanced power, dedicated lines, efficient spkrs (mine 101dB, his 97), powered subs (mine 400W, his 1000). And I’ve been able to compare 250W Class A/AB SS v 35W Class A 845s v 70W Class A 211s on my Zus in this space, on analog and digital. And have formed fairly clear cut conclusions.

microstrip · Mar 5, 2018

morricab said:
Well, I have what I consider to be über digital (Aries Cerat Kassandra II DAC) but I am not sure what is your criteria for that designation. It seems to me you mean über priced. Where is the price cutoff for über? Do you mean only certain technological solutions qualify as über? Does the Nagra HD DAC or the Lampizator GG2 qualify? Or is only the new Pacific in that über category because it is now over $30K? The Soulution or CH Precision DACS? TotalDAC? Are all DACs with tube output stages automatically not über to you? Is a DAC that won't do DSD 512 native not über to you? Does a DAC with no over or up sampling using old R2R technology by default fall off the über train?

If live or even analog are a criteria to judge how good digital is, then are DACs such as DCS and MSB really über, when it is quite possible that other DACs out there get closer to an analog sound? I know that the Kondo DAC sounds quite analog as does my own DAC. Also, by sounding analog it sounds often more real to me.

The best sounding systems I have ever heard had relatively low power with relatively high sensitivity speakers...all had expensive DACs but not sure if you would call them über or not.

It seems like you need high power to wake things up in digital that isn't necessary in analog...that would send off alarm bells to me...

I think you are ignoring the part where we debated that perhaps it is not exactly the number of watts, but what is behind these high numbers.
Probably you have had great experiences with large scale music in the systems you refer - I, and I suppose others, would love to have reports on them. Did you ever play the Shostakovitch Symphonies I referred in your system? Perhaps I got the wrong impression, but it seems to me you valuate mainly instrument tonality and close listening at real life.

I have never listened to Mike system, but having a good knowledge of the recordings he listens and suggested me, I am able to exchange opinions, agreeing and disagreeing with him - particularly as I have local friends owning the same DartZeels, as well as frequent visits to the Dartzeel distributor who demoed them with the XLF's.

IMHO before reading people opinions we must understand their preferences. If we do not share preferences it is more probable we disagree than agree in a mainly subjective matter!

Looking to read your listening opinions on Shostakovitch.

morricab · Mar 5, 2018

microstrip said:
I think you are ignoring the part where we debated that perhaps it is not exactly the number of watts, but what is behind these high numbers.
Probably you have had great experiences with large scale music in the systems you refer - I, and I suppose others, would love to have reports on them. Did you ever play the Shostakovitch Symphonies I referred in your system? Perhaps I got the wrong impression, but it seems to me you valuate mainly instrument tonality and close listening at real life.

I have never listened to Mike system, but having a good knowledge of the recordings he listens and suggested me, I am able to exchange opinions, agreeing and disagreeing with him - particularly as I have local friends owning the same DartZeels, as well as frequent visits to the Dartzeel distributor who demoed them with the XLF's.

IMHO before reading people opinions we must understand their preferences. If we do not share preferences it is more probable we disagree than agree in a mainly subjective matter!

Looking to read your listening opinions on Shostakovitch.

Well, not only do I listen to big symphonic works at home (including Shostakovich, although I prefer Prokofiev or Tchaikovsky) I listen to them live. I have all Shostakovich Symphonies and all Prokofiev's on LP but not digital. On Digital I have very good Tchaikovsky symphonies and other large works and Prokofiev' s excellent and very dynamic Violin Concertos as well a couple versions of the extremely dynamic Britten violin concerto. Several digital and analog versions of carious major composers symphonies....etc. probably 60-70% of my collection is classical.

Ever hear a Shostakovich symphony live? Blows you away. Ever hear Pictures at an Exhibition live? I have a version with Gergiev condicting that is one of my main demo disks

KeithR · Mar 5, 2018

not sure why automatically high power tubes are being discussed just because 30 watts isn't enough. more minimalist PP options exist that with 97db speakers will likely sound better without massed tetrode greyness.

but I don't think that's Mike's direction anyway as he's not missing anything with the Darts. He wanted to try the creme de la creme of SET amps and has them right now.

