ying and yang--Lamm ML3 and darTZeel 458

[RogerD]

Mike is there a noticeable difference between the Lamm and Dart on soundstage width and also on being closer to the musical instruments..just wondering.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Mike, if you don't listen to a lot of live orchestral music, how do you go about assessing the truth, or "wall of truth" with almost 100% of your 45 rpm reissues? Musical truth may well be different for each of us. For some, it is feeling the emotional impact of the recording, the musicians' intent, the composer's genius, the feeling of getting "lost in the music". For others it may be some of that plus how close it sounds to their memory of live music. What do you, Mike Lavigne, mean by musical truth? Are there different versions as seem presented by your now two alternatives, the Dart and the ML3?

a few weeks back in another thread I did answer that question. as I said then for many reasons it has to be the recording which shows us the way. what other tool is on hand to show us the way? live music is at best a nebulous variable thing with so many variations and interpretations. a recording OTOH is real and usable in room right now.

this is not to dismiss those who access their live music experiences to validate or invalidate certain recordings. more power to them to use that in a positive way of system building. and I do learn from them for sure. locally I have jazdoc, Joel Durand, and others who share that feedback. I've adapted many of their musical visions based on live music.

tonight i had a good audio friend visit and we played the 15ips 1/4" master dub of LZ1 (both reels) at a significant volume level. it was an out-of-body roller coaster experience. there is no way that music would have been served effectively by the ML3's. it could play it sure, but it would have been so much less. and that is something i cherish. that ability to just stretch and reach for the highest level of energy and be so free and easy with it means a lot to me. it's essential. what does all that mean? don't know exactly.

You have written much about your goal of developing a system which gets out of the way of the music. Let's get this thread back on the topic of your two different amplifiers. Which presentation gets out of the way of the music more? And which better conveys your idea of musical truth? You recently wrote up thread that it is a "Dart based (optimized) system" with "Lamm as frequent visitor" or something like that. I like that clarification of priorities. If both amps present a different version of musical truth, in their own unique way, does either truly "get out of the way" of the music, or is that notion still elusive and evolving for you?

This seems to be at the crux of the thread and what you seek in your audio journey.

what I said was that the ML3's are valued guests in my dart 458 centric system. now two days back with the darts, I am loving really loving it. there is zero doubt that the darts get more out of the way or the music, have less of their own artifacts, and enable the music to fully go wherever it wants to go without limit. the ML3's add focus and demand attention by adding emotion and a beguiling attitude and flair to the music. which was exactly what I was looking for........something more and enhanced.

as far as the longer term ramifications of this dichotomy of amplifiers, right now i'm living in the moment. it's easy to see that personally, once either amplifier is warmed up and doing it's thing, it has my attention and devotion. the ML3's do alter my full expectations from some types of music i like, but add so much to other choices in balance. so this 'guest' does come with some issues.

the last couple of days there have been lots of posts talking about the full rendition of large orchestral music. the ML3's actually do that type music much better than you might expect with assist from the easy load and help in the bass from the MM7's. so plenty of large orchestral music is accessible. yet the ability of the big darts in this area is astonishing and i have a new appreciation for something maybe I've taken for granted for years. there is simply no limit to what they can do.

ultimately i can see the end game here will be the ease of switching back and forth and the level of disruption to my hifi enjoyment life with 2 'alpha' amps. is it worth it? there is no time frame to answering that question.

 

[the sound of Tao]

Great update on your appreciation overall of what you are finding Mike, you are a patient man and it’s fantastic to be able to learn some valuable perspectives off your findings. I’m sure many of us would live more than happily with either amp choice.

