I have heard the Sophia 845 amps multiple times over the last decade of their development. The first-gen chassis version was available in two configurations: the less expensive one using a 6sn7 as the driver tube, and the premium version using the 205D and later 206 power triode in the same role. The new version is built in a much larger, more robust all-aluminum chassis using the 206 driver.
The 6sn7 driver Sophia 845 was neither impressive nor seriously deficient. The list price was $6,000/pr. They were pleasant enough but the 6sn7 is barely up to the task that was assigned to it. The amps had triode glow and beauty, but lacked all the dynamic shove an 845 is known for. At the time, with far fewer 845 amps choices on the market, at their price they were fine for people who liked them.
The then-$10,000/pair 206-driver version of the Sophia 845 was much better; a truly convincing amplifier musically. I said for several years that if you wanted an 845 amp and couldn't afford the Audion Black Shadow, a used pair of Sophia 206-driver 845s were the next best thing. Once the new chassis amps were introduced, trade-ins of earlier Sophias made them regularly available for $3500 - $4500/pr. Those amps are highly responsive to tube upgrades, and are energetic and musical. They don't have all the finesse, expansive spatial dimensioning and the same agility as the more expensive Audions but they strike you as a very nicely balanced design. They are not more dynamic than they are articulate. They don't have stronger bass than they do top end. They are not more resolving than they are dynamic. Midrange is unmistakably by way of SET. These amps can sound dull or bright or correct, depending on the tubes mix. They do a good job on Definitions; they do a great job on leveraging the burstiness of Soul Superfly while leavening some of that speakers aggression.
The new generation Sophia 845, now $20,000/pair, disappoints me. The designer favors a needlessly complex circuit. To his credit, he has given the new amp a large power supply. But the amp sounds like a promising design pushed a few steps too far. It's essentially a scale-up of the older 206-driver version and the fine balance of factors present in the older amp has been lost, in my view.
I heard these amps twice, both in another person's room on Zu and in my own home. The new amp is a high resolution 845 but it is relentlessly aggressive. It's tonally and dynamically forward to a fault. There is more aggression than finesse, which causes the amp's very fine ability to present nuance to be masked by its steroid overkill. I imagine that some of Sophia's customers who listen through less efficient, crossover-intensive speakers may like this. The aggression of the new Sophia 845 punches through the fog of passive crossovers and multiple drivers' disunity behaviors. But what it punches through with is musclebound & overstated. Through wideband, crossoverless and ultra-responsive Zu, the new Sophia enlarges (and enrages) every note it hurls. Even chamber music played quietly comes to sound a little angry. Through the new Sophia, every musician is in a bad mood. OK, authentic for Glenn Gould even if overdone here, but the Sophia makes even Arthur Rubinstein sound snarly! The amp's emotional tilt is dark. The tonal tilt is bright and in your face. Bass is very strong -- more impact & slam than from the Audion Black Shadow.
In the same period that Sophia's 206 driver 845 amp has increased from $10,000/pr to $20,000/pr, the Audion Black Shadow has increased from $11,000/pr to $13,500/pr. The Audion has only gotten better in all the ways it was already good, preserving its balance along the way. It's a simpler circuit and it has proven anvil reliable. It outclasses the new Sophia in every manner except for sheer bass slam where the Audion is not slouching. So whereas the Sophia 845 was once the more plentiful (in the US) and affordable alternative, it is now more disturbing to hear, less nuanced and less balanced for more money. Some people will like the Sophia's aggression but it has lost its place on my recommended list. The Melody M845, *retubed from the stock glass,* is now the next best 845 to Audion, in current production at a lower price.
Phil |
>>...both Sean and Christian of Zu have their Audion Black Shadow SETs for sale via Ebay...<<
I'm only aware of one pair of Audion Black Shadows up at Zu, and just Sean's personal pair for sale on eBay. As noted in the eBay listing, the driver here, first and foremost, is that Sean's attention has been grabbed by the Allnic DHT preamp, which he has to pay for, along with the SIT-1s he needs to use the preamp with. Even at industry accommodation pricing it's expensive. And his enjoyment of that preamp depends upon using it with SIT-1s. As Sean has expressed to me, the Allnic DHT line stage is "just a good preamp, probably no better than Melodys and maybe not as good, with a good tube amp like the Audions..." and that the SIT-1s "...have all the traits and deficiencies described when used with a normal preamp...." but that together each becomes something special. Sean will have SET amps again, but with the Black Shadows the Allnic DHT isn't worth its cost compared to other options that work beautifully with the Audions. The electrical match between the DHT pre and the SIT-1s (which, remember, are also single-ended, just single-ended silicon) renders both pieces able to perform beyond their intrinsic sonics alone.
