ying and yang--Lamm ML3 and darTZeel 458

[PeterA]

Not to speak for Mike but I think you are missing his point in saying he "cannot be right." To me its kinda like this:

Real Music = X

Your view: A+B+C+D = Y and because Y = X + Z; Y can not equal X.

Mike's view: A+B+C+D = Y but in his system Z approaches 0; so therefor Y approaches X.

Of course a system is a combination of the all of it's sub-components but that in isolation is not proof Z will is incapable of approaching zero when such components are combined in an optimized fashion. In theory, theory and practice are the same unless they are different. In practice they are different unless they are the same.

That is extremely interesting. Are you really saying that in Mike's view, Z approaches 0? He does certainly write that one of his goals is for the system to disappear and leave only the music. I always assumed by this that he meant the information embedded in the recording. Perhaps Mike can clarify this if I am mistaken. It must get to the heart of what motivates him in his quest.

I don't read comments from Mike that suggest that he thinks his system sounds like real music. It may very well sound like the real thing, but real music is not his reference, or at least he does not write much about this. He has written that he uses his system, other systems, and his recordings as his reference over time, and gauges success and improvement by increased amounts of "musical truth" and his perception of his system disappearing. I assume that means he hears more of what is on the recording when he changes something and considers it an improvement. This is my interpretation of Mike's approach, and I would welcome being corrected if I am misstating it.

Bonzo, Jazzdoc, Ron, and many others have heard and love Mike's system. I have not read many comments that the symphony or jazz quartet sounds like live music. The comments are about other things. Perhaps I am mistaken and have missed such comments.

 

[Folsom]

Seriously, from where do you get the "slightly less that 0db gain of the DartZheel"?

From the DartZeel manual.

 

[bonzo75]

Bonzo, Jazzdoc, Ron, and many others have heard and love Mike's system. I have not read many comments that the symphony or jazz quartet sounds like live music. The comments are about other things. Perhaps I am mistaken and have missed such comments.

It's the closest to live music among audiophile systems I have heard. How does one decide what is like live music? People accept their own systems for what they are. You don't know if, on a scale of 0 to 100, 100 being live, if your system falls at 10 or 90. You will only know this by listening to other systems. And the ranking on that scale will keep changing, if you thought your system was 90 when you heard no other system, it could fall down to 60 after listening to others. So mike's is the closest to that 100. I have heard B's 9th many times, including conducted by Haitink and MTT, among others, with LSO. The Solti's 9th at Mike's takes away nothing - every note just lifts you and takes you away, and the more complex it grows, the more the room expands and you are there. And that is an average recording.

Yes, Mike himself does not use real music as a reference. However, I have previously met some MCH specialists, who specialize in setting up home theatre. They talk measurements and bass settings way more scientifically than an 2-CH guy I have heard (or, given my lack of knowledge that might not be accurate), and they do not set up their systems for music. However, on certain music they sound way more real than many 2CH systems. Because their setting has been accurate.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

That is extremely interesting. Are you really saying that in Mike's view, Z approaches 0? He does certainly write that one of his goals is for the system to disappear and leave only the music. I always assumed by this that he meant the information embedded in the recording. Perhaps Mike can clarify this if I am mistaken. It must get to the heart of what motivates him in his quest.

I don't read comments from Mike that suggest that he thinks his system sounds like real music. It may very well sound like the real thing, but real music is not his reference, or at least he does not write much about this. He has written that he uses his system, other systems, and his recordings as his reference over time, and gauges success and improvement by increased amounts of "musical truth" and his perception of his system disappearing. I assume that means he hears more of what is on the recording when he changes something and considers it an improvement. This is my interpretation of Mike's approach, and I would welcome being corrected if I am misstating it.

Bonzo, Jazzdoc, Ron, and many others have heard and love Mike's system. I have not read many comments that the symphony or jazz quartet sounds like live music. The comments are about other things. Perhaps I am mistaken and have missed such comments.

pretty deep stuff. it's been 45 years since I took Differential Equations in College.

I think that a system can be capable of allowing full orchestral or large scale rock or whatever to have each musical thread be fully represented as to what is on the recording, yet not be 'just like' live music.

'live music' and 'complete large scale music reproduction' are different things. oh and BTW; I likely prefer the complete large scale music reproduction to most of my actual large scale 'live music' experiences (not medicated).

anyway; this kind of stuff really gets mostly into references, and preferences. what you hear gets all the way there, until you hear it get farther the way there. there are no absolutes.

what was interesting, was to hear the big VAC's and then hear the darts expose what the VAC's were not able to do on big music. if you did not have the reference of the darts in a system able to allow them to breathe you might not understand what is missing.

