Hi all. This is my first posting to the Digital Audio Forum. I've been thinking a lot about my Lampizator Pacific, and figure I'll share my impressions for whatever benefit anyone else may derive.
Some background. For years, I had a mid-level solid-state-based system consisting of an Ayre QB-9 DAC attached to Krell equipment (pre-amp, amp and speakers). It wasn't great, but I was too busy to listen much, so it didn't really bother me.
A couple of years ago, a dedicated audiophile friend invited me to listen to his primarily tube-based system, which was built around a pair of wonderful Von Schweikert speakers. The difference between his system and mine blew me away, and inspired me to try for something like it myself.
I immediately went far to the other side of the fence and switched to a highly rated tube-based preamp and pair of tube-based amps. The sound was way too mushy, even after I upgraded my speakers to a pair of Wilson Maxx 3's. Yet, even with the mush, there was a painful harshness that infected nearly every track.
After trying a bunch of different amps, I settled upon a pair of Pass Labs XA200.5's. They brought a sense of power and authority to the music, and got rid of at least 75% of the mush. I decided to build the rest of my system around them -- seeking to follow the relatively common path of mixing tubes with solid state to blend warmth and authority.
Over the next year, I auditioned quite a number of different preamps. Some helped reduce the mush, but only at the expense of increasing the harshness. Some made the mush worse. I began to despair of finding the "right" preamp. The best result I got was from using my Woo Audio WA33 headphone amp as a pre-amp. It actually functions quite well using the pre outputs. But it was not quite "right."
During this time, I also tried a bunch of different DACs, and settled upon a Lampizator GG. That made a big difference. I thought the GG provided a great balance between warmth and clarity. I also worked hard on my room modifications and added a lot of absorption and diffusion material (my listening room presents some significant challenges). Things definitely were getting better. Indeed, sometimes I thought I might be done.
Then I tried the Pacific, which is the primary focus of my comments. And here's where writing becomes difficult because what I want to say sounds embarrassingly like the Lampizator marketing material. When I inserted the Pacific into my system, there were two changes at once. First, was the Pacific itself. Second, was the complete elimination of a preamp. My system got very simple. Mac mini to Pacific to amps to speakers. The difference was huge. The sound got cleaner, the harshness was reduced, there was absolutely zero sense of mush, and I simply felt closer to the music -- especially solo jazz vocals, which are my most critical test. To be sure, I violated the rule about changing only one variable at a time. Some of the other equipment I auditioned in the past never got the benefit of my evolving room modifications. I could have purchased the GG with a volume control and used it without a preamp (but I didn't). Thus, this is not a perfectly scientific report. But the bottom line is that, by the time I acquired the Pacific, I had a pretty darn good system in a pretty well-treated room, and inserting the Pacific made a big difference. I listen to music more frequently as a result of having it, and I more thoroughly enjoy the experience. Could I have achieved the same result with a less expensive combination of equipment if I went back and re-auditioned everything after having completed my room modifications? Perhaps, but I don't think it's likely. At each step of the way, as I auditioned different pieces, I selected for the best combination I could find. Then, when things were really quite good, the Pacific made them a lot better.
Did the Pacific solve all my (audio) problems? Absolutely not. I listen to a lot of recordings that have major flaws in themselves (older jazz, obscure contemporary jazz engineered on a tiny budget, 1970's rock, etc.). Often, I make use of a Manley Massive Passive EQ to adjust the sound of individual recordings to make up for inherent flaws in the recordings or simply to deal with conflicts between a particular recording and remaining flaws in my listening room (and I heartily recommend the Manley for this purpose). But there are many recordings (the best ones) where I am able to ditch the Manley and listen to my system in its most simple form -- Mac mini to Pacific to amps to speakers. That's when the experience is the most enjoyable.
Three recordings immediately come to mind when I think about how the Pacific changed my system. The first is Sara Serpa singing "When Sunny Gets Blue" on her album Camera Obscura. It's a spare, brilliant, highly unorthodox rendition, and the engineer seems to have strongly favored an approach of crystalline purity over any sense of gentleness in presenting her voice. Before I got the Pacific, I could only enjoy this track at low volume or by mushing it up with a piece of tube equipment. It was just too cold and harsh. With the Pacific, I hear the human elements of her voice without undue harshness and without mush. It pretty much saved this track for me.
