ying and yang--Lamm ML3 and darTZeel 458

[Mike Lavigne]

+1

I keep banging on my analytical framework drum that musical preference drives the answer to many of these questions.

one does not buy Pendragons or MM7's with a large space to avoid large scale music, you buy them to revel and luxuriate in large scale music. take the top off the limits of music reproduction. but not everyone values that sort of music the same way.

yet even with those type speakers, you want to optimize the more intimate scaled stuff too. and that's when it gets complicated. lot's of decisions to make. and when I hear something like what the ML3's do at their best, i have a hard time not wanting it. but the delta for what that other amp choice does for intimate music has to be large enough to connect the dots for multiple amplifiers. and then there is always just wanting that different 'tube' sort of sound too. there are many viewpoints about it.

for me, my musical preference has always been 'every type'. but practically speaking what that requires is to have a room, system and speaker concept that is capable of large scale music, then figure out how to get the more intimate stuff to work.

this is not a chicken and egg discussion. we clearly know what comes first. there is only one general way to get 'big music reproduction' done right.

 

[bonzo75]

The problem of amplifiers using many tubes can be strong mismatching of tubes. As long as you use close matched tubes - mandatory in ARC amplifiers - you just get a more powerful tube. Since long I match tubes in my amplifiers - even with the VTLs - 12 x 6550 each. It was not needed, but I felt is sounded better.

The XLF is an easy load - although not as easy as the old Grand Slamm. I could play them easily with the ARC REF150's or the Jadis Defy7. However when I try them with more powerful amplifiers scale and easiness increase. But as far as speakers can show this type of large scale I found that this happens with almost any speaker. Even Avantgarde Trios ...

AG themselves recommend 150w class A for the trios. Have heard on them Audionote 9w (didn't work properly), Airtight 9w (was quite good falling short a bit on bass drive), and their own was good. Ideal match would have been one that had good tone and AG drive. Btw my Dag experience was on X2S2, not XLF. And I think it is more than just amps, it is also driver alignment. That guy had got it just right, all tuned with Opus cabling.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Ron you have travelled the world to hear an enourmous variety of amps/systems .
If anyone should know it would be you.?:b

 

[Al M.]

Mono block benefit is mainly in the powersupply , besides that i dont value the better channel separation idea as being true bonus .

My recent experience would support this argument. People have positively commented on my holographic soundstage in the past (also on my system thread), with my old PP triode monoblocks. My new Octave RE320 stereo amp is just as good at creating the soundstage.

It does have a very beefy power supply which can fully take advantage of the KT150 tubes. The Octave MRE130 monoblocks, the next model up in price, cannot support these tubes, while the MRE220 monoblocks with their bigger power supply can. But then, they are double the price of my stereo amp.

 

[microstrip]

AG themselves recommend 150w class A for the trios. Have heard on them Audionote 9w (didn't work properly), Airtight 9w (was quite good falling short a bit on bass drive), and their own was good. Ideal match would have been one that had good tone and AG drive. Btw my Dag experience was on X2S2, not XLF. And I think it is more than just amps, it is also driver alignment. That guy had got it just right, all tuned with Opus cabling.

I also like the XLF - D´Agostino Momentum full system - probably one of my preferred XLF configurations. But they are too expensive in Europe and unfortunately the integrated is very far from the full system.

 

[PeterA]

So, how far are we going w the multiple choice scenario? I mean Tang, Christian and Dave are all in for multiple tts, arms, carts, phonos.
The more the merrier, you can’t have enough, a different sound for every mood.
Now Mike is aiming to try and reconcile multiple amps, Darts and tubes if he can get the tube amps option to really suit him.
Again so that the music shines in different ways.
Who’s going to go the real extra mile and run multiple spkrs choices, maybe tubes and horns, SS and SOTA cones eg Mike’s EAs, and even a seperate uber high power SS like some vintage Krell monos from the 90s and restored Apogees?

Bonzo has been doing this for years. It's just with other people's systems.

 

[Ron Resnick]

one does not buy Pendragons or MM7's with a large space to avoid large scale music, you buy them to revel and luxuriate in large scale music. take the top off the limits of music reproduction. but not everyone values that sort of music the same way.

yet even with those type speakers, you want to optimize the more intimate scaled stuff too. and that's when it gets complicated. lot's of decisions to make. and when I hear something like what the ML3's do at their best, i have a hard time not wanting it. but the delta for what that other amp choice does for intimate music has to be large enough to connect the dots for multiple amplifiers. and then there is always just wanting that different 'tube' sort of sound too. there are many viewpoints about it.

for me, my musical preference has always been 'every type'. but practically speaking what that requires is to have a room, system and speaker concept that is capable of large scale music, then figure out how to get the more intimate stuff to work.

this is not a chicken and egg discussion. we clearly know what comes first. there is only one general way to get 'big music reproduction' done right.

That all makes sense to me, especially since you enjoy all types of music.

