ack's system - end of round 1

PeterA

Well-Known Member
Dec 6, 2011
12,684
10,947
3,515
USA
How can one possibly like a system so much as to call it the best sound or something like that, when one component [the cables] offers such a fake sound. You must have liked the cables themselves, as part of this system.

I can only surmise that the 2c3d effect is indeed very minor or non existent when the switch is turned to "off", or that the music selection I took to audition the M3 was too limited to show this effect (remember I only listened to six cuts on 2 LPs of small scale acoustic music during a roughly 40 minute audition period), or that some other pleasing coloration of the system like the forgiving Benz cartridge may have obscured any minor remaining 2c3d effect, or that my ears are not sensitive enough to hear this effect when the switch is turned to "off", or that the dealer is just wrong when he says the 2c3d enhancement remains in effect when the switch is "off", or that it is any combination of these factors. I really don't know.
 

morricab

Well-Known Member
Apr 25, 2014
9,537
5,067
1,228
Switzerland
Well put micro. It is a design choice that appeals to many....rather like those glowing red tubes of glass appeal to others...

Last time I checked, no tube amp designer has teamed up with a cable maker to supply the output transformers at the end of the cable...
 

morricab

Well-Known Member
Apr 25, 2014
9,537
5,067
1,228
Switzerland
Yes of course, and we have explained why this is so, and why the amps are unfiltered designs. What's your point?

The point is that once the filtered cables are in place the bandwidth is not any wider than many other amps and square wave performance hampered. The raw amp then is not what matters but what comes out the end of the filter, which is no longer 2Mhz (or whatever bandwidth it has) but what the filter rolls it off at.
 

ack

VIP/Donor & WBF Founding Member
May 6, 2010
6,774
1,198
580
Boston, MA
The point is that once the filtered cables are in place the bandwidth is not any wider than many other amps and square wave performance hampered. The raw amp then is not what matters but what comes out the end of the filter, which is no longer 2Mhz (or whatever bandwidth it has) but what the filter rolls it off at.

We know all of that; you are 25 years late to the discussion. In a Stereophile review of the MIT 850 speaker cables (part of a Spectral review) in the 1990s, for example, they measured the start of the rolloff at ~800kHz (I think they may have claimed the amp is restricted to 800kHz a the output terminals), with the -3dB around 1.2MHz or so. I don't know how the newer cables since then measure, but what's your point. We know there has to be rolloff to provide stability - what is incredible about these amps is that they actually go SO FAR OUT, like no other, to require stability. The same is true for FM Acoustics and their requirement to use their own speaker cables.

EDIT: If you read the 300RS write-up carefully, they briefly discuss their design decisions and how they use one output cable to stabilize the amp, regardless of that MIT is doing beyond that:

Unfortunately, the problems associated with using conventional output networks are severe, ranging from non-linear and unpredictable loading behavior to magnetic field propagation and noise. All these problems degrade amplifier performance and sonics. In Spectral amplifiers the sources of these distortions are eliminated. Stabilizing networks, resistors, chokes and inductors are replaced with tailored precision woven cables which eliminate non-linearities, noise propagation and magnetic fields. Now the signal from the output devices to the cable load is pristine, isolated and uncompromised by passive component problems.

In the DMA-300 dedicated output interface cables connect the high power output devices directly to external speaker cables. These are massive wires inside the amplifier that have large copper conductor crossections to handle high power. They are constructed from fine oxygen free wires in groups with a stranding configuration that cancels both magnetic and electrical fields. This configuration along with dedicated matching components at the opposite end of the speaker cable assures a seamless and precise transmission path between output devices, loudspeaker interfaces and crossover components in speakers. Its carefully tailored impedances provide a high frequency compliance that smoothly transitions or steers electrical currents between the positive and negative CMOS output fets.

It should be obvious there is quite a bit more sophistication than what this mere mortal is writing...

EDIT 2: Here's the language from the Stereophile review:

This review was originally published in Stereophile Magazine in January 1996. ... Although the amplifier's intrinsic bandwidth is 1.8MHz, it is restricted to 800kHz at the output terminals. .... As for the specific cables under review, the MH-850 tri-wired loudspeaker cable is beautifully made-as it should be for $9000/pair.
 
