Spectron Musician 3 First Impressions?


I just installed my Spectron Musician 3 into my system. I had a 2A3 amp powering 96db Epiphany 12/12s. Out of the box, ice cold, the Spectron was incredible! The tonality was spot on with the 2A3 tube amp! The harmonic structure was 85% of the tube amp, and this was with less than 4 hours on the Spectron! The Spectron bettered the 2A3 in 3 major ways: 1.) Increased detail with no loss of sweetness 2.) Deeper bass with more control, 3.) Both micro & macro dynamics! Spectron says it takes 3-4 weeks of 24/7 at medium volume before the amp sounds its best. Has anyone else had a chance to listen to this incredible amp?????

Note: I am not affiliated with Spectron.
128x128darrell
I am not surprised about your mono findings. . . perhaps some day Spectron will make its amp finally bridgeable to mono via a external switch, or internal jumpers, or reversable factory hot rodding.

Dob,
It'll take some burn-in time before the two Spectron amps can sing together. I first started just burning-in the new one for about a week. Then I just couldn't resist and connected the two in balanced mode. The sound didn't settle in until after 3 weeks of playing music for about 14 hrs a day. After that, they really started singing together. Once you listen to them in balanced mode for a couple of weeks, there is no going back to a single amp. The images will be more focused and much better defined than using one amp. And then there is that easiness of the sound that's so addictive.

Guidocorona,
I completely agree with you. I think that mono-blocks should be a natural evolution for Spectron amplifiers.

iSanchez
Hi Isanchez, if you think about it, the move to a bridgeable offering may benefit Spectron greatly as well. . . I venture to guess that up to 25% of current owners would be interested in adding a 2nd amp to their stable. . . not to talk about new customers. Simon, what say you?


Hello Guido,

We can do internal connection of input(s): XLR and/or RCA - its not a big deal for production - provided its ordered prior to amplifiers assembly.

However, the end user must realize that going from stereo to monoblock mode (by any manufacturer) does require INTERNAL or EXTERNAL connection and then question arise - who will do it - manufacturer internally and for modest fee or user, externally, by adding additional pair of interconnects. On the surface, the answer is simple: manufacturer. However, as the rule, we do not use input wire - from inputs the signal goes directly to the boards, thus, we introduce our own hook up wire for this connection, and its OBVIOUS that the sound quality will be better if all input wires will be the same i.e. two pairs of interconnects - rather then pair of interconnects made of silver wire and our connection made of different metal or alloy.

Another negative against manufacturer's solution is loss of flexibility - If you use two pair of interconnects then your amp can go from stereo to mono and... back anytime you choose. If we use internal connection then this input can be used ONLY as monoblock (well there is another input you still can use in stereo).

In summary, if someone is ordering monoblocks and want to make us internal connection we will gladly do it. I spoke a while ago with production and arranged it including the small fee for material and additional labor.

Yet, nobody who ordered monoblocks and talked to me about alternatives - ordered internal connection - everybody wanted to have flexibility and choice of their wire.... so far including even iSanchez.

I hope that you will not ask us to adjust gain, flip phase switch etc.

My philosophy is to give the end user as much freedom as possible but if somebody knows what he wants and want to exchange some degree of freedom for convenience - its fine with me too.

As a rule, I want to work with our users.

Hope it helps.
Spectron,

Thanks for explaining the pros and cons of the different mono-block configurations. The only thing I wasn't aware of, or didn't remember, was how the internal wiring is done to bridge the amps internally, as opposed of doing this eternally by the end user via an extra pair of ICs. It's clear now that the external connection will be the obvious one here.

I decided on not using internal connections mostly because of flexibility. I thought that I could have assemble a simple system in my office with the other amp, or if something ever happens to one amp, which I much doubt considering the built quality, I can keep going with one while the other one is out.

I'm not an engineer so I may be wrong here, but my reading of this is that the internal wiring will add to the signal path, whereas the use of the extra interconnect will not change anything internally for the signal, hence producing a shorter way for the signal to travel. Now that this is more clear to me, I'm even happier with my decision.

One thing that still puzzles me, and perhaps Spectron can answer, is why there is so much improvement with these amps in balanced mode. I know that based on the specs the power triples and the headroom doubles. In my experience with other brands however, more power alone and more headroom alone do not guarantee better and/or more efficient performance. I've heard another brand of amps in a similar configuration and I remember hearing more noise when the amps doubled, and a quieter sound with half the power. With the M3 SE, I hear the opposite. The sound is better timed, which yields better control of the silence between musical notes.