If the system can achieve success with the most complicated and challenging music, then it should be a relatively easy mission to allow the same system to achieve the same success with simpler, less challenging music.

I do like very much certain big classical pieces. I do want the system to be able to reproduce that kind of music in a convincing way.

However, in the context of this thread this means for me that if I listened primarily to big symphony orchestra classical music, I would focus on the 458s. If I listened primarily to the music I do typically listen to I would focus on the ML3s.

Since you want the system to be able to excel with both the complex orchestral music and the simpler acoustic/jazz music it makes perfect sense to me that you would want both amplifiers.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

That all makes sense to me, especially since you enjoy all types of music.

If the system can achieve success with the most complicated and challenging music, then it should be a relatively easy mission to allow the same system to achieve the same success with simpler, less challenging music.

I do like very much certain big classical pieces. I do want the system to be able to reproduce that kind of music in a convincing way.

However, in the context of this thread this means for me that if I listened primarily to big symphony orchestra classical music, I would focus on the 458s. If I listened primarily to the music I do typically listen to I would focus on the ML3s.

Since you want the system to be able to excel with both the complex orchestral music and the simpler acoustic/jazz music it makes perfect sense to me that you would want both amplifiers.

well my friend, I regret to inform you that.........for you ........the room and system scale ship has already sailed, and you are totally on it. no turning back from your room and Pendragons now. so embrace large scale music.

it's more than a little late to narrow your view to intimate music primarily.

 

[NorthStar]

... there is only one general way to get 'big music reproduction' done right.

On a grand scale and on a smaller one there are many variations, as the number of venues worldwide, to accomplish the art of music reproduction.

...More than "only one general way" ... in my opinion.

What is right and what is wrong we are all free to analyse, discuss, interpret, evaluate, agree, disagree, vote on, live with, advance for the best, without bifurcation, without knowing it all, without complication, ... with solid fundamentals in the science of music reproduction. There is no absolution but resolution.

Just passing through.

 

[Ron Resnick]

well my friend, I regret to inform you that.........for you ........the room and system scale ship has already sailed, and you are totally on it. no turning back from your room and Pendragons now. so embrace large scale music.

it's more than a little late to narrow your view to intimate music primarily.

Listening to big loudspeakers systems taught me that I love the scale and height thing. The only toggle switch I am flipping is in the direction of prioritizing the magic of tubes for vocals/jazz (ML3) rather than the magic of solid-state for untangling complex classical (458).

 

[microstrip]

Listening to big loudspeakers systems taught me that I love the scale and height thing. The only toggle switch I am flipping is in the direction of prioritizing the magic of tubes for vocals/jazz (ML3) rather than the magic of solid-state for untangling complex classical (458).

Your speakers have ribbons and you want life scale voices - you will need serious power, believe me!

 

[Tango]

Your speakers have ribbons and you want life scale voices - you will need serious power, believe me!

Mr.Bonzo would say to Ron get the Dartz and a few sets of Mooks and be done with it.

Tang

 

[microstrip]

Your speakers have ribbons and you want life scale voices - you will need serious power, believe me!

After that I would consider that " Aesthetix Callisto Eclipse Linestage - Callisto is an all-tube linestage suitable for the most demanding audio systems and listeners. Fully balanced circuitry from input to output, including internal balancing of single-ended inputs, results in common mode signal rejection and cleaner sound. " and would consider only balanced input amplifiers or adding an unbalancing high quality transformer, such as the famous Intercitor (Flex Connect) . http://smcaudio.com/products/flex-connect/. Otherwise you will be sending away two thirds of your Eclipse.

 

[Folsom]

Christian, I heard the 450s on Magico S5s for several hours locally at a dealer (and of course on a more limited basis at the shows with Von Schweikert and Magico). I've also owned several Vac amplifiers (the Phi 200 and the famous $25k Phi Beta integrated).

Despite my want to like Vac, I usually find them more SS-like in nature but without the drive of SS. They also didn't flesh out the midrange or were as open as I prefer. On the S5s, I really was clamoring for bigger, tighter bass and the dealer wanted me to come back and hear on Soulution. On the Phi 200, honestly my McIntosh monoblocks sounded similar and didn't uses a score of tubes so I punted - even in the holography characteristic they were comparable. I think the Phi series may have been a weak spot for Vac as I've heard they are much better now - in particular the new 200s. I have not heard those amps isolated enough to tell.

But for Mike's system on a highly efficient speaker, I'd rather choose a simple PP amplifier than a mass tetrode one - it will likely be clearer and sound better. Note what Dev (WBF member) uses after he sold off his entire Vac Statement setup to mate with AGs (and its not SET).

I think one of the problems is people assume high power is automatically better and alot of that has to do with price - 100k huge tube monos have to sound better! In tube land, I have not found that to be the case at all. In fact, the opposite has been true. Iirc, Audio Research will tell you the 250s are more transparent than the 750s. I believe Priaptor posted that the GS150 was his favorite sound ARC amplifier vs the others. DaveyF I believe has said the Jadis 30s are better in his experience than higher Jadis amps.