 

[PeterA]

a few weeks back in another thread I did answer that question. as I said then for many reasons it has to be the recording which shows us the way. what other tool is on hand to show us the way? live music is at best a nebulous variable thing with so many variations and interpretations. a recording OTOH is real and usable in room right now.

this is not to dismiss those who access their live music experiences to validate or invalidate certain recordings. more power to them to use that in a positive way of system building. and I do learn from them for sure. locally I have jazdoc, Joel Durand, and others who share that feedback. I've adapted many of their musical visions based on live music.

tonight i had a good audio friend visit and we played the 15ips 1/4" master dub of LZ1 (both reels) at a significant volume level. it was an out-of-body roller coaster experience. there is no way that music would have been served effectively by the ML3's. it could play it sure, but it would have been so much less. and that is something i cherish. that ability to just stretch and reach for the highest level of energy and be so free and easy with it means a lot to me. it's essential. what does all that mean? don't know exactly.



what I said was that the ML3's are valued guests in my dart 458 centric system. now two days back with the darts, I am loving really loving it. there is zero doubt that the darts get more out of the way or the music, have less of their own artifacts, and enable the music to fully go wherever it wants to go without limit. the ML3's add focus and demand attention by adding emotion and a beguiling attitude and flair to the music. which was exactly what I was looking for........something more and enhanced.

as far as the longer term ramifications of this dichotomy of amplifiers, right now i'm living in the moment. it's easy to see that personally, once either amplifier is warmed up and doing it's thing, it has my attention and devotion. the ML3's do alter my full expectations from some types of music i like, but add so much to other choices in balance. so this 'guest' does come with some issues.

the last couple of days there have been lots of posts talking about the full rendition of large orchestral music. the ML3's actually do that type music much better than you might expect with assist from the easy load and help in the bass from the MM7's. so plenty of large orchestral music is accessible. yet the ability of the big darts in this area is astonishing and i have a new appreciation for something maybe I've taken for granted for years. there is simply no limit to what they can do.

ultimately i can see the end game here will be the ease of switching back and forth and the level of disruption to my hifi enjoyment life with 2 'alpha' amps. is it worth it? there is no time frame to answering that question.

Thank you Mike. I think I understand now. Yes, there is surely a variety of ways that the same violin sounds in different settings and as played by different musicians. And different violins played in the same setting by the same musician sound different. That is why some of us speak of a "range" of sounds that form an impression of how particular instruments actually sound. I well understand the argument that the recording is all we have. One of my Boston audio friends makes this very argument. The recording is unchanging and can be returned to repeatedly for reference. I have used recordings to guide some of my system development choices always seeking more "details" or something new from familiar tracks. Differences, transparency, new insights into the familiar, as long as it does not deviate from the sound of the real. Like you, I understand people have different approaches, and they are equally valid depending on the goal one sets out for himself.

From the brief comments you have made so far, it seems that the dart 458 is more transparent to the recordings used as your reference. It adds less of itself to the sound, and it gets out of the way of the music more than does the Lamm ML3. It also seems to allow the music to go more freely to more places, placing fewer restrictions and less of it own sonic signature on the system.

I appreciate your candor and willingness to share your system development and listening impressions with the rest of us. I also admire your acceptance of criticism and patience with our many questions and comments.

 

[morricab]

a few weeks back in another thread I did answer that question. as I said then for many reasons it has to be the recording which shows us the way. what other tool is on hand to show us the way? live music is at best a nebulous variable thing with so many variations and interpretations. a recording OTOH is real and usable in room right now.

this is not to dismiss those who access their live music experiences to validate or invalidate certain recordings. more power to them to use that in a positive way of system building. and I do learn from them for sure. locally I have jazdoc, Joel Durand, and others who share that feedback. I've adapted many of their musical visions based on live music.

tonight i had a good audio friend visit and we played the 15ips 1/4" master dub of LZ1 (both reels) at a significant volume level. it was an out-of-body roller coaster experience. there is no way that music would have been served effectively by the ML3's. it could play it sure, but it would have been so much less. and that is something i cherish. that ability to just stretch and reach for the highest level of energy and be so free and easy with it means a lot to me. it's essential. what does all that mean? don't know exactly.



what I said was that the ML3's are valued guests in my dart 458 centric system. now two days back with the darts, I am loving really loving it. there is zero doubt that the darts get more out of the way or the music, have less of their own artifacts, and enable the music to fully go wherever it wants to go without limit. the ML3's add focus and demand attention by adding emotion and a beguiling attitude and flair to the music. which was exactly what I was looking for........something more and enhanced.

