I've read some of your posts Mike
david
Ouch. Sorry to hear that mate, I went through that too and know how it feels
I've read some of your posts Mike
david
Ouch. Sorry to hear that mate, I went through that too and know how it feels
Maybe, if such an animal ever comes to life... I've read some of your posts Mike, we approach this hobby from different perspectives and our definitions of extreme "accuracy" doesn't have the same meaning either .
david
The wonderful thing about these "extreme accurate" amps is, they have the capability to emulate the sound you like, but the amps you like will never be able to emulate them So we can please all with these amps, but only a small handful with yours
How come I never heard them emulate anything I like?
david
. . . "And on upper frequencies:
". . . the Nº53’s most salient characteristic was an immediacy, incisiveness, and vividness in the upper midrange and lower treble. This region was upfront and centerstage, bringing high-frequency detail to the fore and infusing timbres with palpable presence."
. . .
"The Nº53’s somewhat forward spatial perspective, slight emphasis on the upper-midrange and treble, and vivid soundstaging will suit some listeners more than others. If you lean toward the warm, forgiving, and rounded presentation of a single-ended triode amplifier, the Nº53 will likely not be your cup of tea. For those listeners who want to hear, with great precision and vivid clarity, every last detail on a recording, the Mark Levinson Nº53 will likely be a revelation."
This is because you've never heard these emulation algorithms in action before.
I read this loudly and clearly as this amplifier is bright, edgy, analytical and fatiguing.
What do I care about the wannabe when I can have the original? It's the same thing with digital photography, 30+ years of trying to emulate film!
david
Efficiency, reliability,cost, form factor, ability to drive difficult loads, excellent low frequency response and power, not limited to ultra high efficiency speakers. I suppose besides those factors, not much reason.
If only all that added up to "Natural" sound...
david
I have listened for hundreds of hours to this amplifier. Never had any ear fatigue that was not related to overly bright and compressed recordings. With well recorded music I can listen for days on end with absolutely no brightness, fatigue, edgy and whatever analytic is .I read this loudly and clearly as this amplifier is bright, edgy, analytical and fatiguing.
As I said, there is a lot that is wrong in RH's review. And that of what ddk posts. Decide if you listen to them or the person who knows how they work and uses this amp over his $20,000 linear amplifier.
I read this loudly and clearly as this amplifier is bright, edgy, analytical and fatiguing. This may be exactly what some people look for in an amplifier. This is the opposite of what I look for in an amplifier.
You don't know how it sounds either.So now we don't like it because we don't know how it works and not because of how it sounds?
david
OK a quick Shaz reveals the track is High Maintenance by the Big Phat Band from the album XXL which TIDAL just happens to have. I've just tried it on some mini monitors and it was nowhere near as raw as the above. Will try it later on the Apogees.
Something was wrong there. Amps - speakers - combo of both? One thing it didn't lack was life
My inclination is to blame a fair percentage of it on the amps. Without trying alternatives I can't be sure. I just suspect it. I had some $12,000 SMPS Hypex NC1200 based amps on the Apogees very recently and the mid to upper mid was horrid. All that with a decent pre at least price wise - an Audio Note M8.