KeithR's "Dream Speaker" Search

[tima]

By "actual audible change" I'm talking about objective changes in the signal, carefully established as dectable by human hearing, not merely subjective changes in the listener. How do we determine "objective" changes? It's pragmatic. We can use things like measurement tools that reliably detect physical changes. Appeal to our evidence-based theories of electronic engineering and psychoacoustics. And we can use human hearing, but strictly speaking if we are trying to justify our confidence, control for variables like sighted bias.

How do you distinguish "dectable [sic] by human hearing" from "subjective changes in the listener"? Is the listener physiologically different in the two cases? It would seem you presume a cause of such exists and differentiate detectable change and subjective experience by what that cause is. But doesn't that beg the question of what you are trying to establish given your (apparent) view that causality as a necessary connection between two events does not exist?

Again: it depends on what specifically Phil would actually be claiming. If by "I heard a change" he means he perceived a change, that can certainly be a subjective fact. But if by "I heard a change in the signal after 300 hours" he means he DETECTED an objective change in the signal - in other words, that his perception was CAUSED by a CHANGE IN THE SIGNAL...then that's another kettle of fish.

This is redundant and does not advance your argument. I think we established that Phil's description is what he heard.

Problem there is that, insofar as that is meant as some justification for some of the subjective claims we are talking about, you are tearing down knowledge proper to do so. The excuses you are giving can be, and are, used to maintain countless mutually incompatible, logically contradictory belief systems.

Excuses? I don't know what you are talking about. Whatever that may be is not an argument. You have not established what is 'knowledge proper' but simply assume your belief system. If you like, appeal to your own pragmatism ("whatever works, is likely true."). If Phil hears a change in a cable after break-in where does he look for a reason to explain what he heard? Trees are changing fall colors - does he look there? What he ate for breakfast - does he look there?

Back to my reply to Phil - we are stuck with the fact we aren't All Knowing. We always have to consider that we could be wrong. Therefore it's just important epistemologically to determine when we are wrong as when we are right. So every time you, or Phil, may wish to appeal to the arguments ask yourself, "How would I discover that I'm mistaken?"

Huh?

I don't think this is going anywhere.

 

[213Cobra]

Phil, thanks for your explanation.

Edit: I will add that your earlier characterization of sound using Keith's Ultralinear+ amp jives with my aural memory of a Berning Quadrature Z stereo amp. That was the most analytically detailed yet sonorous sound I've ever heard - I used to say you could tell that Dusty brushed with the Ipana and not the Colgate.

Great sonic distinction. Who here remembers Ipana?!? I do. But one has to be of a certain age. -Phil

 

[bonzo75]

Phil, thanks for your explanation.

Edit: I will add that your earlier characterization of sound using Keith's Ultralinear+ amp jives with my aural memory of a Berning Quadrature Z stereo amp. That was the most analytically detailed yet sonorous sound I've ever heard - I used to say you could tell that Dusty brushed with the Ipana and not the Colgate.

The ZH 270 was not anywhere close to the quadrature. The quadrature is also finicky about speaker match. This LTA is built by someone else on Berning's circuitry so we should not assume it will be anywhere close to or representative of the quadrature.

 

[213Cobra]

The ZH 270 was not anywhere close to the quadrature. The quadrature is also finicky about speaker match. This LTA is built by someone else on Berning's circuitry so we should not assume it will be anywhere close to or representative of the quadrature.

The Quadrature was several X the cost of the LTA Ultralinear +. LTA is building and bringing to market the most practical and reliable Berning amps to-date (and I've listened to his amps from inception), in very close collaboration with Mr. Berning himself. We probably can't expect a Quadrature from LTA nor would they want to grapple with its finicky traits. LTA is effectively the impedance transformer between Berning's brilliance and the market's ability to absorb it. We should hear an LTA Ultralinear + in the context of its $6800 (or $13,600 for monoblocks) price. In that context, it's a both serious and practical contender for value, and for open-minded cost-no -object buyers with reasonably efficient speakers. I recommend two as monoblocks despite LTA''s seeming reticence to sell two amps where one could work alone. In high end audio a 15 lbs. metal box may seem underwhelming and even two monos at 30 lbs. won't deter someone's D'agostino or big Pass proclivities, but the LTA amps deserve being taken seriously within their power limits, not because they are perfect but because they are superb while remaining eminently practical.

Phil.