as far as the longer term ramifications of this dichotomy of amplifiers, right now i'm living in the moment. it's easy to see that personally, once either amplifier is warmed up and doing it's thing, it has my attention and devotion. the ML3's do alter my full expectations from some types of music i like, but add so much to other choices in balance. so this 'guest' does come with some issues.

the last couple of days there have been lots of posts talking about the full rendition of large orchestral music. the ML3's actually do that type music much better than you might expect with assist from the easy load and help in the bass from the MM7's. so plenty of large orchestral music is accessible. yet the ability of the big darts in this area is astonishing and i have a new appreciation for something maybe I've taken for granted for years. there is simply no limit to what they can do.

ultimately i can see the end game here will be the ease of switching back and forth and the level of disruption to my hifi enjoyment life with 2 'alpha' amps. is it worth it? there is no time frame to answering that question.

Is the Lamms in some subtle way additive or the Dartz in some subtle way subtractive??? That is the question...

If it is coloration then it should impart a kind of sameness of tone on all recordings. Coolness of tone is also a coloration it should be noted.

 

[morricab]

Thank you Mike. I think I understand now. Yes, there is surely a variety of ways that the same violin sounds in different settings and as played by different musicians. And different violins played in the same setting by the same musician sound different. That is why some of us speak of a "range" of sounds that form an impression of how particular instruments actually sound. I well understand the argument that the recording is all we have. One of my Boston audio friends makes this very argument. The recording is unchanging and can be returned to repeatedly for reference. I have used recordings to guide some of my system development choices always seeking more "details" or something new from familiar tracks. Differences, transparency, new insights into the familiar, as long as it does not deviate from the sound of the real. Like you, I understand people have different approaches, and they are equally valid depending on the goal one sets out for himself.

From the brief comments you have made so far, it seems that the dart 458 is more transparent to the recordings used as your reference. It adds less of itself to the sound, and it gets out of the way of the music more than does the Lamm ML3. It also seems to allow the music to go more freely to more places, placing fewer restrictions and less of it own sonic signature on the system.

I appreciate your candor and willingness to share your system development and listening impressions with the rest of us. I also admire your acceptance of criticism and patience with our many questions and comments.

And yet you would scarcely ever mistake hearing a live violin being played for a recording, regardless of how that violin sounds on that day, or the musician or the venue (ok, maybe down the street 100 yards might be tough). So, even though live changes in a lot of ways, it never stops being live and our perception of that doesn't change either...all the elements of "liveness" are still there.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Is the Lamms in some subtle way additive or the Dartz in some subtle way subtractive??? That is the question...

If it is coloration then it should impart a kind of sameness of tone on all recordings. Coolness of tone is also a coloration it should be noted.

the darTZeel's are much more the chameleon, and do everything without drawing attention to them selves. the ML3's have a luscious liquid character that does color things, but subtly. it's a frame, but not in the way. they round things ever so slightly in direct comparison to the darts, but only in big music is there ever any sense of reduced leading edge energy. I would say for tubes the ML3's are transparent and agile. never in your face kind of warmth or thickness. you hear music and flow.

I think depending on your personal sonic compass, maybe the darts could be viewed as neutral or maybe a little sweeter than neutral. if neutral = cool to someone then that could be a personal view. but I never view the darts as cool or lacking tone. while the darts warm up from being off for 2 weeks the first 15 minutes could be termed as hard and flat. but that's quickly behind you.

I think these kind of questions become a matter of perspective. and my sonic compass is centered slightly on the tube side of things with the Tenor OTL's as the source of how I like it done. the darts come closest to that for me, the ML3's not terribly far on the other way. I would not change a thing about the ML3's.