853guy · Mar 5, 2018

microstrip said:
Mike Lavigne said:

(...) myself and Micro are simply independently reporting on an observed phenomena we have experienced. high power combined with ultimate digital and large scale music in our experience has done something special and more analog like. accept it or not, maybe it's collective delusions. YMMV. alarm bells? no.

Click to expand...

+1!

Neither the Lamm M1.2r or the ARC REF250 are able to do it the way we are referring. But the conrad johnson LP275s with KT150 (Power > 300 W, 8 KT150's) manages to approach it! The ARC REF750 could easily do it, but the 40 power tubes exceeded my devotion to the hobby, particularly as large power tube amplifiers need 1-2 hours warmup time before sounding good.

Hi Micro, hi Mike,

See this is interesting to me.

Because it seems pertinent to ask a second question. If indeed the observed phenomena is that "high power combined with ultimate digital and large scale music... has... something special and more analogue like", is it also an observed phenomena that "high power combined with ultimate digital and small scale music... has... something special and more analogue like"?

That is, does high power combined with ultimate digital do micro as well as macro? If not, is it then possible that smaller scale music, or indeed smaller, more ephemeral, more gossamer sounds occurring within the individual strands of the musical fabric (rather than the fabric itself) are actually more special and analogue like when conveyed by lower power, and/or analogue?

My experience is that the hi-fi system is not fractal, and therefore, not scaleable. What may confer an advantage in the macro, may not necessarily hold true apropos the micro, and vice versa. What may hold true for a Berlyllium driver of 1" may not necessarily hold true of that driver once scaled up to 15". What might hold true of a 1000W amplifier may not necessarily hold true when outputting 0.5W.

For me, it comes back to the complexity of the system: Subjugating a dynamic, high-order, interdependent complex system to a dynamic, high-order and interdependent complex signal will cause asymmetries, and those asymmetries will manifest themselves in behaviour that is not linear, and therefore, not scalable in both directions.

Perhaps again this is why both the ML3 and 458 can coexist in a single system, and bring results that confound and challenge either/or thinking.

Best,

853guy

spiritofmusic · Mar 5, 2018

“You can have your cake and eat it” re Lamms and Darts at Mike’s.
But audiophiles are going to argue until Hell freezes over just what constitutes the cake.

morricab · Mar 5, 2018

spiritofmusic said:
70W Class A 211s plus 400W Class D to subs in my 800sq ft/5500cub ft room on true 101dB eff spkrs do the 90-95dB loudness thing just fine, w no shortage of tone and texture.
My 250W SS amp went louder, but w less organicness.
In my case I’d rather swap the last degree of room filling loudness for texture and tone density that fill the room at lower volumes w my tubes.
I do realise Mike that yr Darts have a more tubes-like signature than my Hovland Radia, so this is not strictly apples and apples. For me it’s a reasonable trade off, I listen to way more analog than digital, and lp playback via my tubes at more moderate volume saturates the room way easier than my digital. My cdp seemingly energises the room because it has that high end and deep bass that’s immediately easier to pick up on, a kind of easier immediacy. But it soon becomes apparent the mids and upper bass are more continuous, fleshed out and density is greater. Digital in my neutral room needs more welly to truly come alive. And that’s w possibly one of the most analog-like cdp.s ever.[/QUOTE

There is digital with that kind of welly but it's not with SS output stage...

microstrip · Mar 5, 2018

morricab said:
Well, not only do I listen to big symphonic works at home (including Shostakovich, although I prefer Prokofiev or Tchaikovsky) I listen to them live. I have all Shostakovich Symphonies and all Prokofiev's on LP but not digital. On Digital I have very good Tchaikovsky symphonies and other large works and Prokofiev' s excellent and very dynamic Violin Concertos as well a couple versions of the extremely dynamic Britten violin concerto. Several digital and analog versions of carious major composers symphonies....etc. probably 60-70% of my collection is classical.