 

[KeithR]

I normally don't like cross posting, but there is a poster who compared his Quadrature to the Ultralinear (non + version). The "+" apparently has more tone. It should also be noted he uses 90db Nola speakers

Audiogon Discussion Forum

The other day I was reading a review of Cecile McLorin Salvant’s new LP “Dreams and Daggers”. In it, the reviewer quotes America’s jazz statesman, ...

forum.audiogon.com

 

[cal3713]

Negatives:
Keith really needs a 2nd one to run monoblocks for the high SPL music he listens to. The system with one amp sounds midrange-strained. 3-4db headroom would make the amp sound substantially more relaxed.

I'm also a strong believer in the importance of non-shared power supplies for each channel. People tend to focus on increased power capacity as the cause of more "relaxed" amplifier performance with monoblocks, but I've found that adding independent power supplies is also a factor. I actually ended up with independent transformers feeding the positive and negative rails in mine. Relaxation increased (i.e., noise & distortion decreased) each step along the way as I moved from stereo (1 PS transformer) to mono to mono with independent rails (4 PS transformers).

 

[morricab]

This is a general epistemology not tied to audio. (Maybe there is some notion of an audio epistomology; to me that is silly.) But we can discuss within the audio context.

Your mention of "an actual audible change" versus a perceived audible change needs a lot more fleshing out. Even if both occur the sceptic (represented in you response) might find that at best there is an association between one event and the other. A occurs (a physical change occured.) B occurs (I heard a change.) But, so the sceptic claims, there is no such thing as causality, no necessary connection between the two events. A may occur without B, and vice versa. That there is a necessary connection between the two events is not empirically discoverable. I cannot claim, says the sceptic, that because I heard a change there was a change.

First off, Phil is not making the claim that I believe you think he his (or you postulate he might be making, in a straw dog argument) - that's my reading of what he is saying. 'After 300 hours I heard a change.' I believe that is all that he is reporting and he is saying that his report is undeniable.

What is 'an actual audible change'? Is it a change to the physical structure of the wire? We pass electricity through a wire for 300 hours. Presumably we measure the wire before and after and reveal different measurements at different times. Is that measurement audible? I'm assuming you are saying we cannot attribute "an actual audible change" as the cause of what was heard.

Secondly, the notion of causality may be something we bring to what we call 'experience'. It is logically independent of experience and necessary to our way of understanding events. Supposedly the cause precedes the event - at least in our experience. The notion of 'precedes' means 'in time'. Perhaps we bring time to our understanding of what it means to have experience. Before and after. Serial ordination is not something empirically derived. It is a necessary condition for being able to empirically derive. (What occurs outside the bounds of what it means to understand or what it means for us to attribute objectivity, is not available to us.)

To deny a claim such as 'I heard a change caused by 300 hours of wire break-in' aa wrong-headed is to deny what is necessary for distinguishing an objective sequence of states in the world from the merely subjective sequence (association) of perceptions.

For me an "actual audible change" is a subset of "perceived audible change" because it is only through perception that audibility is determined (a machine cannot determine audibility to you or me...only we can say "Yes! I hear a difference or No, I don't). It is a subset because of course we can perceive things that aren't actually there or rather hear things that didn't change in the real world (the mind playing tricks of course). This is because perception is also about imagination and not only the impulses that come in through our ears.

So, it is kind of silly to talk about "actual audible" and "perceived audible" because the word audible implies human perception inherently.

 

[morricab]

I'm also a strong believer in the importance of non-shared power supplies for each channel. People tend to focus on increased power capacity as the cause of more "relaxed" amplifier performance with monoblocks, but I've found that adding independent power supplies is also a factor. I actually ended up with independent transformers feeding the positive and negative rails in mine. Relaxation increased (i.e., noise & distortion decreased) each step along the way as I moved from stereo (1 PS transformer) to mono to mono with independent rails (4 PS transformers).

Could be that the amps you have heard with a shared power supply between channels was just simply insufficient for the task at hand...

 

[spiritofmusic]

I think therefore I tweak...I think.

 

[cal3713]

Could be that the amps you have heard with a shared power supply between channels was just simply insufficient for the task at hand...

All of those comparisons were with the exact same amplifier (I built my own First Watt F4 with premium parts), and without any change in power rating, hence my strong belief in the importance of dual mono power supplies.

 

[tima]

I think therefore I tweak...I think.

... or the other way around.

 

[Avidlistener]

I’m probably so late to this thread as to be irrelevant, but I just noticed a mention of TAD CR-1’s and The BHK300 amps from last year. I can attest that they are a fantastic combination, and the best I’ve heard TAD’s sound (though I haven’t heard TAD’s latest amps).