 

[microstrip]

a few weeks back in another thread I did answer that question. as I said then for many reasons it has to be the recording which shows us the way. what other tool is on hand to show us the way? live music is at best a nebulous variable thing with so many variations and interpretations. a recording OTOH is real and usable in room right now.

this is not to dismiss those who access their live music experiences to validate or invalidate certain recordings. more power to them to use that in a positive way of system building. and I do learn from them for sure. locally I have jazdoc, Joel Durand, and others who share that feedback. I've adapted many of their musical visions based on live music.

tonight i had a good audio friend visit and we played the 15ips 1/4" master dub of LZ1 (both reels) at a significant volume level. it was an out-of-body roller coaster experience. there is no way that music would have been served effectively by the ML3's. it could play it sure, but it would have been so much less. and that is something i cherish. that ability to just stretch and reach for the highest level of energy and be so free and easy with it means a lot to me. it's essential. what does all that mean? don't know exactly.



what I said was that the ML3's are valued guests in my dart 458 centric system. now two days back with the darts, I am loving really loving it. there is zero doubt that the darts get more out of the way or the music, have less of their own artifacts, and enable the music to fully go wherever it wants to go without limit. the ML3's add focus and demand attention by adding emotion and a beguiling attitude and flair to the music. which was exactly what I was looking for........something more and enhanced.

as far as the longer term ramifications of this dichotomy of amplifiers, right now i'm living in the moment. it's easy to see that personally, once either amplifier is warmed up and doing it's thing, it has my attention and devotion. the ML3's do alter my full expectations from some types of music i like, but add so much to other choices in balance. so this 'guest' does come with some issues.

the last couple of days there have been lots of posts talking about the full rendition of large orchestral music. the ML3's actually do that type music much better than you might expect with assist from the easy load and help in the bass from the MM7's. so plenty of large orchestral music is accessible. yet the ability of the big darts in this area is astonishing and i have a new appreciation for something maybe I've taken for granted for years. there is simply no limit to what they can do.

ultimately i can see the end game here will be the ease of switching back and forth and the level of disruption to my hifi enjoyment life with 2 'alpha' amps. is it worth it? there is no time frame to answering that question.

Mike,

IMHO it is now clear that, as expected, your sound reproduction objectives are lead by preference - in your case deeply linked to a long and abundant experience with some of the best equipment in your rooms. Probably the fact that your are a frequent listener - your listening time probably averages four times mine - also specializes and perfects your preference.

I often said that our opinions and experiences are droplets in the high-end. What cements this small community is sharing opinions and healthy debates among the groups formed by audiophiles that share similar preferences. But people must understand that the "truth" does not exist in high-end stereo. Even those who claim that they are closer to the "truth" because of their life exposition are just presenting their vision of a preference created by their experiences. If we look around people in WBF who claim to use live music as a reference we find that they disagree on their systems and solutions as much as all others.

F. Toole solved the problem of the non existence of "truth" using controlled tests to determine a statistical preference and sticking to it - many people think that these controlled conditions killed the essence of high-end and stereo and conditioned the outcome of his research.

IMHO being an audiophile is intrinsically a dynamic activity - as we do not have a "truth", but a large set of subjective references there is no end of the line. Most of the time we look for a convergent system, probably by tradition, logistics and economics. But if we are prepared for some some divergence in the system, as you seem to be and most of us are not accepting, perhaps moving between two amplifiers is a great solution.

Even at the risk of being misinterpreted - a small quote can not transmit the sense of the full text - I quote from the F. Toole book, expecting people to become curious and read the integral text:

" Descriptors like pleasantness and preference must therefore be considered as ranking in importance with accuracy and fidelity. This may seem like a dangerous path to take, risking the corruption of all that is revered in the purity of an original live performance. Fortunately, it turns out that when given the opportunity to judge without bias, human listeners are excellent detectors of artifacts and distortions; they are remarkably trustworthy guardians of what is good. Having only a vague concept of what might be correct, listeners recognize what is wrong. An absence of problems becomes a measure of excellence. "

 

[morricab]

Mike,

IMHO it is now clear that, as expected, your sound reproduction objectives are lead by preference - in your case deeply linked to a long and abundant experience with some of the best equipment in your rooms. Probably the fact that your are a frequent listener - your listening time probably averages four times mine - also specializes and perfects your preference.

I often said that our opinions and experiences are droplets in the high-end. What cements this small community is sharing opinions and healthy debates among the groups formed by audiophiles that share similar preferences. But people must understand that the "truth" does not exist in high-end stereo. Even those who claim that they are closer to the "truth" because of their life exposition are just presenting their vision of a preference created by their experiences. If we look around people in WBF who claim to use live music as a reference we find that they disagree on their systems and solutions as much as all others.

