A belated thank you for such a great write up of Mike's system and all the insights that flowed from listening to it. Not just an enjoyable read but also very educational.
Thanks too to Mike for his ever willingness to share his knowledge and to offer advice to us all.
A belated thank you for such a great write up of Mike's system and all the insights that flowed from listening to it. Not just an enjoyable read but also very educational.
Thanks too to Mike for his ever willingness to share his knowledge and to offer advice to us all.
I have been reflecting on your writeup this morning and have to admit my audio outlook is a bit soured.
It would appear the lion share of the ability to transparently reproduce music with top-flight gear is based on Mike's very expensive audio-specific room. If these designers are really doing it for such rare spaces in audiophile-land, I can't help but to worry. If the gear is only optimal based on such significant criteria for ownership, where does that leave the audiophile who wants a reference speaker to share music with friends without creating a dedicated man cave. Said another way, if the only way a Clearaudio Goldfinger cartridge doesn't sound bright is a six-figure room, shouldn't we pin some blame on the designer?
I fully realize SOTA is a big investment and one where MikeL has fully achieved it in this hobby, but shouldn't great gear sound good in a variety of rooms and spaces.
Keith, IMO you can take the exact opposite view. You should be heartened by the fact that getting the room right will allow a budget driven consumer (or otherwise) to achieve much better results per dollar.
First, I would like to thank Ron for his detailed impressions of his visit to hear Mike Lavingne's system in Mono and Stereo online magazine. I was interested in a few comments you made as well as some observations, so without further preamble here I go:
Ron stated that the 32 watt Lamms was like 200 watts on his Pendragons; however, I am not sure that you have taken into account the fact that Mike's speakers are point source essentially (big points to be sure), whereas your speakers are line sources. This has a significant effect on the power requirements as you move away from the speakers. The sound level drops off more slowly with a line source and therefore, at a given distance the power requirement will be less to have the same SPL. When I had large linesource speakers I was measuring only about 1db drop from the front of the speaker to my listening position at 3.5 meters away. I would therefore say that about half the power you think you need would be required for the levels you think you will be listening at.
I found it interesting also that you heard the limits of the Lamms coming up earlier than you expected (I guess based largely on reading this forum). This suggests one of a few things: 1) Those MM7s are really not as sensitive as the company publishes and/or there are some seriously complicated crossovers that are robbing power and putting the hurt on the Lamm. I say this because my horns are also around 97-98 db sentitivity and sound limitless with a 30 watt SET (no congestion at all even with big works at high peak levels). So, it seems the Lamms are being pushed near the limit of their power envelope. Or 2) The Lamms sag under high peak demands. If the power supply is not really up to the challenge of big peak demands then things could start to muddy up. Or 3) The output transformers are starting to saturate. When this happens you can also get this congestion where things are no longer really separated in space as before due to the additional artifacts being introduced. Or 4) One of the earlier stages is starting to clip even though the output stage can handle the surge. Note, these are only suggestions of what coud be happening.
The comment about the darTZeels sounding somewhat "dry". Could you elaborate on what this dryness means in terms of sonics and how this fits with the statements you made about the 458s being truly neutral? For me at least, dryness is symptomatic of a lot of transistor amps and is indicative of distortion impacting the naturalness of the sound. Live unamplified never sounds "dry". IMO, if there is dryness then it cannot be truly neutral...but more "neutral" in the negative sense. I think it would be useful to clarify this for us.
I found it interesting that the big VACs sounded like a good compromise to you on Mike's speakers. They had much of the liquidity of the Lamms and much of the slam and scale of the Darts. What did Mike think was missing in terms of transparency as compared to the other amps that you did not really hear? Perhaps longer association would have revealed it? I have not heard a big PP tube amp that really delivered the clarity of smaller PP tube amps or good SETs. The same is true for PP SS amps with lots of output transistors. The averaged output is inherently not as precise as only 1 output (or one pair) device from what I have heard.
Thanks again, Ron and I look forward to hearing your additional thoughts.
I have been reflecting on your writeup this morning and have to admit my audio outlook is a bit soured.
