Sorry, you are incorrect. 4 ohm tap achieves a lower impedance by having more turns, which gives a larger step down between primary and secondary. You get a larger ratio with more turns, hence a lower impedance. Thus it is labeled 4 ohm tap. More turns=more wire.
Again no , the number of primary turns is fixed and voltage on secondary is proportional to inverse of the ratio turns between primary divided by secondary (step ratio ) . Np / Ns = Vp/Vs ; Vs = Vp x (ns /np) .In other words , for same power , lower impedance means means lower voltage , then less turns. Higher step ratio means less turns on the secondary.
See this generic winding scheme of an output transformer (the secondary is independent of being SE or push/pull:
Going back to the conversation of the Lamms with various speakers. The Lamm ML3 has 32 watts? But this is only part of the story, you also need tons of current and great drive from the power supply, or you get sag and depressed dynamics, loose bass and phase shift amongst other things.
Also any given speaker at a rated 94dB for example, may hide the fact it has an aggressive impedance curve, so nominally 6 ohms but at 50hz may drop to 2 ohms. This can cause all sorts things to go wrong.
I would like to see the impedance curve of the Wilson XLF for example, see if it deviates. Manufacturing a 4 way+ speaker with a smooth and 'forgiving' load is tricky.
I would like to see the impedance curve of the Wilson XLF for example, see if it deviates. Manufacturing a 4 way+ speaker with a smooth and 'forgiving' load is tricky.
The Lamm ML3 has 32 watts? But this is only part of the story, you also need tons of current and great drive from the power supply, or you get sag and depressed dynamics, loose bass and phase shift amongst other things.
Thanks, I praise your advice, but the X2's and the XLF's are different speakers. 8 ohms has higher peak voltage and lower damping. 4 ohms more current and higher damping. Room / speaker matching seriously affects this choice.
Yes, I was thinking that would be the case, I was more referring to other tube amps. Steve how efficient is your Wilson's? Do you find you have ample volume with 32 watts?
Yes, I was thinking that would be the case, I was more referring to other tube amps. Steve how efficient is your Wilson's? Do you find you have ample volume with 32 watts?
That is good to know. I am moving to 25 watt SETs on my Zingali's and they are 95dB efficient. My room is a lot smaller than yours. So I think I should have enough 'juice'.
The Siegfried's will be happy today, the 7.5 mk3 is arrived and is now fully measured, ready to go in the system ...
For the next weeks I will evaluate the VTL's and the Lamm's.
Curiously until now the big winner has been the DCS Vivaldi stack ... The Vivaldi realistic midrange going through the rich and transparent Lamm's is vertiginous.
Yes, Mike, wheeled platforms are like mushrooms in my garden ...
There is a point that is immediate concerning the Lamm's and VTL's - VTL's are not for very impatient people!
The Siegfried has a long four minute warm-up before it switches the mute off and the VTL system sounds poor during the first fifteen minutes. The Lamm is faster to play - about a minute and immediately sounds much nice avoiding the nasty sound of cold electronics.
Surely both improve a lot with time, it is still too soon to know how long before they stabilize.
There is a point that is immediate concerning the Lamm's and VTL's - VTL's are not for very impatient people!
The Siegfried has a long four minute warm-up before it switches the mute off and the VTL system sounds poor during the first fifteen minutes. The Lamm is faster to play - about a minute and immediately sounds much nice avoiding the nasty sound of cold electronics.
Surely both improve a lot with time, it is still too soon to know how long before they stabilize.
I am adressing time after every day switch on, I do not leave them permanently on. Valdimir Lamm refers to 25 minutes minimum in the case of the ML3, but I am addressing a point where sound quality is stable.
The amplifiers have been in storage for a long time and traveled a lot, and I only started using them regularly after the recent arrival of the LL1. But the advised burn-in time should be now almost fully carried.
I am adressing time after every day switch on, I do not leave them permanently on. Valdimir Lamm refers to 25 minutes minimum in the case of the ML3, but I am addressing a point where sound quality is stable.
The amplifiers have been in storage for a long time and traveled a lot, and I only started using them regularly after the recent arrival of the LL1. But the advised burn-in time should be now almost fully carried.
I am adressing time after every day switch on, I do not leave them permanently on. Valdimir Lamm refers to 25 minutes minimum in the case of the ML3, but I am addressing a point where sound quality is stable.
The amplifiers have been in storage for a long time and traveled a lot, and I only started using them regularly after the recent arrival of the LL1. But the advised burn-in time should be now almost fully carried.
I have found with many SETs that they sound pretty good right after turn on but continue to improve to about 45 min- 1hour and then are stable sounding after that (assuming broken in of course). Some sounded better or worse at turn on but pretty much once the temp stabilized so did the sound.
An extreme example though was the NAT Symbiosis SE that I had, It took a full 2 hours of playing to fully open up and deliver its potential...it was pretty boring sounding the first 30 minutes or so then would get acceptable but after 2 hours it turned psychadelic and was pretty awesome...but the wait...oh the wait... not to mention it ran hot as the Devil. I simply didn't have that long everyday to wait...
Yes, I would say the same for the L2 - M1.2Ref combo. A nice thing about digital is that we also get a good time reference - the first CD is for warmup! Or conditioning our ears, say the non-believers!
Sorry for a Little OT:
Does that mean that you have the M1.2 Ref and the ML3 at the same time?
Can you please elaborate on the sonic differences between M1.2 Ref and the ML3?
Sorry for a Little OT:
Does that mean that you have the M1.2 Ref and the ML3 at the same time?
Can you please elaborate on the sonic differences between M1.2 Ref and the ML3?
Yes, the friend who wants the L2 / M1.2ref is still trying to sell his equipment ... Unfortunately I can not elaborate a lot - I used the L2 M1.2 mainly with the Soundlab's and the LL1 ML3 with the XLF. There is also a big difference between the preamplifiers - I only really enjoyed the ML3 after I got the LL1.
IMHO each pair extracted some of the best of each speaker, but comparisons are hard, as IMHO the XLF is more transparent and has better midrange than the SoundLab's. I am now mainly focusing in the VTL/Lamm comparison, that is my priority.
The M1.2 had great string tone and bass articulation, but it seemed to me it could not match the capability of illuminating the audio scene as the ML3 does - every time it seems that there are more instruments playing when listening with the ML3!