F. Toole solved the problem of the non existence of "truth" using controlled tests to determine a statistical preference and sticking to it - many people think that these controlled conditions killed the essence of high-end and stereo and conditioned the outcome of his research.

IMHO being an audiophile is intrinsically a dynamic activity - as we do not have a "truth", but a large set of subjective references there is no end of the line. Most of the time we look for a convergent system, probably by tradition, logistics and economics. But if we are prepared for some some divergence in the system, as you seem to be and most of us are not accepting, perhaps moving between two amplifiers is a great solution.

Even at the risk of being misinterpreted - a small quote can not transmit the sense of the full text - I quote from the F. Toole book, expecting people to become curious and read the integral text:

" Descriptors like pleasantness and preference must therefore be considered as ranking in importance with accuracy and fidelity. This may seem like a dangerous path to take, risking the corruption of all that is revered in the purity of an original live performance. Fortunately, it turns out that when given the opportunity to judge without bias, human listeners are excellent detectors of artifacts and distortions; they are remarkably trustworthy guardians of what is good. Having only a vague concept of what might be correct, listeners recognize what is wrong. An absence of problems becomes a measure of excellence. "

Thus my interest in a statistical correlation between measurements and listener preference with amplifiers.

 

[Ron Resnick]

. . .

Madfloyd, Al M., and I just heard live three Brahms sonatas for violin and piano. We were 10'-15' from the instruments. The setting was a large private living room in Boston. What an experience. Two days later, I listened to a violin and piano recording on LP to evaluate a system at a dealer. Both were experiences I will not soon forget. When listening so close to these instruments live, I was struck by the immense amount of detail and energy filling the room. Listening to the recording played over this incredible system less than 48 hours later, what struck me about the audition was the amount of detail/resolution, the string texture, dynamics and tone that presented the instruments extremely convincingly. . . .

This is inherently a slightly dopey question but I cannot resist since your set-up for it is so perfect: what fraction of the sound and of the sensation/experience of the live violin and piano was achieved by the system at Goodwin's?

 

[PeterA]

this is inherently a slightly dopey question but i cannot resist since your set-up for it is so perfect: What fraction of the sound and of the sensation/experience of the live violin and piano was achieved by the system at goodwin's?

lots!

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Mike,

IMHO it is now clear that, as expected, your sound reproduction objectives are lead by preference - in your case deeply linked to a long and abundant experience with some of the best equipment in your rooms. Probably the fact that your are a frequent listener - your listening time probably averages four times mine - also specializes and perfects your preference.

I often said that our opinions and experiences are droplets in the high-end. What cements this small community is sharing opinions and healthy debates among the groups formed by audiophiles that share similar preferences. But people must understand that the "truth" does not exist in high-end stereo. Even those who claim that they are closer to the "truth" because of their life exposition are just presenting their vision of a preference created by their experiences. If we look around people in WBF who claim to use live music as a reference we find that they disagree on their systems and solutions as much as all others.

F. Toole solved the problem of the non existence of "truth" using controlled tests to determine a statistical preference and sticking to it - many people think that these controlled conditions killed the essence of high-end and stereo and conditioned the outcome of his research.

IMHO being an audiophile is intrinsically a dynamic activity - as we do not have a "truth", but a large set of subjective references there is no end of the line. Most of the time we look for a convergent system, probably by tradition, logistics and economics. But if we are prepared for some some divergence in the system, as you seem to be and most of us are not accepting, perhaps moving between two amplifiers is a great solution.