Now, I haven't heard the combination yet. If not before, I will when Sean comes to LA for the Newport show. Srajan has put himself on record there's exceptional sound from these two items used together. Sean Casey agrees and so does one of his customers. But Sean also concedes that the DHT doesn't lift the dynamic limit I notice in the SIT-1s. And I don't know whether the DHT pre somehow addresses the unnatural note decay in the SIT-1. I don't know how sensitive Sean is to that in his evaluation.
>>What are your thoughts on this...?<<
My thoughts on this are that they're Sean's amps and he can do whatever he wants with them.
Keep in mind: Sean is a speaker and cable designer and manufacturer. This gives him access to hifi gear at prices not attainable by most of us here. He's saying that $10,000/pr SIT-1s are only worth owning if you drive them with a $20,000 DHT preamp. Even if I find I like this combination, I can't buy them new for the prices he can. What if I found that in some ways this $30,000 combination of pre + monoblock amps is better than my then-$11,000 power amps with my $7,000 Melody P2688 preamp? Would it make my Audions and Melody sound any worse? Of course not.
But for me, since a DHT preamp can't address the SIT-1's dynamic constriction and clipping characteristics, I'm not a buyer at any price. And if the Allnic DHT preamp is "just a good preamp" without the SIT-1s, well, then, it too is interesting only as an abstraction for being a quaint circuit revived.
I'll see what I agree with, or not, when I hear them together.
Phil |
Melody P2688 preamp costs $6999. I'll write about it soon.
Phil |
>>...I explored this option with Richard from Sophia on the phone; his response was to say don't change tubes. This amp is only tuned for the tubes that came with it. This, along with the inability to adjust bias without opening the chassis, ultimately drove me to return them....<<
Richard always says that. It's nonsense. The 845A and 845B have the same bias requirement. In fact, after guiding a local friend into old chassis Sophia 845s we staged a listening comparison between the A, B & C tubes. The B was best and that's what he ran with. Some time later he had a power supply capacitor give up and the amps were taken to Bob Hovland for inspection and repair. I made a point of asking Bob to check the bias and other operating parameters in the amp with the A & B tube and change any that needed to be optimized for the B. Everything was the same for both tubes, and what he found was that the factory bias was not spot on for either A or B. What Richard means when he says the amp is only tuned for the tubes shipped in it is that he *voiced* the amp to his preferences and he wants you to buy any new tubes from him.
Further, most 845 SET amps do not have "fixed bias" (ironically meaning adjustable bias), so that's no reason to turn down an SET 845. They are set up for the RCA spec and will work with any tube that conforms. Otherwise a tech simply has to make a resistor change.
>>If that is a pair of Audion Black Shadows, will the current stock Black Shadows meet this standard or are silver wound secondary's and signal path required? Are there other 845 or 211 amps that deliver resolution, tone and shove?<<
The current production Audion Black Shadows meet the standards of sound I describe. Mine have copper xformers, but all silver signal path wiring. Until recently, that's the only way Black Shadow was made. Now Audion allows you to order it in "Levels" just like the Golden Dream, wherein one of the variables is how much silver do you want to pay for in the xformers -- including power. My Golden Dreams have silver secondary windings and I have no doubt that silver in the xformers of Black Shadows will yield the same advantages. But it's not necessary to have silver there to get an outstanding amp. But if you do, yours will be better than mine, no doubt!
Having just spent a few weeks with the Melody M845, I think they have real potential, particularly if biased for a metal plate 854C or a KR 845 (along with filament feed changes if needed). I also think there is a lot of leverage in that amp in going with a very high quality 2a3 driver tube, like a KR or EML. It has shove, very good tone and while it falls somewhat short of Audion's resolution & speed, it's quite credible, for less cash. The M845 isn't as finely balanced in traits as the Audion, but it's less than half the price. It comes closest to equaling the Audion on shove (owing to its large power supply), is a step behind on tone, a couple steps further back on sheer resolution (but still very good), and falls somewhat further behind on speed and transparency, where I think ultra premium tubes can narrow that gap.
The push-pull 845 Nagra amps have lots of energy and very high resolution, with their depression on the polar curve being in tone. Then there are a proliferating plethora of 845s coming out of China for as little as $1500 up through the Shuguang premium amps and I haven't kept track of all of them.
Phil |
Jordan,
The Audion amps use a 6dj8/6922/CCa family tube in the INPUT position. The DRIVER tube is the small-glass, midget-muscle, very robust 5687.
The 6sn7 dual triode makes a great preamp tube and is terrific in an input position on a power amp, as Melody chooses to use it on the M845. It can be used as a driver tube for a big power triode but it is no match for the 206 power tube in that position, and even the 5687 performs the task better in a simple circuit.