Last edited:

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,807
4,702
2,790
Portugal
The point is that once the filtered cables are in place the bandwidth is not any wider than many other amps and square wave performance hampered. The raw amp then is not what matters but what comes out the end of the filter, which is no longer 2Mhz (or whatever bandwidth it has) but what the filter rolls it off at.

Perhaps your point of view, but not the one of the manufacturer or happy owners. The question is not the bandwidth per se, but that an amplifier manufactured with this bandwidth and these features sounds better according to some people.

People find better for sonic reasons introducing controlled filters in the cables - perfect for me. As long as the frequencies are well outside the audio band, even objectivists should be pleased. :)
 

PeterA

Well-Known Member
Dec 6, 2011
12,684
10,947
3,515
USA
Perhaps your point of view, but not the one of the manufacturer or happy owners. The question is not the bandwidth per se, but that an amplifier manufactured with this bandwidth and these features sounds better according to some people.

People find better for sonic reasons introducing controlled filters in the cables - perfect for me. As long as the frequencies are well outside the audio band, even objectivists should be pleased. :)

Microtrip, I see from you signature that you use Transparent cables. Have you ever directly compared them to MIT in your system? If so, what differences did you hear?
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,807
4,702
2,790
Portugal
Microtrip, I see from you signature that you use Transparent cables. Have you ever directly compared them to MIT in your system? If so, what differences did you hear?

Last time I tried MIT cables was perhaps around 15 years ago - the top 350's and 750's, I do not remember the codes. I had a good time with them, mainly with conrad johnson, but the 350's were RCA's and when I got balanced equipment I sold them. No experience with recent MIT cables as they are not distributed in my country.
 

morricab

Well-Known Member
Apr 25, 2014
9,537
5,067
1,228
Switzerland
We know all of that; you are 25 years late to the discussion. In a Stereophile review of the MIT 850 speaker cables (part of a Spectral review) in the 1990s, for example, they measured the start of the rolloff at ~800kHz (I think they may have claimed the amp is restricted to 800kHz a the output terminals), with the -3dB around 1.2MHz or so. I don't know how the newer cables since then measure, but what's your point. We know there has to be rolloff to provide stability - what is incredible about these amps is that they actually go SO FAR OUT, like no other, to require stability. The same is true for FM Acoustics and their requirement to use their own speaker cables.

EDIT: If you read the 300RS write-up carefully, they briefly discuss their design decisions and how they use one output cable to stabilize the amp, regardless of that MIT is doing beyond that:



It should be obvious there is quite a bit more sophistication than what this mere mortal is writing...

EDIT 2: Here's the language from the Stereophile review:

Is this quote from Stereophile based on actual measurements they did? I have never seen cables measured in Stereophile. I believe very little manufacturers put in their literature...
 

ack

VIP/Donor & WBF Founding Member
May 6, 2010
6,774
1,198
580
Boston, MA
The DMA-500 Anniversary Reference

INITIAL IMPRESSIONS

These amps arrived a while ago, but I have not had a chance to listen for too long, due to contractor work in the house and one of the ML panels going bad the other day, with heavy disortion at certain frequencies - these last 15-20 years, and mine are in that range. The unfortunate thing is that it won't be before August that I get the replacements, though the good news is that all other parts are still stocked at Martin Logan and the panels will be custom-made.

I also had the pleasure of re-evaluating the 4000SV CD player along with the 500s, and this time, its sonic superiority came shining right through. I would easily rate it above my DAC especially when it comes to control as the signal gets really complicated (Mahler 2nd's finale), and way above the Vivaldi 2.0 that I also had in here a couple of years ago. The most fascinating aspect of the 4000SV over my DAC is the low-end punch, control and pitch definition, which had me smiling at the quality of bass I have been able to build into these speakers, something that I was not aware of before.