Even at the risk of being misinterpreted - a small quote can not transmit the sense of the full text - I quote from the F. Toole book, expecting people to become curious and read the integral text:

" Descriptors like pleasantness and preference must therefore be considered as ranking in importance with accuracy and fidelity. This may seem like a dangerous path to take, risking the corruption of all that is revered in the purity of an original live performance. Fortunately, it turns out that when given the opportunity to judge without bias, human listeners are excellent detectors of artifacts and distortions; they are remarkably trustworthy guardians of what is good. Having only a vague concept of what might be correct, listeners recognize what is wrong. An absence of problems becomes a measure of excellence. "

far be it from me to argue against the idea that we all just want what we individually view as 'what is good'. preferences if you will.

and as you say, my divergence from the norm single approach, particularly at this high level, does (among other things) draw out disciples of both sides (or how ever many sides there are) to point out the weaknesses of my approach and validity of my findings......partially, since it challenges the security of our beliefs.

and while all that stuff is going on, I'm just trying to figure out whether this divergence is 'what is good'. do I like it more than just one approach?

defending the details of my process is quite secondary to me being happy......and being in that 'what is good' place.....for me. and I agree that listeners (me) can be trusted to listen and decide. not sure I'm on board with the concept of 'absence of problems becomes the measure of excellence' but maybe this is just semantics.....and it's just another way to say what is my repeated view of 'getting out of the way of the music'.

 

[Esotar]

Hello, Mike~

Congratuations~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your ultra HI FI system becomes Super Fantastic system~!!!

I have a question.

Dartzeel NHB-458 is the fastest power amp in the world.

But tube amps have slow response.

You use them for triple amping, right?

I wonder if your system makes dissonance sound.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Hello, Mike~

Congratuations~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your ultra HI FI system becomes Super Fantastic system~!!!

thanks. not sure it's quite that. but it's nice of you to say. and every day I am thrilled to listen to my system.....it never gets old and I never take it for granted.

I have a question.

Dartzeel NHB-458 is the fastest power amp in the world.

I would say it different. I would describe the 458's as having the right speed, and sufficient headroom and technical capabilities for the proper expression of the music. but as far as the fastest amp, i'm not sure that is a relevant concept. sometimes describing an amplifier as fast imparts the idea of skipping over some substance of the music in the name of sharp and crisp reaction. I think the 458's have the proper musical touch, and when speed is needed, it is there as needed without stress....and the musical essence and nuance is retained. it is wide bandwidth, so it can easily provide the whole musical message. it has any capability musically that might be called for. it never is the limiting factor.

possibly i could say that the darTZeel NHB-458's are the most naturally agile, effortless and musically capable amps I have heard.....so far.

But tube amps have slow response.

I can't say that tube amps are slow; although some are. but maybe sloppy might get closer to the right term. and.......maybe we could say that tube amps have greater distortion, which might mean they tend to round some musical bits, or add some color, compared to the best of solid state. so at the leading edge they trade smoothing for accuracy. but this is a generalization, and I've heard tube amps (a 1 watt 45 DHT) with breathtaking speed inside the note. it could not effectively control the speaker it was driving, but it was very fast and pure inside it's very limited design envelope. so in parts of the music it's very transparent and fast, but in other parts it somewhat bypasses it. and it's only in direct comparison with a very accurate solid state amp that better tube amps seem to be a bit 'slow' or 'soft' sounding. I do not view the best of tube amps that way. they sound 'different' but not slow.

You use them for triple amping, right?

no. I either use the ML3 tubes, or the 458's, but not both together. and either work fine with my powered bass towers and they are both coherent and extended in the deep bass.

I wonder if your system makes dissonance sound.

it only sounds dissonant if the music was recorded like that. it's amazingly coherent and the bass is 'of a piece' with both amps equally (contrary to claims of some).

 

[Esotar]

thanks. not sure it's quite that. but it's nice of you to say. and every day I am thrilled to listen to my system.....it never gets old and I never take it for granted.



I would say it different. I would describe the 458's as having the right speed, and sufficient headroom and technical capabilities for the proper expression of the music. but as far as the fastest amp, i'm not sure that is a relevant concept. sometimes describing an amplifier as fast imparts the idea of skipping over some substance of the music in the name of sharp and crisp reaction. I think the 458's have the proper musical touch, and when speed is needed, it is there as needed without stress....and the musical essence and nuance is retained. it is wide bandwidth, so it can easily provide the whole musical message. it has any capability musically that might be called for. it never is the limiting factor.

possibly i could say that the darTZeel NHB-458's are the most naturally agile, effortless and musically capable amps I have heard.....so far.