Ever hear a Shostakovich symphony live? Blows you away. Ever hear Pictures at an Exhibition live? I have a version with Gergiev condicting that is one of my main demo disks

Although the live question is not what we are debating I have listened to many Shostakovitch symphonies live and even reported my findings to WBF, as well on the recordings since long. However knowing what you or me listened live or demo it does not add anything to what we were debating. I was trying to understand your preferences in sound reproduction, nothing else. Knowing that a live symphony blows you away is of little help. We know since long that being a conductor, a musician or a frequent concert goer is not an audiophile grade - although some high-end companies love to get the endorsement of famous people for their marketing.

BTW, I found that pressings of Shostakovitch 5th symphony systematically compress the final of the last movement - the low linear speed at the end of the LP is not able carry all the energy of the work. It is one intrinsic problem of LP's - the sound quality in the end of the LP is inferior to what we get in the first ten minutes. Do you feel the same?

microstrip · Mar 5, 2018

853guy said:
Hi Micro, hi Mike,

See this is interesting to me.

Because it seems pertinent to ask a second question. If indeed the observed phenomena is that "high power combined with ultimate digital and large scale music... has... something special and more analogue like", is it also an observed phenomena that "high power combined with ultimate digital and small scale music... has... something special and more analogue like"?

That is, does high power combined with ultimate digital do micro as well as macro? If not, is it then possible that smaller scale music, or indeed smaller, more ephemeral, more gossamer sounds occurring within the individual strands of the musical fabric (rather than the fabric itself) are actually more special and analogue like when conveyed by lower power, and/or analogue?

My experience is that the hi-fi system is not fractal, and therefore, not scaleable. What may confer an advantage in the macro, may not necessarily hold true apropos the micro, and vice versa. What may hold true for a Berlyllium driver of 1" may not necessarily hold true of that driver once scaled up to 15". What might hold true of a 1000W amplifier may not necessarily hold true when outputting 0.5W.

For me, it comes back to the complexity of the system: Subjugating a dynamic, high-order, interdependent complex system to a dynamic, high-order and interdependent complex signal will cause asymmetries, and those asymmetries will manifest themselves in behaviour that is not linear, and therefore, not scalable in both directions.

Perhaps again this is why both the ML3 and 458 can coexist in a single system, and bring results that confound and challenge either/or thinking.

Best,

853guy

853guy,

Again , people are trying to generalize too much from a few opinions and cases. If many people would participate and refer their experiences we could comment on them. Your scalable theory seems interesting and logical, but just theorizing on so little subjective data risks to be a bottomless pit.

However I always had a point that goes against scalable arguments - many amplifiers seem to keep their sound characteristics either with 82 or 96 dB/W speakers when not overdriven - they do no scale sound quality versus power being delivered.

morricab · Mar 5, 2018

microstrip said:
Although the live question is not what we are debating I have listened to many Shostakovitch symphonies live and even reported my findings to WBF, as well on the recordings since long. However knowing what you or me listened live or demo it does not add anything to what we were debating. I was trying to understand your preferences in sound reproduction, nothing else. Knowing that a live symphony blows you away is of little help. We know since long that being a conductor, a musician or a frequent concert goer is not an audiophile grade - although some high-end companies love to get the endorsement of famous people for their marketing.

BTW, I found that pressings of Shostakovitch 5th symphony systematically compress the final of the last movement - the low linear speed at the end of the LP is not able carry all the energy of the work. It is one intrinsic problem of LP's - the sound quality in the end of the LP is inferior to what we get in the first ten minutes. Do you feel the same?

Well, I would disagree somewhat as having a live reference is vital to know what one might reasonably expect from an allout system from a maximum dynamic range perspective. However, that being said, if one expects the recording to sound like mid-hall in terms of spaciousness and distance perspective and then tunes their system to give this kind of sound because it is more like one hears sitting mid-hall live then that is most likely wrong for most other kinds of music, just as it is wrong for the majority of classical orchestral recordings. It is well known that most are multi-miked and would give a far more "up front" perspective than is perhaps correct for most seats in a live venue. Planars do a good job with this because the huge backwave helps with the perception of depth that somewhat offsets the upfront recording perspective. Systems that put too much empahsis on space and depth are probably doing this artificially as it is not really that good on most recordings. That is not to say most should end up in your lap but they are more 3rd or 4th row rather than 10th or 15th row.

As to dynamics on large works, digital is usually better as many LPs audibly "bottom out", especially toward the end of a side as you noted. I have heard one exception, Die Walkurie by Wagner on Decca 1965, conducted by Georg Solti. This is on Decca black label "Royal Sound" and incorporated special technology to expand the dynamic range and prevent what you have correctly noted occurs on a lot of LPs. My Shostakovich LPs do compress pretty badly on the peaks but the Wagner's do not appreciably...superior recordings truly with superb sound quality...my Shostakovich is so so quality.

LL21 · Mar 5, 2018

morricab said:
What high quality low(ish) powered SET or Class A triode PP have you tried to reach the conclusion that you need the "super clean power"? I assume you mean high power though and not just clean power.

Yes, I mean both high power and clean power. (Remember, i play action movies through this system, and the alarm will occasionally go off when the explosions happen!) I have not heard the big Wilsons with lower powered, high quality SETs...understand that is a sensational experience...but having spoken with a number of distributors/owners, I was advised to stick with higher power on the big Wilsons given my penchant for deep house/electronic and also wanting to use it for big action flicks where i did not want to have any hesitation...as well as my desire to have optionality to switch to a speaker (like the big Rockport) which really needed high power/high quality. The key i wanted organic, intimate as well...and ended up down the road of Class A SS which has surely kept me happy now for roughly 7-8 years and counting.

morricab · Mar 5, 2018

microstrip said:
I think you are ignoring the part where we debated that perhaps it is not exactly the number of watts, but what is behind these high numbers.
Probably you have had great experiences with large scale music in the systems you refer - I, and I suppose others, would love to have reports on them. Did you ever play the Shostakovitch Symphonies I referred in your system? Perhaps I got the wrong impression, but it seems to me you valuate mainly instrument tonality and close listening at real life.

I have never listened to Mike system, but having a good knowledge of the recordings he listens and suggested me, I am able to exchange opinions, agreeing and disagreeing with him - particularly as I have local friends owning the same DartZeels, as well as frequent visits to the Dartzeel distributor who demoed them with the XLF's.

IMHO before reading people opinions we must understand their preferences. If we do not share preferences it is more probable we disagree than agree in a mainly subjective matter!

Looking to read your listening opinions on Shostakovitch.

What do you mean by "what is behind these numbers"? If anything, it is well accepted that tubes have more watts "behind the numbers", which was demonstrated by the voltage swings shown by Peter van Willenswaard. Indeed I have heard a great number of high powered amps that sounded less than the sum of their watts.

I do prefer instrument tonality and dynamics to sound like live up close because I think this is all a hifi system can hope to really do accurately. IMO, none truly do the scale of live correctly and if they get the powerful sound right they usually are screwing up the tone and decay. Anyone who tells me their system does truly live large scale...well I just have to laugh... My system does a reasonable facsimilie of large works...it is a horn afterall, but can do lifelike with "small" stuff. I still listen to the big stuff frequently as it is quite satisfying on my system...the dynamics from Kassandra DAC are a big reason for this.

morricab · Mar 5, 2018

LL21 said:
Yes, I mean both high power and clean power. (Remember, i play action movies through this system, and the alarm will occasionally go off when the explosions happen!) I have not heard the big Wilsons with lower powered, high quality SETs...understand that is a sensational experience...but having spoken with a number of distributors/owners, I was advised to stick with higher power on the big Wilsons given my penchant for deep house/electronic and also wanting to use it for big action flicks where i did not want to have any hesitation...as well as my desire to have optionality to switch to a speaker (like the big Rockport) which really needed high power/high quality. The key i wanted organic, intimate as well...and ended up down the road of Class A SS which has surely kept me happy now for roughly 7-8 years and counting.