I have read of one guy who used to have Constellations, and sold them as he thought the BHK’s were better. I’ve added NOS tubes and have them plugged into a Niagara 7000, all to good effect. I’m planning on floating them on Halcyonics type platforms and bypassing the feet with StarSound brass cones, and hoping that yields some benefit.

Obviously they are in simple casework and produced (in the US) on a much larger scale than the amps they compete with, but if they weren’t they probably would cost 2-3 times as much.

My reference is live unamplified music, which (pre Covid) I used to hear very often in domestic settings and very small venues, and this combo (with a good tube line stage - Atma-sphere in my case) just seems to reproduce a good percentage of the real thing, and as good as current mic technology (which is actually quite ancient) can get us.

 

[KeithR]

Hey guys, haven't had time to post in several weeks. Here are some additional amp thoughts on the Fynes as I've now tried a half dozen.

Linear Tube Audio Ultralinear+
This is really a great amp as @213Cobra wrote up a few weeks ago. I continue to be more impressed daily. I think it has great extension on both ends for a tube amp. It isn't music specific like some others which favor vocals or simpler music. The UL+ could have the best balance of leading edge and decay that I've heard. Very liquid, continuous sound without getting garbled on crescendi. It's alive, dynamic, and tonally rich. Instruments in space are better than my Ampzillas although you trade a little width for depth compared to those amplifiers. I agree that you lose some weight on massed strings (think violas and cellos) compared with other amplifiers. I would say that is noticeable on 5% of music. But when you put on Daft Punk even at 90+dbs the bass is quite satisfactory. I was able to finally hear some distortion at very high levels on Mahler's 6th (DSO w/ Van Zweden which is an absolute murderous cut for amps). I've decided to keep it as my base amp going forward and it just replaced the Pass XA25 in my stable. Yes, I will consider monoblocks if that's my end point. So far, no tube issues and it doesn't run hot. One other note, I went back and forth for weeks to decide which LTA to order and glad I didn't end up with the EL34 ZOTL which would have been too forward sounding. The more resolute, UL+ is the way to go if your speakers can do 20 watts with ease.

DarTZeel 108mk1
This was like having an old friend over for dinner. I owned the CTH-8550 for a number of years on Zu Definitions, but it was a poor match in the bass with DeVore. The 108 is a simpler design, dual mono amplifier with only a pair of output transistors per side. From first listen you just recognize how even of a sound tonally the amp is from top to bottom. It's like nothing is out of place. The Dart has always had a wonderful, natural top end extension that is elite compared to others. The 108 has a very pure, resolute midrange and soundstage was excellent although not as wide as the Ampzillas. However, it produced some of the most 3 dimensional sound from an SS amp in my room that I've heard. People ascribe Dart sound as in between tubes and SS and I would agree - and funny enough, LTA is that sound from the tube camp. As far as differences from the LTA, the Dart isn't as quick, dynamic, or tonally rich. While not a dry, typical SS amp it doesn't have the wetness of a tube amp. What surprised me was that in the bass, the LTA was more articulate. This was noticeable on string bass tracks and other Jose James type jazz combos. I do think the Dart was better on massed strings than the LTA and wonder if the dual mono construction helped here. A listener in my room particularly agreed on Dido's "Hurricane" which has some electronica tones. The Dart (and Luxman m900 for that matter) are more top down amplifiers and not known for bass slam; I've been thinking which way is best on Fyne.

The Enleum 23r is up next as my dealer finally received his demo. The Gryphon Essence is probably the only other amp I'd entertain but they are quite expensive.

 

[KeithR]

One other thing - I've been criticized on another forum for calling Jay from Jay's Audio Lab a "crazy amp dude" and misguided on Pass Labs being considered midfi. Well, if someone called me that I would chuckle and actually agree. I think Jay would too. As far as Pass Labs, while the sound doesn't resonate with me (I've tried the 350.8, 260.8, FW SIT-3, and XA25) i do think the brand is most certainly hifi and hence my disagreement. I've posted my issues with Pass before in this thread if folks want to do an actual search and not just try to cancel me based on one out of context sentence.

I'm glad Pass works for others but in my system, on my speakers it didn't.

 

[morricab]

One other thing - I've been criticized on another forum for calling Jay from Jay's Audio Lab a "crazy amp dude" and misguided on Pass Labs being considered midfi. Well, if someone called me that I would chuckle and actually agree. I think Jay would too. As far as Pass Labs, while the sound doesn't resonate with me (I've tried the 350.8, 260.8, FW SIT-3, and XA25) i do think the brand is most certainly hifi and hence my disagreement. I've posted my issues with Pass before in this thread if folks want to do an actual search and not just try to cancel me based on one out of context sentence.