I can't say that tube amps are slow; although some are. but maybe sloppy might get closer to the right term. and.......maybe we could say that tube amps have greater distortion, which might mean they tend to round some musical bits, or add some color, compared to the best of solid state. so at the leading edge they trade smoothing for accuracy. but this is a generalization, and I've heard tube amps (a 1 watt 45 DHT) with breathtaking speed inside the note. it could not effectively control the speaker it was driving, but it was very fast and pure inside it's very limited design envelope. so in parts of the music it's very transparent and fast, but in other parts it somewhat bypasses it. and it's only in direct comparison with a very accurate solid state amp that better tube amps seem to be a bit 'slow' or 'soft' sounding. I do not view the best of tube amps that way. they sound 'different' but not slow.



no. I either use the ML3 tubes, or the 458's, but not both together. and either work fine with my powered bass towers and they are both coherent and extended in the deep bass.



it only sounds dissonant if the music was recorded like that. it's amazingly coherent and the bass is 'of a piece' with both amps equally (contrary to claims of some).

If you don't use them at the same time, I think you have two great system.

I don't know about your new tube amps, but Accuton drivers and tube amp are always good matching.

You don't use multitab~!!!

Your room is real great~!!!

 

[Al M.]

I do not view the best of tube amps that way. they sound 'different' but not slow.

Agree. There are tube amps with blistering speed and energy of transients, at the same time without over-etching.

On the other hand, there are tube amps with some softening of transients, but you find the same with some SS amps as well.

 

[caesar]

This is inherently a slightly dopey question but I cannot resist since your set-up for it is so perfect: what fraction of the sound and of the sensation/experience of the live violin and piano was achieved by the system at Goodwin's?

Audiophile imagination, especially of those who are hook, line, and sinker into comparing to real live music is a powerful force, indeed. I am sure the lady, while she was playing, came over and sat on the guy's lap a few times also.

And when they played John lennon's imagine, there was actually peace and brotherly live at that moment. Terrorists unstrapped their suicide belts and put away their chemical weapons, and evil dictators turned kind and provided food to their starving people....

Juuust kidding!!!!

But I fukking hate Plato ... yet Plato keeps so much of this hobby alive...

 

[caesar]

This is inherently a slightly dopey question but I cannot resist since your set-up for it is so perfect: what fraction of the sound and of the sensation/experience of the live violin and piano was achieved by the system at Goodwin's?

Audiophile imagination, especially of those who are hook, line, and sinker into comparing to real live music is a powerful force, indeed. I am sure the lady, while she was playing, came over and sat on the guy's lap a few times also.

And when they played John lennon's imagine, there was actually peace and brotherly live at that moment. Terrorists unstrapped their suicide belts and put away their chemical weapons, and evil dictators turned kind and provided food to their starving people....

Juuust kidding!!!!

But I fukking hate Plato ... yet Plato keeps so much of this hobby alive...

 

[Tango]

Listening to the recording played over this incredible system less than 48 hours later, what struck me about the audition was the amount of detail/resolution, the string texture, dynamics and tone that presented the instruments extremely convincingly. I have only heard that level of resolution and realism from vinyl in systems that were extremely well sorted.

Dear Peter,

May I ask what this system consisted of... Magico/Spectral?

Kind regards,
Tang

 

[PeterA]

Audiophile imagination, especially of those who are hook, line, and sinker into comparing to real live music is a powerful force, indeed. I am sure the lady, while she was playing, came over and sat on the guy's lap a few times also.

And when they played John lennon's imagine, there was actually peace and brotherly live at that moment. Terrorists unstrapped their suicide belts and put away their chemical weapons, and evil dictators turned kind and provided food to their starving people....

Juuust kidding!!!!

But I fukking hate Plato ... yet Plato keeps so much of this hobby alive...

Somehow I don't think you are kidding. If one attends a small live event and within two days auditions a superlative audio system with the same kind of music, from roughly the same listening perspective, do you honestly think that no one would compare the two experiences? We all have different goals and methods of enjoying the hobby.

Do you celebrate the Ides of March?