Transparency and the sound of a system
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
I listened and owned some copies of Futterman - Merlin, Fourier and a DIY locally made copy. All very transparent, but a good friend owned the original OTL3's and they sounded much more natural than the copies - I would say more fluid, better tone and less detailed. The speakers were the ESL63.
The one that might be different, so I have heard, is Joule Electra line of OTLs but I haven't heard them. The Tenor OTLs were also pretty natural sounding. Interestingly, my Silvaweld OTL monos and the Einstein OTL monos are more lean/fast and used a significant amount of negative feedback.
I love the transparency of my friend’s Einstein OTL, but I think I find it a little bit lean sounding(?)
Yes the Tenor OTL could sound gorgeous - until it didn't. ;-> I found Berning v nice - an OTL with bass - though a touch lean and very fast. I remember comparing one of the larger Atma-Sphere amps with the Lamm M1.2, had them for 6 months - the A-S actually went lower and with better articulation, though not quite the same heft. Don't know that Atma-Sphere has much presence in Europe.
The most transparent equipment you have ever listened to is the Devialet? Really??? For me, this is a classic example of the misunderstanding of detail and transparency. I have three friends who have dabbled with the Devialet (one who owns two different models and another has the monos) and I had the original one for a week. They are certainly detailed but I would not say that they are particularly transparent, certainly not in the breathtaking way an OTL or top SET can be. The friend who has two different models is always reassessing his choice after hearing the AC gear and admits that it is not the same level of performance... not even close really.
I was addressing transparency in the sense of of fidelity to the recording, showing all the details. I posted several times on this thread, this post is a followup, transparency can have very different meanings according to people objectives. The "breathtaking way" implies a manipulation of the recording - that people can enjoy BTW.
The original Devialet was dark and brittle. They did a great work in the last version - not my preferred cup of tea but surely it is now a quality audiophile product. Surely it does not sound like a SET ...
I like this summary. My recent exposure to tweaks such as footers, and different cables and power cords seems consistent with your comments. In fact, I find this thread and the recent thread about tweaks together summarize much of what I have learned about this hobby over the last few years.
I'm curious about your definition of transparency Micro because I see a direct correlation between transparency and "naturalness". Transparency does encompass timber accuracy tonal resolution and depth, along with cues of ambience.
Enhancement and highlighting of certain frequencies is an obvious coloration and the opposite of transparency.
I disagree you're confusing natural detail with overhyped frequencies which is commission of pseudo detail omission of natural and real detail is a negative. Given your examples you probably need to reevaluate your setup, the achilles heel of VTL has always been it's bass reproduction specially low bass which is mostly nonexistent in terms of tone and texture. I can understand them moving more air with your XLF woofers but compared to ML3's bass quality, resolution and richness they're fail miserably. The only reason I mention bass is because it's the most obvious but the same differences are true throughout. Your TA wires also have their own strong coloration specially in the upper bass where VTL's coloration exist, this will double up the exaggeration and pseudo detail while messing up the linear bass response of the ML3.
david
First of all, as we have addressed numerous times, you cannot know if the Devialet has absolute "fidelity to the recording". It shows a lot of details but how much of that is a natural portrayl of the recording and how much is "highlighting" of details that makes them standout unnaturally? I would argue that a lot of the latter is happening... Therefore, IMO, just saying something has a lot of details is not the same as saying it has fidelity to the recording.
You stated clearly that the Devialet is the most transparent equipment that you have knowledge of...you did not state which generation and now you state the first gen was not so good but the latest one is great. I have heard the latest ones and the first one and none of them have fidelity to the sound of real music in real space and so to my ears, while they do indeed have a lot of detail they are not particularly transparent because they do not accurately capture soundstage and imaging and other indicators of true low level resolution. They image relatively flat compared to good SETs we have compared them against and this is an indication of exaggerated highs or high frequency distortion that will also give a sensation of more detail.
A lot of people focus on the dirty window analogy, which is obscuration of detail and don't realize that there is also exaggeration occurring and/or both in a single piece of gear. When you consider this, then the idea of "details" being a key driver for the definition of transparency can be justifiably called into question.
VTL with XLF will give a thick Midbass cutting out on detail (relevant, transparent detail)
To be fair, based on what I see from the Stereophile measurements, the Siegfried II seems to have adquately sized output transformers so I would not necessarily expect an overly thick midbass with this amp. Earlier VTLs definitely had a significant distortion in the midbass giving a somewhat muddy signature (like a lot of underspec'd tube amps).
Devialet are the worst amps of many that I have heard on Martin Logans, Avalon, and Anima. Luckily I have not heard them on other speakers. They don't sound flat compared to good SETs. They sound flat compared to everything I have compared them with, lacking decay and tone.
When a system simply hides and makes disappear some micro detail others show it is hiding something and is less transparent.
We agree, but reducing and darkening others is not transparency also.
You are making the wrong guesses - I am not listening to the Lamm's with Transparent, I am using mostly your cables and Mogami speaker cables. I owned the VTL MB750's and yes, they were poor in tone and texture. The Siegfried II used with the VTL 7.5mk3 is a completely different amplifier , articulated in the bass and having decent extension.
BTW1, I am not using the TA wires, as they are not tuned to these electronics.
BTW2 , I find moving air and decent bass extension needed to my music enjoyment.
BTW3, I appreciate a lot the Lamm's - both the ML3/LL1 and the M1.2/L2. But my appreciation does not make me blind (or deaf
) to what other amplifiers offer.
Easy too believe - I also listened them sounding miserable with Martin Logans and expect them to sound so with Avalon's - Avalon's are great speakers but IMHO need another kind of electronics. People should be aware that Devialet's have a damping of 1000 and almost unbelievable measurements - they are objectively very close to a wire with gain. I do not expect people who think that digital needs tube distortion and noise to sound good to like them - although they try to emulate a class A amplifier they have an ADC at the input!
Surely some amplifiers present more depth than Devialet's, but I have listened to much worst from other SS or tube designs.
I do not expect people who cannot hear Lamm underdrive such big speakers, who cannot hear the muddiness of bass by VTL with the XLF, who think analog and digital are equal, and who like dCS to not like them.
ps: My non Lampi digital favorites are Neodio, MSB, Totaldac, and Aries Cerat.
Similar threads
