Ron’s New System

[Audiohertz2]

I do find VAC to be some of the best sounding tube amps, really good stuff …!

 

[Al M.]

-- Applying general listening criteria, I found the Constellation to be slightly warmer and fuller-sounding than the 159. But the 159 had an "aliveness" that I liked. The Burmester had a bit more upper midrange energy which I did not care for. But this made the Burmester sound a touch more resolving. (There's always the question with a component which has more upper midrange energy than the competitor whether that upper midrange energy is providing merely the illusion of greater resolution.) All amps sounded better to my ears with the VAC preamp.

Thank you for your impressions, Ron. I agree with your point about resolution. I would assume that the greater energy in the upper midrange also contributes to that sense of aliveness. But this may then just be an artificial enhancement above the natural aliveness of real music, which does not have this upper midrange emphasis.

 

[microstrip]

On Lyras: Burmester 159 monos versus Constellation Statement stereo versus VAC 300 monos with LampizatOr Horizon360

-- I am a single issue voter. All I have to do when applying my personal preferences is figure out which component makes vocals sound more real, alive and in the room. For me this was the VAC tube amps, especially with the VAC Reference preamp.

-- Boulder 3010 preamp: Still no likey! Still dry and forensic. Still a champion of resolution and detail. Still stunning finishing quality and build quality.

-- Applying general listening criteria, I found the Constellation to be slightly warmer and fuller-sounding than the 159. But the 159 had an "aliveness" that I liked. The Burmester had a bit more upper midrange energy which I did not care for. But this made the Burmester sound a touch more resolving. (There's always the question with a component which has more upper midrange energy than the competitor whether that upper midrange energy is providing merely the illusion of greater resolution.) All amps sounded better to my ears with the VAC preamp.

-- In general I think solid-state amplifier and tube preamp is a very rational way to go. For someone who is not a single issue voter the solid-state amplifier contributes control and dynamics and punch in the bass, while the tube preamp contributes some warmth, aliveness and dimensionality.

The build quality of both the Burmester and the Constellation is top-notch. Between the two, I preferred slightly the build quality of the Burmester, as I did not care for the thin top plate of the Constellation. The top plate of the Constellation is touted as being made of titanium. I guess this is supposed to sound fancy and expensive, but I don't see the point if it's going to wind up feeling a bit thin.

The Burmester has a large and unique momentary on/off switch. You pull down on this large, two pillared control like it's the master switch for a missile launcher. It definitely gives good switch.

The 159 is a classy, if art deco looking, affair. Actually, I think the Constellation might be considered to be a bit art deco looking as well.


On XVX: Burmester 159 monos versus D'Agostino Relentless monos with dCS Varese

I found the Relentless to be warmer and fuller than the Burmester. Again the Burmester had an aliveness that I found attractive and a bit hard to explain.


Across all three of these flagship, state-of-the-art solid-state amplifiers there is no loser. If you are a solid-state person and you randomly picked one of the three, and you never heard the other two, you'd think you must have the best solid-state amplifier in the world. I think I can say accurately that the selected preamp in the system swings the resulting sound more than does the differences among the amplifiers themselves.


DACs:

-- I continue to prefer the Horizon360 to the MSB Select II with Digital Director.

-- Literally since the late 1980s when I attended dCS auditions at Lyric Hi-Fi in Manhattan I have not cared for dCS DACs. I found them dry and sterile and uninvolving right up to the Apex. The Varese is different. The Varese makes the sound that dCS DACs should've been making for all of these years!

I have not heard the Varese in direct comparison to another SOTA DAC, but I have now heard it enough (also at Brian Berdan's on XVX and D'Agostino) to be able to say confidently that the Varese is a great DAC. Anyone auditioning flagship DACs certainly has to hear the Varese. The Wadax also is a great DAC. Varese versus Wadax versus Sentinel all in the same system would be a fascinating comparison.

I am sure I personally would still prefer the Horizon, unsurprisingly.

Are you saying that the SS amplifiers were not being used with their matching preamplfiers ?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Thank you for your impressions, Ron. I agree with your point about resolution. I would assume that the greater energy in the upper midrange also contributes to that sense of aliveness. But this may then just be an artificial enhancement above the natural aliveness of real music, which does not have this upper midrange emphasis.

this solid state tendency toward a tipped up upper midrange and and overall leaner presentation is what separated the darTZeel from other solid state i have heard. also it's lower parts count in the signal path and zero global feedback are contributors especially regarding flow, liquidity, and note completion. the darts allowed me to be a tube guy with solid state attributes. the room and overall system has to be complimentary, amps are never isolated pieces and context with solid state is always significant. my vinyl and tape sources do have tube output stages.

do some of these newest solid state amps rival the big darts in this regard? not heard them all. adding a tube preamp? i prefer a 'nothing' added preamp.

and some people just need tubes. variety is the spice of life. OTOH some want a more neutral presentation like music (personal viewpoint) rather than any tube sameness. and the music staying organized and of a piece when things get really going. YMMV.

 

[microstrip]

this solid state tendency toward a tipped up upper midrange and and overall leaner presentation is what separated the darTZeel from other solid state i have heard. also it's lower parts count in the signal path and zero global feedback are contributors especially regarding flow, liquidity, and note completion. the darts allowed me to be a tube guy with solid state attributes. the room and overall system has to be complimentary, amps are never isolated pieces and context with solid state is always significant. my vinyl and tape sources do have tube output stages.

Surely this was true 20 years ago when the Dartzeels were introduced.

do some of these newest solid state amps rival the big darts in this regard? not heard them all. adding a tube preamp? i prefer a 'nothing' added preamp.

Without doubt. Current modern solid state electronics are up to level of Dartzeel or surpassed it, depending on preference, on the aspects you address.