I'm glad Pass works for others but in my system, on my speakers it didn't.

I will just say that the more I have heard from Pass Labs the less impressed I get...

 

[morricab]

One other thing - I've been criticized on another forum for calling Jay from Jay's Audio Lab a "crazy amp dude" and misguided on Pass Labs being considered midfi. Well, if someone called me that I would chuckle and actually agree. I think Jay would too. As far as Pass Labs, while the sound doesn't resonate with me (I've tried the 350.8, 260.8, FW SIT-3, and XA25) i do think the brand is most certainly hifi and hence my disagreement. I've posted my issues with Pass before in this thread if folks want to do an actual search and not just try to cancel me based on one out of context sentence.

I'm glad Pass works for others but in my system, on my speakers it didn't.

Two questions: 1) Are the Fynes keepers? 2) Are these the final amps you will try? If PP tube seems to work best there are a lot of options out there.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I visited Keith a couple of Saturdays ago when Brent brought over his darTZeel 108, and I had the pleasure of comparing the Linear Tube Audio Ultralinear+ amplifier to Keith's old friend.

Keith played on the MSB Reference DAC Jennifer Warnes’ "Song of Bernadette," a favorite vocal track of mine on Famous Blue Raincoat. Inside of literally 30 seconds I heard the LTA making Jennifer's voice sound familiar to me. Almost instantly I experienced a slightly greater suspension of disbelief, and I heard what is to me a more natural voice due to the slight liquidity I hear from the LTA. (I don't like the word “liquidity," but I don't know how else to describe it. I could, alternatively, say that the darTZeel sounded a shade drier than the LTA.)

I was a single issue voter in this comparison. As soon as I perceived that the LTA made Jennifer’s voice sound more human and natural and realistic to me I was done on this comparison. I chose the LTA over the darTZeel. I don't care if the darTZeel might have greater extension at the frequency extremes (it may or may not, I have no idea); I don't care if the darTZeel might swing greater dynamics (it may or may not, I have no idea). Once I heard that the LTA made the voice sound more real and in-the-room, I was ready to make my choice.

While I believe Keith generally has a slight preference for the liquidity of tubes, I think the LTA components generally are uniquely well-matched for his personal sonic preferences, as they have a slight tube liquidity while also manifesting transparency and dynamics and frequency extension at both extremes -- without sounding at all syrupy or slow or traditionally "tubey." I think Keith has found a great match for himself with the LTA components. And it is a bonus that they all are relatively modestly priced. (It might be overkill on the sensitive F1-12 loudspeakers, but my enjoyment with the LTA Ultralinear+ makes me wonder how the exotic Berning Quadrature Z amps would sound on these speakers!)

I agree with Keith when he writes that the LTA components are just on the tube side of the tube/solid-state sonic dividing line.

I think it makes great sense to add a second LTA Ultralinear+ amplifier for mono operation.

When Keith auditioned the F1–12 in Florida he reported that he "loved" the Gryphon Essence amplifier on the speakers. I had never before heard Keith use the word “loved” in connection with an amplifier!

However, after hearing the LTA, especially with a plan to switch to mono-blocks, I think the LTA Ultralinear+ may, at least for the foreseeable future, be Keith's amplifier of choice on the F1-12s. Unless the Essence could deliver a Pareto Optimal sonic outcome compared to the LTA (meaning matching the LTA’s slight tube sonic liquidity, while improving upon one or more other sonic areas as well, without giving up any desirable sonic attribute compared to the LTA) I think I myself would prefer the LTA in Keith's system.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Ron, I'm intrigued that you either didn't detect, or didn't look for, any resolution differences btwn these amps.
Especially in light of your recent thread.
Obviously this suggests that Peter's response to your thread is pertinent, it's how naturally detail/musical info is resolved/expressed that is most critical, not relative resolution btwn systems, or absolute resolution.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ron, I'm intrigued that you either didn't detect, or didn't look for, any resolution differences btwn these amps.
Especially in light of your recent thread.
Obviously this suggests that Peter's response to your thread is pertinent, it's how naturally detail/musical info is resolved/expressed that is most critical, not relative resolution btwn systems, or absolute resolution.

Marc,

I'm afraid I do not understand what you are saying here. Please feel free to elaborate over on that other thread. Let's discuss resolution questions over on that other thread.

I reiterate that once I heard Jennifer's voice sounding to me more natural and believable on the LTA I stopped thinking in audiophile discrete sonic attribute terms, and I started enjoying the music.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Q posted on your thread.