In short, I'd find a set of KT150 monoblocks with as few tubes as possible that will drive the speaker.

Tubes hate to interact together. Matching tubes helps a lot, but the reality is they prefer to have as few as possible per channel, to reduce problems that require compensation. They are on a bell curve from the design perspective. I would never expect tube amps with a lot of tubes to actually be better than smaller ones with fewer tubes - there is no legitimate reason. The gains experienced from going bigger power with big tubes amps is all about making the speakers shine. It's more ideal to have a powerful tube amp with a few really big tubes, but as everyone knows there isn't really much available worth using.

 

[morricab]

one does not buy Pendragons or MM7's with a large space to avoid large scale music, you buy them to revel and luxuriate in large scale music. take the top off the limits of music reproduction. but not everyone values that sort of music the same way.

yet even with those type speakers, you want to optimize the more intimate scaled stuff too. and that's when it gets complicated. lot's of decisions to make. and when I hear something like what the ML3's do at their best, i have a hard time not wanting it. but the delta for what that other amp choice does for intimate music has to be large enough to connect the dots for multiple amplifiers. and then there is always just wanting that different 'tube' sort of sound too. there are many viewpoints about it.

for me, my musical preference has always been 'every type'. but practically speaking what that requires is to have a room, system and speaker concept that is capable of large scale music, then figure out how to get the more intimate stuff to work.

this is not a chicken and egg discussion. we clearly know what comes first. there is only one general way to get 'big music reproduction' done right.

But, I think Ron listens mostly to small music and yet he bought Pendragons and wants big power on them...so much for the theory of the music drives the gear choice...

I have noticed it is often the 180 degrees the other way...the gear one owns tends to drive the music preferences at least on that system.

 

[bonzo75]

Your speakers have ribbons and you want life scale voices - you will need serious power, believe me!

Exactly, power is required for voices, not only complex loud orchestras. You can't get the soar of a baritone/tenor without power, the steadiness in tone, on such speakers

 

[jazdoc]

I had the great pleasure of listening to the VAC and Lamm's at Mike's last night. The VAC's are excellent; terrific bass (better than the Darts) and the power reserve to handle all dynamic passages. The overall character is actually quite similar to the Darts with a slight tube flavor. My one question is how much more performance would rolling in NOS 6sn7 tubes compared to the stock Psvane tubes? OTOH, it would be a tall order finding 10 matched NOS tubes!

The ML3's are more liquid, with more tone color and even better bass; perhaps the best bass I've ever heard. We did hit their dynamic limits a couple of times during our session. The highlight was the tape of Miles Davis "At The Blackhawk"...spooky good!

 

[spiritofmusic]

So, we’re kind of full circle again. Tubes do a whole host of things differently to, and arguably better than, the Darts. Namely bass, texture, “thereness”.
The Darts keep going when the tubes want to wobble, ie they just keep control.
As suspected, this’ll do nothing to resolve any bragging rights.
My guess is Mike will keep the Darts and a tube amp. The q is, if the Lamms are sufficiently divergent from, and the Vacs more akin to, the Darts, surely the Lamms are the obvious choice.

 

[caesar]

So, we’re kind of full circle again. Tubes do a whole host of things differently to, and arguably better than, the Darts. Namely bass, texture, “thereness”.
The Darts keep going when the tubes want to wobble, ie they just keep control.
As suspected, this’ll do nothing to resolve any bragging rights.
My guess is Mike will keep the Darts and a tube amp. The q is, if the Lamms are sufficiently divergent from, and the Vacs more akin to, the Darts, surely the Lamms are the obvious choice.

Audiophile words and "accuracy" aside, I wonder which combination is the most emotionally enchanting combination that puts Mike and his guests in the state of flow...

 

[marty]

Mike
I’ve certainly enjoyed this thread and as usual it has prompted considerable contemplation and learnings. If my take is correct, you mentioned in post #420 that the ML3 bass was “addicting, with a great sense of authority”. In post #620, you suggested, the bass was overall more “weighty” with the Lamms. I thought these comments regarding timbral difference between the ML3 and the 458s were interesting, especially in light of Fremer’s recent comments. He actually used the word “thin” in describing the lower register of the 458 in comparison to the Ypsilon’s he reviewed recently.

It’s not hard to understand that while most amps are “ruler flat” on the bench, timbral differences might appear when a given amp drives a speaker with a specific reactive impedance. Thus two superb amps of difference design may each have a certain sonic character with a given speaker. So my question is this. Since one of the strengths of the MM7 is the ability to “fine tune” the speaker’s sound through adjustments on the rear of the speaker, is it possible to provide some of the “weighty-ness” conferred by the ML3s, by speaker adjustment when using the 458s? Or is this simply something not worthy of pursuit?

And good grief man, I'm trying my best to catch up on this thread and now you're on to the VACs! No flies on you, buddy.
Marty