Second is Grace Jones singing "Walking in the Rain" (multiple versions). Exceedingly different from Sara Serpa, this song is all about layered production. When I added the Pacific, the sound jumped dramatically from 2-D to 3-D. There's nothing "natural" about this piece of music. But the Pacific brought the many layers of electronic elements to life.
Third is Kyung-Wha Chung performing Tchaikovsky's Violin Concerto in D (Decca 1982). This is hardly the best technical recording, but it's absolutely my favorite version of the concerto because of the performer's passion and willingness to flirt with the edge of disaster. Especially when the violin is taken to its highest notes, I always felt like I was missing something due to the limitations of my system. After adding the Pacific, my experience is different. It feels like my system can fully handle the demands being placed upon it, and with lots of capacity to spare. I now accept what I'm hearing at face value, as what the performer/engineer intended.
At this point, I think I'm done evolving the electronic side of my system. Perhaps, someday, I'll switch out the Maxx 3's. They seem now to be the weakest link.
A few minor additional points. First, I know there are folks who enjoy tube rolling their Lampizators. I haven't tried this intentionally, but I did have an interesting experience. Out of concern that replacement tubes for the Pacific might be difficult to obtain in the future, I purchased a back-up set of identical tubes. I've only swapped the sets wholesale (not on a tube-by-tube basis). And I swear I can hear the difference. One set seems genuinely warmer than the other. I can't explain this and it's certainly surprising to me, but there it is.
Second, although perhaps this shouldn't have much impact on an audio purchasing decision, the Pacific is quite simply one of the most visually beautiful pieces of equipment I've ever encountered. It gives me pleasure to see it on my audio rack every time I walk by, even when there's no music playing.
Finally, and this is perhaps a more legitimate basis upon which to make a decision, the Pacific is built like a tank. Over the last few years, I've auditioned a few pieces of equipment that sounded pretty good, but seemed like their internal connections wouldn't survive a few hundred (let alone a few thousand) heating/cooling cycles. The Pacific is at the opposite end of the spectrum. Except for the natural burn-out of the tubes, it seems that my Pacific will still be healthy long after I'm dead.
Some background. For years, I had a mid-level solid-state-based system consisting of an Ayre QB-9 DAC attached to Krell equipment (pre-amp, amp and speakers). It wasn't great, but I was too busy to listen much, so it didn't really bother me.
A couple of years ago, a dedicated audiophile friend invited me to listen to his primarily tube-based system, which was built around a pair of wonderful Von Schweikert speakers. The difference between his system and mine blew me away, and inspired me to try for something like it myself.
I immediately went far to the other side of the fence and switched to a highly rated tube-based preamp and pair of tube-based amps. The sound was way too mushy, even after I upgraded my speakers to a pair of Wilson Maxx 3's. Yet, even with the mush, there was a painful harshness that infected nearly every track.
After trying a bunch of different amps, I settled upon a pair of Pass Labs XA200.5's. They brought a sense of power and authority to the music, and got rid of at least 75% of the mush. I decided to build the rest of my system around them -- seeking to follow the relatively common path of mixing tubes with solid state to blend warmth and authority.
Over the next year, I auditioned quite a number of different preamps. Some helped reduce the mush, but only at the expense of increasing the harshness. Some made the mush worse. I began to despair of finding the "right" preamp. The best result I got was from using my Woo Audio WA33 headphone amp as a pre-amp. It actually functions quite well using the pre outputs. But it was not quite "right."
During this time, I also tried a bunch of different DACs, and settled upon a Lampizator GG. That made a big difference. I thought the GG provided a great balance between warmth and clarity. I also worked hard on my room modifications and added a lot of absorption and diffusion material (my listening room presents some significant challenges). Things definitely were getting better. Indeed, sometimes I thought I might be done.
