ying and yang--Lamm ML3 and darTZeel 458
- Thread starter Mike Lavigne
- Start date
My experience with NAT is that they don't sound dark...full yes, dark no. My Symbiosis SE had slightly reticent treble but it didn't lend itself to a "dark" overall character interestingly enough. There is more to a dark tonality than just slightly reticent highs. My NAT Plasma doesn't sound rolled off or bright...but still tonally full. Great preamp.
Agreed, most tube amps are no better than most SS amps...all unnatural sounding but usually in different ways. I would go so far as to say that only SET has the potential to get closest to what our ear/brain considers natural...I know that rubs a lot (most) owners of other technologies the wrong way but that is the way I hear it and what the psychoacoustics suggests as well. I suspect the Darts will get less and less usage over time...
But according to you, he should forget tube and buy CH Precision, no? Have you compared CH Precision to the big Lamm or Dart by chance?
Yes, and they sound like crap compared to NOS ones (which are very hard to find now). I heard this once in a BAT demo. However, I actually found that NOS 6N6P sounded MUCH better than the stock Sovteks in my Ayon Crossfire III. It was no contest as it turned the amp from sounding a bit solid state(ish) to really opening up and gaining dimensionality and finesse and a better tonal balance.
ok. been listening for the last 2-3 hours to the ML3's......best 'hard' decision I ever made. but still work to do......
to start off with, had a crackling tube in one channel, went through replacing first the -4- 6N30P's, then the GM 70, and finally the 12ax7 which it seems was the culprit. so one channel has all the new set I got as back ups. i'll go back and re-insert the original 6N30P's and GM 70 to see if it was just the 12ax7 so my 'new' set is kept fresh for when they are needed.....like tonight. now I have a good excuse to splurge for that NOS Telefunken replacement set.now 3 hours in no more crackles. fingers crossed.
thank you David for the hand holding, and giving me some answers and clear steps to take. a learning process. (I think David is more excited
and, of course, there is some noise (hum, tube rush, or whatever) when the music is not playing. I messed around with things and lowered it somewhat, but for the first night with a new tube amp it's par for the course and what I would have expected. could be a number of things and the dart 458's set the bar impossibly high in that area and no tube amp is going to equal that. but I know we can do better, although there is no musical consequence I can hear. so that's the bad stuff. pleasantly; it was very easy to change the cables from the darts to the ML3. I thought it might take 20 minutes. it took 5-6 minutes. so in the time either amp drains their power supplies I can switch the cables. bodes well for group sessions. it won't be anything to stress over. and a good little work out.
the sound is heavenly. and the synergy between my system and the ML3's is about perfect. the bass is absolutely coherent, the top end is extended and everything else is astonishing. the ML3's are total space machines, and have lots of weight and power down low. i'd say there is more 'apparent weight' to the ML3's than the darts......until the ML3 reach the limits of their performance envelope.....at which point the darts are just getting going and soar without limits.
in some ways the total lack of any sort of dynamic limitation to my room is frustrating with the ML3's since the room supports however far you want to push things, but the ML3's can only go so far. but that limit is quite high, but there definitely is one in my particular system. it's almost 1 am on a work night, and i'm still listening. i'm awestruck. the ML3's do every kind of music, right now i'm listening to Beethoven's 7th Symphony, and it's all there. yes; the throttle is a bit more conservative than I might consider with the darts......but there is no lessening of energy i'm hearing. all the space is there. and there is an added flow and 'suspension of disbelief' to the music. it's more dimensional and compelling. the view into the inner musical truth and emotional content is addicting.
these are first impressions in the honeymoon context of a new toy. we need a few back and forth's between the two amplifiers and a bit of time and perspective to really get a feel for how this will be. right now i'm under the spell.
Hi Mike,
Haven't congratulated you yet on your Lamms, so... CONGRATS! I withhold any further commentary until you have had a chance to really digest what you are getting with the Lamms vs. the Darts. Suffice to say, I have been wondering how long it would be until you saw the (inner) light!
. I have been a true SET man since 2005 and despite trying other tech after that could never get a more natural sound with other amplification types.Morricab,
I disagree with such name calling of standard 6h30 tubes, at less with ARC equipment. Many years ago I have tried 6H30 (sovtek) and 6H30DR (NOS) in the ARC REF5 and CD8. They sounded similar, a slight preference for the DR, and IMHO the difference is hyped - it was much less than changing a power cord or an interconnect cable. And probably sometimes people compare them with eBay or similarly sourced tubes ...
The 6H30's need burn-in - during the first 50-100 hours they have noise in the very low frequencies, that is not heard as listenable noise but significantly affects subjective sound quality.
Most of the differences people listen when changing tubes is due to different trans-conductance in the new tubes, that affects gain. They are not listening at the same acoustic level when comparing them without volume compensation. When measuring the 6H30DR I found that they had a 20% higher trans-conductance, and were much closely matched than standard tubes - a characteristic that is fundamental for example for the Lamm LL1, that uses 8 triodes in parallel. Manufacturers that sell selected tubes at higher prices usually take care of these aspects.
Although I am a firm believer in audiophile "magic", there is still a lot that can be explained with a tube analyzer and an audio spectrometer.
As a general comment, I fail to understand how people can take decisions in short time A/B tube "shootouts" - tubes need a significant warm-up time after being powered, even if the equipment is warm. Surely IMHO, YMMV.
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
well if you consider that I bought it as it was recommended by Vlad then the answer is yes.
I guess you misunderstood. The ML3 comes stock with carbon plate GM 70 but Vlad had an extra 6 sets of perfectly matched GM 70 copper plate which was available to anyone. He uses a set, as do I and David and a few others. To me Vlad was offering either with the ML3. I bought both. If I had only bought the copper plate does that count as tube rolling..