It would appear the lion share of the ability to transparently reproduce music with top-flight gear is based on Mike's very expensive audio-specific room. If these designers are really doing it for such rare spaces in audiophile-land, I can't help but to worry. If the gear is only optimal based on such significant criteria for ownership, where does that leave the audiophile who wants a reference speaker to share music with friends without creating a dedicated man cave. Said another way, if the only way a Clearaudio Goldfinger cartridge doesn't sound bright is a six-figure room, shouldn't we pin some blame on the designer?
I fully realize SOTA is a big investment and one where MikeL has fully achieved it in this hobby, but shouldn't great gear sound good in a variety of rooms and spaces.
I realize that Ron does infer your conclusion as to a message.
I think we have to consider that Ron has a few viewpoints he holds to, that my room upset. and to Ron's credit he sees himself as having extreme views, and clearly writes about them in the article. but maybe it's that these viewpoints are less than the whole truth, maybe they are opinions or even views other's have. so if his conclusion about my room is based on his views, then his conclusion (that you need a perfect room to overcome the nature of these 'flawed' products) is only as solid and unambiguous as his views.
do I think that a room makes a huge difference? of course I do. I've put more effort and resources into my room than anyone else.
yet I strongly disagree with Ron's views (and those whose views on these products Ron trusts) on ceramic drivers, solid state, GFS cartridges, and digital state of the art music reproduction. the revelation Ron writes about is no revelation to me. these products and formats are truthful to my ears. they fit my view of 'getting out of the way of the music'.
so maybe take Ron's message with a grain of salt. and respect that it's fits into his hifi world viewpoint. but maybe not everyone's.
and this is not an all or nothing proposition. I've spent 14 years working at this room. maybe I'm a little farther down the road than most.
My journey is one of ending up w components that punch above their weight, but were seriously hampered by “challenging” room acoustics.
Setting up here in the new impvd room felt like starting again, but w the immediate advantage of gear that became instantly apparent was chosen by me for all the right reasons, but now w the chains off.
Only my analog was a true jump into the unknown here for v specific reasons.
The room and recent hitting gold on system optimisation has by far been the most gratifying part of upgrading over more than two decades.
I can only imagine what it’s like to create the space from scratch as Mike has done, get the room to sing, and make choices carefully where neutrality and transparency are to the fore, meaning no impediment to the musical message.
My journey is one of ending up w components that punch above their weight, but were seriously hampered by “challenging” room acoustics.
Setting up here in the new impvd room felt like starting again, but w the immediate advantage of gear that became instantly apparent was chosen by me for all the right reasons, but now w the chains off.
Only my analog was a true jump into the unknown here for v specific reasons.
The room and recent hitting gold on system optimisation has by far been the most gratifying part of upgrading over more than two decades.
I can only imagine what it’s like to create the space from scratch as Mike has done, get the room to sing, and make choices carefully where neutrality and transparency are to the fore, meaning no impediment to the musical message.
Mike, despite some parallels btwn us, you deserve the Gold Medal for the whole project. For me it was a necessity to set up in the loft, and I had a one-time lump sum and time-opportunity to carve out the room. You had reasonable Carte Blanche to get the result you wanted. I pretty much took a punt and ponied up to my contractor. Indeed, Ron will tell you how anxious I was re this decision, I didn’t stop telling him how awful it was going to end up. Good friend that he is, he applied a virtual cold compress to my forehead from across the Atlantic LOL. The fact that the room ended up as good as it did, way better than I could ever have reasonably dreamed, is really down to luck, conscientious builders, and a shape of space that seems to be v audio friendly.
I do feel confident that Horns/SETs, Apogees/SS would sound absolutely stellar here. But for my collection of deeply unfashionable gear to have so jumped in performance means that none of this is needed.
And again where we digress Mike, is that I’m happy to “stick”, you love to “twist” (evidenced by yr recent third Studer).
Ron and Mike, thanks for sharing. Given what you have invested in the equipment in your room, it is very interesting that the biggest investment you have made is in the room itself. I've only been in one custom built audio room, spending quite a few days with Winston Ma while writing my Decca book. I was very impressed by his room, but don't know how much of the sound quality was from the room and how much from the equipment and the very careful placement in the room.