Reviews are just opinions, but see for example the M. Fremer comparison of the D'Agostino preamplfier with the Relentless.

https://www.absolutesounds.com/pdf/main/press/Relentless Preamp Review - TAS.pdf (page 3 of 5)

I had such feeling more clearly after listening to top SS systems after 2020. No tube preamplifiers are needed anymore.

Time never stops and neither does the highend - yes, I know this statement is controversy to some people!

and some people just need tubes. variety is the spice of life. OTOH some want a more neutral presentation like music (personal viewpoint) rather than any tube sameness. and the music staying organized and of a piece when things get really going. YMMV.

Well, I need tubes mostly for financial reasons. This top modern SS equipment costs a lot more than I want to allocate to the amplification stage of my system, and the top tube equipment was much more reasonably priced. Besides, good tube gear does not carry forcefully "sameness".

 

[Al M.]

Besides, good tube gear does not carry forcefully "sameness".

Agreed.

 

[Ron Resnick]

this solid state tendency toward a tipped up upper midrange and and overall leaner presentation

I was expecting this from all of the solid-state contenders. It was very interesting to me that two of the three amplifiers did not exhibit this attribute. WestminsterLab Reis also do not, to my ears, evidence this attribute.

 

[Ron Resnick]

also it's lower parts count in the signal path and zero global feedback

In another example of implementation trumping theory the Soulution 717 with lots of feedback, I believe, might be the most tube like amplifier I've ever heard (other than the First Watt SIT-3).

 

[Ron Resnick]

the darts allowed me to be a tube guy with solid state attributes. the room and overall system has to be complimentary, amps are never isolated pieces and context with solid state is always significant. my vinyl and tape sources do have tube output stages.

I can't prove this but I have the suspicion that the darTZeel amplifier is not the right answer if one has to drive the signal through complex crossovers or control and damp big woofers, or both.

Obviously your system does not present these concerns to your 468s.

 

[Kingrex]

On Lyras: Burmester 159 monos versus Constellation Statement stereo versus VAC 300 monos with LampizatOr Horizon360

-- I am a single issue voter. All I have to do when applying my personal preferences is figure out which component makes vocals sound more real, alive and in the room. For me this was the VAC tube amps, especially with the VAC Reference preamp.

-

I love you liked the VAC amps. I like them too. I would love to hear the VAC against the new Conrad Johnson. I like those too.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I can't prove this but I have the suspicion that the darTZeel amplifier is not the right answer if one has to drive the signal through complex crossovers or control and damp big woofers, or both.

Obviously your system does not present these concerns to your 468s.

two reviewers used 468's with big Wilsons for years. seemed to make them happy.....and never any report of issues. no doubt other SS amps might present alternate strengths with those big speakers. but for musical touch hard to better the darts with SS.

 

[Kingrex]

I can't prove this but I have the suspicion that the darTZeel amplifier is not the right answer if one has to drive the signal through complex crossovers or control and damp big woofers, or both.

Obviously your system does not present these concerns to your 468s.

Isn't the Dart 468 - 600 watts of power. How much power do you need to drive a modern speaker?

 

[Ron Resnick]

Isn't the Dart 468 - 600 watts of power. How much power do you need to drive a modern speaker?

Driving is one thing. Optimal driving is another. Damping factor is a separate variable than power output in watts.

 

[bonzo75]

against the new Conrad Johnson. I like those too.

No dynamic range, boring

 

[bonzo75]

Not sure how both Burmester and Constellation are well made, except externally. Burmester in terms of durability has a far better track record

 

[DasguteOhr]

If you're looking for good Class A mono amps that cost no arm and leg, check out the Vincent SP 991, designed in Germany and assembled in China. Completely discrete, no op amps, bipolar sanken output transistors, low damping factor ~170 bass at heights 40. Runs 100 watts Class A then up to 300 watts Class A/B at 8 ohms. Flawless construction, there's nothing to improve it on. I call them a giant killer.tube sound.

 

[Audiohertz2]

Surely this was true 20 years ago when the Dartzeels were introduced.



Without doubt. Current modern solid state electronics are up to level of Dartzeel or surpassed it, depending on preference, on the aspects you address.

Reviews are just opinions, but see for example the M. Fremer comparison of the D'Agostino preamplfier with the Relentless.

https://www.absolutesounds.com/pdf/main/press/Relentless Preamp Review - TAS.pdf (page 3 of 5)

I had such feeling more clearly after listening to top SS systems after 2020. No tube preamplifiers are needed anymore.

Time never stops and neither does the highend - yes, I know this statement is controversy to some people!



Well, I need tubes mostly for financial reasons. This top modern SS equipment costs a lot more than I want to allocate to the amplification stage of my system, and the top tube equipment was much more reasonably priced. Besides, good tube gear does not carry forcefully "sameness".

Very strange , you must be talking small wattage , the BOM on equivalent wattage tube amp is immensely greater than that of an SS amp ..

 

[Audiohertz2]

Isn't the Dart 468 - 600 watts of power. How much power do you need to drive a modern speaker?

As much as you can afford , no substitute ..

 

[Audiohertz2]

Driving is one thing. Optimal driving is another. Damping factor is a separate variable than power output in watts.

Well tubes have none to speak of , Yet …!

 

[Audiohertz2]

If you're looking for good Class A mono amps that cost no arm and leg, check out the Vincent SP 991, designed in Germany and assembled in China. Completely discrete, no op amps, bipolar sanken output transistors, low damping factor ~170 bass at heights 40. Runs 100 watts Class A then up to 300 watts Class A/B at 8 ohms. Flawless construction, there's nothing to improve it on. I call them a giant killer.tube sound.View attachment 159493
View attachment 159494

Very doubtful 100 watts class A Bias …