 

[marty]

Mike, I've read about three systems with the ML3s: yours, Steve's, and David's. You describe the ML3s as starting to run out of power on the most demanding music at loud volumes in your system, and that the Darts do not have this issue. I have not read of that complaint about the ML3s in either Steve's or David's system. Is it possible that the ML3s do not run out of power on the most demanding music at loud volumes in their systems, or do you really feel strongly that these amps sound the best they possibly can only in your own system?

EDIT: Having read more of the thread, I now see that you have addressed this issue and that your statement is not one of fact, but only a feeling on your part. I am still curious to know though, if the ML3s run out of power under any circumstances in those other systems.

I'm privileged to be someone who has heard all 3 systems. David's, Steve's and Mike's. They are all superb in their own way. But when you start to compare them to "musical truth", it becomes counterproductive. It's sort of like watching Kurosawa's classic film, Rashomon. Which version of the truth is the "real" truth? The answer is so obvious it becomes pointless to ask the question.

 

[analogsa]

From the DartZeel manual.

+10db as measured by Stereophile. Do you seriously think that a statement preamp will have no gain?

 

[cjfrbw]

I'm privileged to be someone who has heard all 3 systems. David's, Steve's and Mike's. They are all superb in their own way. But when you start to compare them to "musical truth", it becomes counterproductive. It's sort of like watching Kurosawa's classic film, Rashomon. Which version of the truth is the "real" truth? The answer is so obvious it becomes pointless to ask the question.

Heh, Heh!

 

[Folsom]

+10db as measured by Stereophile. Do you seriously think that a statement preamp will have no gain?

Why do you assume it would? If it's not tube based there is no inherit reason it would. It's easier to pass signal without changing the sound in solid state, without gain. It's not like gain is some sorta feature people doll out money for.

But now I'm just lost, why does the manufacturers manual say something different? Anyway, 17db from the Lamm might still help.

 

[Pb Blimp]

i don't have the technical chops to really get into amplifier design, but the darts break the mold of 'big' solid state in a number of ways, mostly with the relative simplicity of the signal path. and with darTZeel gear in general you hear music, and not a circuit topology type. been saying and writing that for years. i came to darTZeel from my love affair with the tubed 75 watt Tenor OTL's with a passive Placette volume control as my sonic direction. linear tubes and a preamp 'not there'. and the darts honored that sonic perspective and added lower noise, more frequency extension and more ability to control a speaker.

so my respect for tubes is part of my sonic DNA, and an SET most mimics the Tenor OTL's (and is even better at some things) from my perspective.

That is extremely interesting. Are you really saying that in Mike's view, Z approaches 0? He does certainly write that one of his goals is for the system to disappear and leave only the music. I always assumed by this that he meant the information embedded in the recording. Perhaps Mike can clarify this if I am mistaken. It must get to the heart of what motivates him in his quest.

I don't read comments from Mike that suggest that he thinks his system sounds like real music. It may very well sound like the real thing, but real music is not his reference, or at least he does not write much about this. He has written that he uses his system, other systems, and his recordings as his reference over time, and gauges success and improvement by increased amounts of "musical truth" and his perception of his system disappearing. I assume that means he hears more of what is on the recording when he changes something and considers it an improvement. This is my interpretation of Mike's approach, and I would welcome being corrected if I am misstating it.

Bonzo, Jazzdoc, Ron, and many others have heard and love Mike's system. I have not read many comments that the symphony or jazz quartet sounds like live music. The comments are about other things. Perhaps I am mistaken and have missed such comments.

I was referencing Mikes bolded comment above (whatever that may mean to Mike). This would also be the "musical truth" you refer to above (again assuming it reflects Mikes view). In any case, the primary point of my post was that, IMO, system synergy is not necessarily linear in its final form relative to its individual components.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I was referencing Mikes bolded comment above (whatever that may mean to Mike). This would also be the "musical truth" you refer to above (again assuming it reflects Mikes view). In any case, the primary point of my post was that, IMO, system synergy is not necessarily linear in its final form relative to its individual components.

what I mean is that to my ears the darTZeel sonics do not sound like solid state, and not quite like tubes. they are walking that in between zone where it's music without any overlay of sameness. I think that this allows more of an unrestricted upside to all types of music. and the dart 458's in particular maintain that refined nature even when pushed, at least in my system. at warp 9 that musical honesty is still in command. that is unique in my experience.

I have no illusions that my view is shared by everyone. although recent visitors seem to be hearing the same thing as that is how they describe it too.

 

[asiufy]

From the DartZeel manual.

You must've read a different manual then. Mine clearly says 11dB.
Here's a copy, go directly to the last page.

http://www.normanaudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/manuale_NHB18NS.pdf

Oh, the armchair...

 

[Folsom]

That's the same one I found. But I think I missed that it is the fixed output that is a little less than 0 gain.

 

[BMCG]

http://www.normanaudio.com/nhb-468/

intriguing...the 468 released in Singapore.