Then I tried the Pacific, which is the primary focus of my comments. And here's where writing becomes difficult because what I want to say sounds embarrassingly like the Lampizator marketing material. When I inserted the Pacific into my system, there were two changes at once. First, was the Pacific itself. Second, was the complete elimination of a preamp. My system got very simple. Mac mini to Pacific to amps to speakers. The difference was huge. The sound got cleaner, the harshness was reduced, there was absolutely zero sense of mush, and I simply felt closer to the music -- especially solo jazz vocals, which are my most critical test. To be sure, I violated the rule about changing only one variable at a time. Some of the other equipment I auditioned in the past never got the benefit of my evolving room modifications. I could have purchased the GG with a volume control and used it without a preamp (but I didn't). Thus, this is not a perfectly scientific report. But the bottom line is that, by the time I acquired the Pacific, I had a pretty darn good system in a pretty well-treated room, and inserting the Pacific made a big difference. I listen to music more frequently as a result of having it, and I more thoroughly enjoy the experience. Could I have achieved the same result with a less expensive combination of equipment if I went back and re-auditioned everything after having completed my room modifications? Perhaps, but I don't think it's likely. At each step of the way, as I auditioned different pieces, I selected for the best combination I could find. Then, when things were really quite good, the Pacific made them a lot better.
Did the Pacific solve all my (audio) problems? Absolutely not. I listen to a lot of recordings that have major flaws in themselves (older jazz, obscure contemporary jazz engineered on a tiny budget, 1970's rock, etc.). Often, I make use of a Manley Massive Passive EQ to adjust the sound of individual recordings to make up for inherent flaws in the recordings or simply to deal with conflicts between a particular recording and remaining flaws in my listening room (and I heartily recommend the Manley for this purpose). But there are many recordings (the best ones) where I am able to ditch the Manley and listen to my system in its most simple form -- Mac mini to Pacific to amps to speakers. That's when the experience is the most enjoyable.
Three recordings immediately come to mind when I think about how the Pacific changed my system. The first is Sara Serpa singing "When Sunny Gets Blue" on her album Camera Obscura. It's a spare, brilliant, highly unorthodox rendition, and the engineer seems to have strongly favored an approach of crystalline purity over any sense of gentleness in presenting her voice. Before I got the Pacific, I could only enjoy this track at low volume or by mushing it up with a piece of tube equipment. It was just too cold and harsh. With the Pacific, I hear the human elements of her voice without undue harshness and without mush. It pretty much saved this track for me.
Second is Grace Jones singing "Walking in the Rain" (multiple versions). Exceedingly different from Sara Serpa, this song is all about layered production. When I added the Pacific, the sound jumped dramatically from 2-D to 3-D. There's nothing "natural" about this piece of music. But the Pacific brought the many layers of electronic elements to life.
Third is Kyung-Wha Chung performing Tchaikovsky's Violin Concerto in D (Decca 1982). This is hardly the best technical recording, but it's absolutely my favorite version of the concerto because of the performer's passion and willingness to flirt with the edge of disaster. Especially when the violin is taken to its highest notes, I always felt like I was missing something due to the limitations of my system. After adding the Pacific, my experience is different. It feels like my system can fully handle the demands being placed upon it, and with lots of capacity to spare. I now accept what I'm hearing at face value, as what the performer/engineer intended.
At this point, I think I'm done evolving the electronic side of my system. Perhaps, someday, I'll switch out the Maxx 3's. They seem now to be the weakest link.
A few minor additional points. First, I know there are folks who enjoy tube rolling their Lampizators. I haven't tried this intentionally, but I did have an interesting experience. Out of concern that replacement tubes for the Pacific might be difficult to obtain in the future, I purchased a back-up set of identical tubes. I've only swapped the sets wholesale (not on a tube-by-tube basis). And I swear I can hear the difference. One set seems genuinely warmer than the other. I can't explain this and it's certainly surprising to me, but there it is.
Second, although perhaps this shouldn't have much impact on an audio purchasing decision, the Pacific is quite simply one of the most visually beautiful pieces of equipment I've ever encountered. It gives me pleasure to see it on my audio rack every time I walk by, even when there's no music playing.
Finally, and this is perhaps a more legitimate basis upon which to make a decision, the Pacific is built like a tank. Over the last few years, I've auditioned a few pieces of equipment that sounded pretty good, but seemed like their internal connections wouldn't survive a few hundred (let alone a few thousand) heating/cooling cycles. The Pacific is at the opposite end of the spectrum. Except for the natural burn-out of the tubes, it seems that my Pacific will still be healthy long after I'm dead.