Back to the amps... I am told these ARs are limited-edition, but I have to assume they will have to make more "regular" versions - that's my guess. To cut to the chase, the dealer brands these "super amps", "pure and natural" sounding. I would simply say that, with the advent of the SV technology, finally their solid state designs have been fully tamed. That in itself is a major breakthrough. On the downside, as I've written herein, the midrange sounded over many auditions with the M3s "weird", and we have since then traced it to the expensive MIT speaker cables, and that silly 2C3D thing - nothing to do with the amps or the M3s.

In this system so far, the 500s sound like a refined pair of 400s, less shouty, with more treble control but higher resolution as well, exceptional bass control, very clear sound, and truly render what I have been chasing for decades: Timbre and Articulation. The completeness of notes, when the recording is up to it, is arresting; that elusive perfect leading edge is there - the bells in the Reference Recordings Fantastique LP are very believable. String tone as well. Timpani rise, sustain and decay, so clear. And voices, oh so natural... But let me take a step back: the slew rate of these amps is claimed to be 1200V/usec, above the 30SV preamp's 1000V/usec, and double the 400's. Settling time is claimed to be <300 nano seconds, slightly higher than the 400's. The dealer claims distortion levels are also lower than the preamp's.

If I were to pick one word to describe the 500s, it would be "Scary". Scary realistic, and scary in power and impact. I was literally frightened to play my friend Al's Rihm Tutuguri CD, and I think that may have dealt the panels the coup de grace. I have gone from "Gosh, these amps shut down on me" during my in-store auditions with the M3s, to "Thank God, these amps will shut down" and protect your speakers.

Over the years, and having seen other owners' trials and tribulations when veering off Spectral's guidance on how their amps need to be driven, I have learned to take their claims in the manual quite seriously. Some key points on the 500s:

Uncompromising audio circuitry must be extremely wideband, but wideband output can broadcast like a transmitter, to produce megahertz oscillations which ring and distort the audio signal. To prevent oscillations [use MIT cables]. Tuning for ultra-high frequency roll-off achieves the best of both words - very fast rise and settling time in the audio circuitry for exceptional signal resolution, and precise bandwidth tailoring for absolute amplifier stability and RFI isolation

The use of Spectral/MIT phase-aligned interconnects and speaker cables is not only recommended, it is mandatory

Tube and most solid-state preamplifiers cannot drive the DMA-500 input circuitry properly ... and are not compatible with Spectral's high-speed amplifier topology, they should not be used [I have heard of input boards in the 400s being blown by tube preamps]. Failure to use a high-current preamplifier may result in serious damage to the output section

Inside the DMA-500 output section are powerful and ultra-fast MegaFet devices... During extreme program dynamics, this arrangements can launch an instantaneous high current drive of up to 90 amps ... with assured precision waveform tracing... Reproduction is highly articulate yet has all the powerful unlimited character of large unlimited capability amplifiers

And a quite-strong a statement from a well-established and humble engineer:

The ultra high-speed and high power capability of the DMA-500 surpass that of all other high-end amplifier designs and set the foundation for a new level of realism and musical resolution

Well, from the little that I've heard in here, I would describe things from a different angle: a) I hear slightly more detail and realism than from the M3s, which has me ordering new panels, but I will go back and re-audition the M3s and focus on the things that I think I hear in here only; b) I still feel a properly crossed-over electrostatic transducer is hard to beat; c) there is very high timbral accuracy and articulation from my analog; d) the superiority of analog over redbook is now more pronounced; e) my wife started dancing with the first Chesky track, and she is completely unaware of the amplifier swap - thank you Spectral for making all your amps look the same!

Years ago I said the 400s are one for the history books; the 500s, instead, are museum pieces.

Fascinating achievement by the Spectral engineering team, and an inspiration for me to excel in my line of work.

T5D_6155.jpg

T5D_6128.jpg
 
Last edited:

MadFloyd

Member Sponsor
May 30, 2010
3,079
774
1,700
Mass
Congrats, Tasos! I got a good laugh out of the part about the amps looking the same.
 

Mdp632

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2016
431
140
173
Tasos,

Congrats again. I look forward to reading more impressions of the 500s as time goes on.