You can buy GM 70 copper plate but none as good as the 6 pair Vlad had at the onset
First, Victor Komenkho felt it was important enough to get NOS 6N30s that he bought a large % of the world's stock...a big move to make unless you are convinced the NOS tubes are way better than the new ones. You can disagree with the name calling all you want...there is plenty of listening evidence that it matters...it is also the reason guys like Lukasz from Lampizator felt it was necessary to go with the 6N6P instead...i have to agree with him that these do sound much better than new 6N30s...at least in my Ayon it was a no brainer.
Second, you make a lot of assumptions about what I have done in my system. There was no quick A/B...it was months of one then months of the other and then back again for a couple of weeks and then finally back to the 6N6P tubes and sighing "ah, that's better". You also assume that the levels weren't matched. I always match when i do critical listening...call me a scientist but I like to control variables.
I actually believe that most of it can be explained with data if you get sufficient resolution of the harmonic spectrum and take seriously all harmonics present AND apply the correct psychoacoustic weighting (things that D.E.L Shorter from BBC or Daniel Cheever have proposed to give the correct "perceptual balance" on the raw numbers). Without this weighting, it is difficult to understand how tiny, high order or noise modulated components can impact sound quality. There is no "magic", only science but ALL the data has to be used and correctly.
I was quite young then, yes. I am glad for you really...I just really struggle to understand it because I have heard CH precision many times and it never even once made me doubt that a good SET was better. You seem convinced, which is fine, but I cannot get there for whatever reason...maybe if I heard your system i would change my mind...I am always open to the possiblity; however, so far i remain not only unconvinced but unimpressed with what I have heard.
Ok, but I consider going from "stock" carbon plates to copper plates tube rolling. How do you know that you cannot find ones as good or better than what Vlad had if you don't buy some off the open market to compare? I admit it is unnecessary other than idle curiosity but still, I have learned not to take manufacturers at face value...no matter how talented or big their reputation is.
For example, I like a lot of the writings and philosophy espoused by Nelson Pass but to be honest, his gear always fails to impress me. Now, I haven't heard a FirstWatt, which is closest in philosophy to a simple, well executed SET in some cases, but his normal Pass stuff always leaves me wondering what all the fuss is about. IMO, his main gear doesn't walk the walk of his talk.
For Lamm, I have been both very impressed and occasionally less so. With the Lamm ML2 (and its successors) i was very impressed...also the ML1.1 for a push/pull amp is superb. I am surprised that more is not made of the ML1.1 with it's honest 80 watts or so of power and really nice tonality...I would put it up against the Jadis amps any day of the week (and Jadis is one of the few PP tube amps I really think sound ok). However, I do not find the hybrids at the same exalted level...not sure what it is but not as natural and easy flowing. I haven't heard the ML3 yet but I am sure it is right up my alley in terms of the SQ. Would love to hear them one day.
Mike,
Congrats on the new gear! I like the idea of having options to but need a bigger room first. I can't explain why but I also had a hum when I connected the Nagra HD amps and it got a little better when I upgraded the from the stock power cords to Transparent XL and virtually went away after I grounded everything with the Elite. Are you connecting the ML3 to the Elite? Looks like you have a great place to listen!
Dave
Congrats on the new gear! I like the idea of having options to but need a bigger room first. I can't explain why but I also had a hum when I connected the Nagra HD amps and it got a little better when I upgraded the from the stock power cords to Transparent XL and virtually went away after I grounded everything with the Elite. Are you connecting the ML3 to the Elite? Looks like you have a great place to listen!
Dave
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
well you're right but TBH I don't care. If Vlad recommends them then that is what I will buy especially if he is using them himself as is David
Lastly there is someone who has ML3's and has tried different copper plated GM-70's but none sounded as good as the 6 matched pair Vlad had
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
I have zero noise with my ML3's and I attribute this (rightly or wrongly) to
1. Use of the Tele NOS ECC803's
2.I firmly believe that the best sound obtained from the ML3 Signature is in conjunction with the matching Lamm Signature preamp (LL1/LL1.1) where the output impedance of the preamp is matched to the input impedance of the ML3
3. As MikeL suggested I also believe that the proper choice of cabling also helps
To MikeL do you have the NF loop turned off
Morricab,
I reported my direct opinion about 6H30 when used with ARC and some of findings with my measurements. It was DaveyF main concern. Sorry if I am not interested at all on 6NP's, and was not addressing your long listening time in my general comments.
I have interest in what is explained and presented with relevance to current SOTA high-end. As far as I saw in past, the D. Chever work is a Master of Science in Electrical Engineering presenting "rudimentary exploration with a varied listening panel of five people" (author words). Do you know if this research is being continued?
The X2's are 94 dB/W - 3 dB lower than the ML7's, so you will always have less noise. And probably Mike will improve his system in this aspect at a short time!
Although I also believe that Lamm L1.1 is the ideal partner to Lamm amplifiers it has nothing to do with "matched impedance". The ML3 impedance (41kohm, SE) matches 99% of the preamplifiers!
Ok, fine; however, you didn't really explain what you meant by "your measurements". What measurements did you make and with what kind of equipment?
i do not think Cheever ever followed up on his master's work. However, it is consistent with other work done in the field (mostly well in the past) and more recently by Geddes et al. IMO, this is of supreme importance to current SOTA high-end. I have heard far too many high priced "high end" systems that simply sounded wrong to realize that pricincles of psychoacoustics are generally not being followed but the bling and price paradigms are in full control of the market.
Similar threads