Given your priorities perhaps a 30 watt amp would not be sufficient...or would it?? I don't know how far you sit from them and how big your room is but if it is not huge and you sit close then 30 watts on 95db speakers will give you peaks around 110db...maybe not enough for movie explosions but for most else it is plenty...you could keep an old Krell for movie duty

. There are higher power SETs out there as well with sufficient quality...I am sure your Gryphons are fine though...

BMCG · Mar 5, 2018

why do i have the sense that some seek the Grand Unified Theory of Amplification......

Mr Bohr...Mr Einstein to your corners...

[Meanwhile back in the real world...or as near as Audiophiles ever get to it...passes Mike the San Pellegrino....mighty fine sound you've got there Mr Lavigne...might tee fine....stops....pauses...inhales the roses...fade to...permagrin]

Al M. · Mar 5, 2018

morricab said:
Well, I would disagree somewhat as having a live reference is vital to know what one might reasonably expect from an allout system from a maximum dynamic range perspective. However, that being said, if one expects the recording to sound like mid-hall in terms of spaciousness and distance perspective and then tunes their system to give this kind of sound because it is more like one hears sitting mid-hall live then that is most likely wrong for most other kinds of music, just as it is wrong for the majority of classical orchestral recordings. It is well known that most are multi-miked and would give a far more "up front" perspective than is perhaps correct for most seats in a live venue. Planars do a good job with this because the huge backwave helps with the perception of depth that somewhat offsets the upfront recording perspective. Systems that put too much empahsis on space and depth are probably doing this artificially as it is not really that good on most recordings. That is not to say most should end up in your lap but they are more 3rd or 4th row rather than 10th or 15th row.

Agreed. It seems that some are hell-bent on a mid-hall perspective that is just not there on many orchestral recordings. Fortunately, all those recordings are more to my taste anyway since I also like to sit rather upfront in a concert hall.

And a system definitely can enhance space and depth artificially. Mine did until I figured out how do best deaden the room between speakers and front wall, which is quite substantial (my drivers are about 7 feet from the front wall), while keeping/enhancing lively acoustics in the back half of the room and establishing good tonality with proper highs along the way as well. Now there is a good balance between true depth and sufficient forwardness of sound -- also allowing for great upfront intimacy on smaller scale stuff while enabling proper depth perspective there as well. Took me a while, and a number of frustrating experiments, to get there.

andromedaaudio · Mar 5, 2018

What i learned from this thread is , Set lovers like to talk ,
??

lol

RogerD · Mar 5, 2018

With digital the most important aspect is the electronic hash that pollutes the signal. You remove all the pollution and the audio signal reveals all kinds of information. The bass foundation is clear and that follows throughout the reproduced spectrum. Dynamics increase and that's where headroom becomes important,not to mention more information that is amplified. The information reproduced is more faithful to the recording process and that is a enjoyable part of the process as really well done recordings convey music as it can be heard in a audio system.

LL21 · Mar 5, 2018

morricab said:
Given your priorities perhaps a 30 watt amp would not be sufficient...or would it?? I don't know how far you sit from them and how big your room is but if it is not huge and you sit close then 30 watts on 95db speakers will give you peaks around 110db...maybe not enough for movie explosions but for most else it is plenty...you could keep an old Krell for movie duty . There are higher power SETs out there as well with sufficient quality...I am sure your Gryphons are fine though...

Thanks...the room is 17' x 39' x 11', and we sit around 17' back from the speakers. Hence the Gryphon does work well...and provides long term flexibility. Besides, i prefer not to have a 2nd amp...I have always sought to invest my resources towards the best single application rather than divide by two...so 1 source, preamp, amp, etc...even though we dont have to use the Zanden DAC for movies via the Oppo digital out, we still do.

ying and yang--Lamm ML3 and darTZeel 458

Member Sponsor

VIP/Donor

Well-Known Member

VIP/Donor

Well-Known Member

VIP/Donor

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

VIP/Donor

VIP/Donor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

VIP/Donor

VIP/Donor

VIP/Donor

VIP/Donor

Well-Known Member

Similar threads