It still blows my mind that people will use Spectral amps without a Spectral pre-amp and or MIT cables. Tuning to their subjective preference ; rather than trusting KOJ and the design team at Spectral. It's a whole system approach and as someone once told me ; if you have a problem with using a Spectral pre and Or MIT cables than Spectral isn't for you. Luckily, I didn't disagree with them :) The proof is in the listening.

Btw, is an SDR-4000SV in your future? I never heard it with the 500s so I can only imagine.
 

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,797
4,550
1,213
Greater Boston
Congratulations, Tasos! I had already been mightily impressed with the DMA-400 monoblocks, more and more each time I visited to hear your system, so I very much look forward to hear what the 500s can do. As I have said many times, Spectral would be my first choice for SS amplification.

Sorry to hear about your panel. As we discussed last time I heard your system, you had already planned to buy replacement panels given the life expectancy of these transducers, so this came not entirely out of the blue. But being without music is no fun.

As for the bass performance of the Berkeley DAC being exceeded by the Spectral 4000 SV, I am not surprised. As you reported, you had raised the bass performance of the DAC by the modifications you made, so I cannot speak to the difference with the unmodified standard unit. Yet the bass of my standard Berkeley DAC was handily improved in quantity, quality and overall punch, in a not so subtle manner, by my Schiit Yggdrasil DAC. In direct comparison a stark difference was immediately obvious. However, for context, the Berkeley DAC is no slouch either when it comes to the bass; it was dramatically superior, also in plain blackness, to the bass of other DACs that I had heard at home, the NAD M51 and the Hegel DAC 25, not to speak of my own old Wadia 12 DAC.
 

ack

VIP/Donor & WBF Founding Member
May 6, 2010
6,774
1,198
580
Boston, MA
Thanks all. No I’d rather get a DAC with high res for $20k than a player. Digital is just not worth paying a lot of money for.
 

PeterA

Well-Known Member
Dec 6, 2011
12,684
10,947
3,515
USA
Congratulations, Ack! You remain at the cutting edge of Spectral electronics and I know you have been excited about this upgrade since these reference amps were announced. I am not surprised that the Spectral pieces seem to be your only components to which you don't want to add any of your modification magic.
 

ack

VIP/Donor & WBF Founding Member
May 6, 2010
6,774
1,198
580
Boston, MA
Thanks Peter. There is one more missing piece here, that elusive phono, and from then on, I do not expect any further upgrades, considering that college and graduate school are upcoming expenses. Having said that, I am on the fence as to whether I am going to pursue a switch to Magico or not.
 

Kingsrule

VIP/Donor
Feb 3, 2011
1,444
704
1,430
Thanks Peter. There is one more missing piece here, that elusive phono, and from then on, I do not expect any further upgrades, considering that college and graduate school are upcoming expenses. Having said that, I am on the fence as to whether I am going to pursue a switch to Magico or not.

DO NOT listen to M6's...the kids will be on their own to pay for school LOL
 

ack

VIP/Donor & WBF Founding Member
May 6, 2010
6,774
1,198
580
Boston, MA
:) All I can say is that you are one lucky guy!
 

ack

VIP/Donor & WBF Founding Member
May 6, 2010
6,774
1,198
580
Boston, MA
I've been listening all morning today, and I have to admit, even with digital and the distorting panel, the system sounds really good. If you prune that narrow distorting region in the panel out, the sound is more dynamic, accurate and articulate than ever before. These 500s are blunt instruments. It's a blessing that the panel is not entirely gone, and I can continue to listen to music while awaiting the replacements.
 

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,797
4,550
1,213
Greater Boston
Great to hear that you can still listen to music and that it sounds so good!
 

chilest

New Member
May 31, 2018
1
0
0
Hi Ack,
As a new member to this forum, I was wondering if you could share with me how you modified the Berkeley Alpha DAC 2? I own both a Berkeley alpha USB and DAC2? I was wondering if anyone on this forum has upgraded their Berkeley alpha DAC2 with the MQA renderer and if so, what is your overall impression of the upgrade from a sound improvement standpoint.
All the best,
Thomas Chiles
Norfolk, MA
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing