Yeah, try your amp without the SBB...why doesn't Octave make this standard? We found their MRE130 monos were pretty weak sounding without the SBBs.
What are the MOST DYNAMIC Tube Amplifiers and Integrateds out there?
- Thread starter caesar
- Start date
Yeah, try your amp without the SBB...why doesn't Octave make this standard? We found their MRE130 monos were pretty weak sounding without the SBBs.
Yes, and the theme is not the tube, but the tube amplifier. A tube does not stand naked and alone, it operates within a context, the amplifier.
Obviously, this does not negate the fact that the design of the tube itself is of the greatest importance as well.
I suppose I agree that the tube needs help, just not with "dynamics." The transformer being its' principle ally. I am not qualified for a discussion of tube design. I can quote others who are. That would be a debate for another thread.
Yes. It would be impractical to put this shoe-box sized capacitor bank into an amp chassis, hence it being a separate unit. The need for it, when it comes to driving speakers, will also depend on the speaker load.
(SBB = Super Black Box)
The website only specifies relative energy storage:
The dynamic and tonal stability of an amplifier is strongly dependent upon the stability and capacity of the power supply, therefore the Black Box and Super Black Box were developed as external upgrades to the OCTAVE amplifiers’ power supply storage capacitors by increasing their capacitance by a factor of 4 (Black Box) or 10 (Super Black Box), respectively.
CAT is mentioned a lot and a wholeheartedly agree , but I would say a preamp contributes a lot to the end result as well .
What also matters regarding amp choice imo is what music do you like , and if you use the system for home cinema
Marc Michaelson of soundstage did a nice review on the LAMM ml 3 and compared it to some other high quality tubes CAT , Atmasphere.
http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/revequip/lamm_ml3_signature.htm
Here is a copy paste of the reviewpart of the ML3 compared to the others regarding power and dynamics , speakers were WA X2.
But there are similarities and there are improvements, and the ML3 Signature amps are firmly rooted in the latter. They simply offer more -- more midrange detail, more bass depth and liquidity, more transient speed and definition. The change from a different company's amplifier to the ML3 Signature may be startling, but transition from the ML2.1s to the ML3 Signature will seem completely understandable; the former will get you ready for the latter -- like a fireworks display that leads to a grand finale that absolutely fills the sky with light.
The Atma-Sphere MA-2 Mk III also has an impressive midrange, but it's very different from that of the ML3 Signature. With the Atma-Sphere amp, it's transparency, the proverbial missing window between the equipment and the music, that will draw the "oooh's" and "ahhh's." This is even more attention-grabbing than the ML3 Signature's midrange detail. The tubes driving the speakers with no output transformer in the way is something you have to hear to appreciate. The Atma-Sphere amps are certainly more powerful than the ML3 Signatures, but not noticeably so unless you clip the Lamm amps. The Atma-Sphere amps also handle transient attack in a decisive manner -- without blur or rounding. The bass of both is good for tube amps, but the ML3 Signature's low frequencies are a little better integrated into the spectrum of sound the amp produces.
The CAT JL2 Signature Mk 2 is in the middle in terms of power -- 100Wpc -- and it's a stereo amp, but that one chassis can pound out the music with greater authority than most amps I've heard -- and better than any tube amp. But it's not about sheer power, providing finesse and a big, meaty midrange. The ML3 Signature doesn't keep up with the JL2 Signature Mk 2 in terms of output power, perceived or real; the CAT amp might be suitable for any speaker on the market. But the resolving midrange of the Lamm amps does make the mids of the CAT sound overly juicy, obscuring some of the detail the Lamm amps retrieve with seeming ease. The CAT amp has all of the earmarks of its triode nature and none of the limitations of that operating mode, while the Lamm amps build upon some of triodes strengths, especially the midrange, while ceding no ground at the frequency extremes.
The real winner in this lineup is the Lamm ML2.1, which stands on its own between the Atma-Sphere and CAT amps, has sonic resemblance to the ML3 Signature, and is in the middle of the pack in terms of price. If the ML3 Signature has you both crazy with lust and lamenting your financial state, the ML2.1 is a sane alternative, although in this case sanity is all in the mind of the beholder.
What also matters regarding amp choice imo is what music do you like , and if you use the system for home cinema
Marc Michaelson of soundstage did a nice review on the LAMM ml 3 and compared it to some other high quality tubes CAT , Atmasphere.
http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/revequip/lamm_ml3_signature.htm
Here is a copy paste of the reviewpart of the ML3 compared to the others regarding power and dynamics , speakers were WA X2.
But there are similarities and there are improvements, and the ML3 Signature amps are firmly rooted in the latter. They simply offer more -- more midrange detail, more bass depth and liquidity, more transient speed and definition. The change from a different company's amplifier to the ML3 Signature may be startling, but transition from the ML2.1s to the ML3 Signature will seem completely understandable; the former will get you ready for the latter -- like a fireworks display that leads to a grand finale that absolutely fills the sky with light.
The Atma-Sphere MA-2 Mk III also has an impressive midrange, but it's very different from that of the ML3 Signature. With the Atma-Sphere amp, it's transparency, the proverbial missing window between the equipment and the music, that will draw the "oooh's" and "ahhh's." This is even more attention-grabbing than the ML3 Signature's midrange detail. The tubes driving the speakers with no output transformer in the way is something you have to hear to appreciate. The Atma-Sphere amps are certainly more powerful than the ML3 Signatures, but not noticeably so unless you clip the Lamm amps. The Atma-Sphere amps also handle transient attack in a decisive manner -- without blur or rounding. The bass of both is good for tube amps, but the ML3 Signature's low frequencies are a little better integrated into the spectrum of sound the amp produces.
The CAT JL2 Signature Mk 2 is in the middle in terms of power -- 100Wpc -- and it's a stereo amp, but that one chassis can pound out the music with greater authority than most amps I've heard -- and better than any tube amp. But it's not about sheer power, providing finesse and a big, meaty midrange. The ML3 Signature doesn't keep up with the JL2 Signature Mk 2 in terms of output power, perceived or real; the CAT amp might be suitable for any speaker on the market. But the resolving midrange of the Lamm amps does make the mids of the CAT sound overly juicy, obscuring some of the detail the Lamm amps retrieve with seeming ease. The CAT amp has all of the earmarks of its triode nature and none of the limitations of that operating mode, while the Lamm amps build upon some of triodes strengths, especially the midrange, while ceding no ground at the frequency extremes.
The real winner in this lineup is the Lamm ML2.1, which stands on its own between the Atma-Sphere and CAT amps, has sonic resemblance to the ML3 Signature, and is in the middle of the pack in terms of price. If the ML3 Signature has you both crazy with lust and lamenting your financial state, the ML2.1 is a sane alternative, although in this case sanity is all in the mind of the beholder.
Last edited:
Similar threads