I know from experience with concert halls, the acoustics can make a huge difference in the sound of an orchestra. Friends in the SF Symphony have told us that part of the difference is in how they hear each other when they play (clearly not an issue with an audio room). But much of the difference is the acoustics of the hall as heard by the audience.
If the room design is the major factor in the superb quality of sound, are then the vast majority of us chasing a chimera?
Ron did a fantastic job here at the chapel writing up my sound. We don’t all have the same biases, indeed could you imagine if we all did ?
But it was fascinating to hear about challenges to deeply held predispositions.
Ron and Mike, thanks for sharing. Given what you have invested in the equipment in your room, it is very interesting that the biggest investment you have made is in the room itself. I've only been in one custom built audio room, spending quite a few days with Winston Ma while writing my Decca book. I was very impressed by his room, but don't know how much of the sound quality was from the room and how much from the equipment and the very careful placement in the room.
I know from experience with concert halls, the acoustics can make a huge difference in the sound of an orchestra. Friends in the SF Symphony have told us that part of the difference is in how they hear each other when they play (clearly not an issue with an audio room). But much of the difference is the acoustics of the hall as heard by the audience.
If the room design is the major factor in the superb quality of sound, are then the vast majority of us chasing a chimera?
Don't blame Mike. Mike would have been delighted to discuss the grounding tweaks with me. I don't have any personal experience with them, so I feel I can add little value to a discussion of them.
If Mike had unplugged all of the Tripoint and Entreq and then re-started the system I am extremely doubtful I would have come to any different conclusion about anything. Maybe I would have been 1% or 5% less effusively positive about the system overall?
Besides each amplifier had the benefit of the grounding components. So that likely was a level playing field.
Ron, first of all I really appreciate your descriptions of the various audio visits you and Tinka make all over the world. And I fully understand that it is a quite challenging task to fully grasp the benefits of the various audio components in elaborate audio set ups. That said I agree with Robert’s comments as regards the profound benefits that the Tripoint grounding brings to the audio table. Even top notch audio components / systems need in my experience (and quite a number of (other) experienced audiophiles all over the world with great audio systems ) - notwithstanding great accoustics, good power regulations and proper isolation - top of the bill grounding in order to create a realistic home reproduction of music. Concentrating (mainly) on the various amps / loudspeakers / turntable / tapedecks while ignoring the importance of grounding does imho no justice to the fact that top notch grounding is (also) a conditio sine qua non for experiencing musical realism at home.
Rudolph, I couldn’t get Ron too interested in my Entreq either (compounded by my comments to him the reality of Entreq in the chapel is that it’s less useful than in London).
He had quite a bit of interest in my Stacores, some re cables, next to nothing re fuses.
Nothing you’re going to say is going to convince him Troy is worth concentrating on more than a cursory overview.
I suspect the visit was primarily the global effect of everything, w Mike as host, and closely behind, the comparison of the 3 amps.
That the Troy enhanced the experience, I believe Ron views this as a given.
Rudolph, I couldn’t get Ron too interested in my Entreq either (compounded by my comments to him the reality of Entreq in the chapel is that it’s less useful than in London).
He had a bit of interest in my Stacores, some re cables, next to nothing re fuses.
Nothing you’re going to say is going to convince him Troy is worth concentrating on more than a cursory overview.
I suspect the visit was primarily the global effect of everything, w Mike as host, and closely behind, the comparison of the 3 amps.
That the Troy enhanced the experience, I believe Ron views this as a given.
Spirit, I know there are a lot of ‘non believers’ on WBF as regards grounding in general and Tripoint grounding in particular. This group of persons might include Ron (but I really hope for him this is not the case). Grounding (when done right) is crucial!
Other than an undying love for analog, one of my most unvarying preferences has been high efficiency w medium/high power SETs, my Zus w NATs or horns w tubes. And just a total love for tubes when executed well.
This particular bias was well and truly blown by my visiting UK-Paul of Z Axis Audio to hear his ML Spires pwrd by Concert Fidelity SS amps.
I was totally bowled over by the neutrality and transparency on offer, possibly the only system I’ve visited that has been close to fully invisible.
Indeed, I took a lot from my time w Paul, an additional compulsion to try and remedy my system of the one thing it still failed at ie lack of lower mids transparency, upper bass smear, inability of the sound to fully break free of the spkrs.
Paul’s (non) sound got me really analysing my last barriers to a sound much closer to neutral than ever before. And I do believe in the last few days I’m as close to succeeding (as one can ever say one’s succeeded in this hobby) as I’ve done in the last 21 years.
Ron and Mike, thanks for sharing. Given what you have invested in the equipment in your room, it is very interesting that the biggest investment you have made is in the room itself. I've only been in one custom built audio room, spending quite a few days with Winston Ma while writing my Decca book. I was very impressed by his room, but don't know how much of the sound quality was from the room and how much from the equipment and the very careful placement in the room.
I know from experience with concert halls, the acoustics can make a huge difference in the sound of an orchestra. Friends in the SF Symphony have told us that part of the difference is in how they hear each other when they play (clearly not an issue with an audio room). But much of the difference is the acoustics of the hall as heard by the audience.
If the room design is the major factor in the superb quality of sound, are then the vast majority of us chasing a chimera?
thanks. and no doubt my room involves lots of time and resources, and is beyond the life choices of many. and trust me, my room was a life choice......sort of a 'for better or worse' sort of commitment. there are a few others who have done it similarly in their own way. we see horn systems particularly where the horn becomes part of the building. so I'm not the only one who took the full plunge.
as far as a room like mine being essential to reach audio nirvana, I would say maybe. but only if you want to hear the biggest, baddest, music without limits. then it does take a similar level of what I've done to get it all. I know because I realize when even my room was finally able to do that. and it was a long way into the process. and referring back to those 'horn' guys, they might feel they are where I am with their direction. there is more than one system philosophy approach where someone is at the full tilt-boogie level.
OTOH if what you desire is a bit less ambitious than that, then I think many shades less levels of commitment can fully capture all sorts of different musical priorities. you may have compromises somewhere, but get it all in other places. so it's not so simple a perspective. maybe you don't need 4000 watts on the bass and 550 watts per channel on the higher frequencies. maybe you don't need -3db at 7 hz and -6db at 3hz. maybe what you want is 10 watts on horns, or whatever else floats your boat. it comes down to expectations fulfilled and what that takes.
so no, we all don't need my room, or even a perfect room......even if we want to attain the highest personal view for the music we love.
I have been reflecting on your writeup this morning and have to admit my audio outlook is a bit soured.
It would appear the lion share of the ability to transparently reproduce music with top-flight gear is based on Mike's very expensive audio-specific room. If these designers are really doing it for such rare spaces in audiophile-land, I can't help but to worry. If the gear is only optimal based on such significant criteria for ownership, where does that leave the audiophile who wants a reference speaker to share music with friends without creating a dedicated man cave. Said another way, if the only way a Clearaudio Goldfinger cartridge doesn't sound bright is a six-figure room, shouldn't we pin some blame on the designer?
I fully realize SOTA is a big investment and one where MikeL has fully achieved it in this hobby, but shouldn't great gear sound good in a variety of rooms and spaces.
The best thing about WBF is that we can enjoy reports from people having very different views. Just think about David opinions on rooms, or even Spiritofmusic approaches - all very different. IMHO once you have a decent acoustics, you have to find a system that complements it, managing compromises. Surely, if our main preference is like Mike's one, to reproduce realistically very scale music, the challenges increase.
I have the feeling, just the feeling, nothing else, that part of the limitations of the ML3 in his system are due to the fact that since long it has been evolutionary tuned for big power amplifiers driving big speakers. As far as I remember, it was originally a Rives project, and Rives is know for his abundance of soffits and chambers, using plenty of thick fiber glass, and tricky diffusors that always have significant absorption. All these things need power!
Anyway, I share your view that great equipment should sound great in a variety of rooms and spaces. It is why I am sure that, with proper tuning, any of Mike's equipment would sound good in my room!