Phil |
Spiritofmusic,
I left you a private message via Audiogon regarding a UK Audiogoner seeking a Definition 4 listen. Let me know whether you're open to it.
Phil |
>>Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts in terms of Druid V vs Def 2 speakers?<<
It's the same set of trade-offs as with Def3, minus the extra resolution of the Def3 Nano drivers. And by the way, the same decision dilemma applies further down the Zu price range between Superfly and Omen Def. Druid V can't match the soundstage scale of the Definition 2-FRD architecture, so if you're totally hooked on that then the greater focus of a Druid won't persuade you to switch. Druid is going to peter out on the low end around 35Hz, maybe a little lower if you bias the floor-plinth gap toward extension rather than bass definition.
However, Gopher, you've volunteered some revealing observations that complicate your decision. I think it is unusual to prefer the older Zu FRD (conical phase plug) over the newer Nano FRD, but not inexplicable. This kind of preference for an arrested state of a component's evolution has been going on forever. Back when the earth was still cooling, there were people who stayed loyal to the AR 3, insisting that the AR 3a was a step too far. Today, there are owners of Sonus Faber Cremona who have no interest in the Cremona M. I still suspect you have to be quite patient with further break-in of the Nano FRD since you are limited to how hard you can drive them, but it is true that the older FRD does give Definition 2 what you describe as a "warmer, fuller presentation" without the greater speed, burstiness and dynamics of the same cabinet running Nano FRDs. And by the way, if that truly reflects your preferences, then the right FRD to settle on may be the 2010 High Output driver from Zu. Only the last few pair of Def2s were shipped with the HO driver, but its sound in the Def2 cabinet slots neatly between the older, warmer cone-phase-plug FRD and the current, exciting Nano.
Where Def3 further improves over Def2 the focus and warmth of the Definition form factor with Nano drivers is in the Speakon connector integrated in the Def4 sub-bass amplification module, for full B3 cable geometry. You don't get this on Def2. Still, if you use Zu speaker cables, if you want warmth rather than transparency, use Zu Mission instead of Event.
>>Does the cabinet, cabling and full Griewe implementation of the Druid V lend any additional warmth to the presentation while retaining those other virtues.<<
Druid in version V is finally not an obviously "warm" speaker, instead having most of Def4's linearity. But it still has a touch of greater warmth than the more coldly-objective Definition, and of course the Radian supertweeter allows the top end to be very much smoother, more refined and beautiful on the top end than older Defintions. The new Druid cabinet is very quiet, and of course unlike Definition it isn't a sealed box so it is less energized by the drivers anyway. The Def4-like aluminum plinth mechanically grounds Druid more firmly than prior Druids, even my original ones that had the aluminum slab plinth (before Zu shifted to MDF there). So, overall, yes Druid V will project a little more intrinsic tonal warmth than Definitions with Nano drivers, further reinforced by the Griewe acoustic impedance governed bass, which is not present in Def2. The Druid V bass is far better than prior Druids, with plenty of texture and character -- very natural within its lower limit.
>>5. Slight warmth, texture, emotion, microdynamics, impact, stage size.<<
Druid V vs. Def2 forces real choices. A preference for slight warmth, texture and emotion argues for Druid V. Placing value on microdynamics, impact and stage size argues for Definitions. So does doing double duty in HT2.0 as well as 2ch music. If I recall correctly, your room proportions are relatively oblong with your speakers placed on the narrow wall. That suggests you can sacrifice some image scale, especially width if you want to shift toward more focus and sheer tone. One thing to keep in mind is that the Druid is a 16 ohms speaker. I don't recall whether your AN211 has 16 ohm taps. It's not a serious mismatch to run a 16 ohms speaker on 8 ohms taps but the power output will be somewhat reduced, which may not matter in your case.
>>My system sounds good right now, but I can't help shake the suspicion that I had a greater emotional connection to my Superflys...<<
On some music, Druid V leaves you believing it's the greatest speaker ever made. Definition is the higher resolution, more dynamic speaker but Druid's focus and tonal intimacy has the ability to mesmerize a listener with music that capitalizes on Druid V's strengths. The singular case where I've found a speaker with ganged drivers to fully equal the intimacy and emotional engagement of same-line speaker with one driver of the same composition, is in the case of Zu Dominance. Dominance fully resolves the dichotomy of Definition resolution & scale, with Druid/Superfly focus & engagement. You get both in one much larger, heavier, more expensive speaker. Short of Dominance, this choice between focus and scale forced by similarly-priced Zu single-FRD and double-FRD speakers will continue.
>>4. With the Defs a foot away from the wall I get about 10 feet distance between me and the speakers, presumably the Druids would need to be moved forward of the wall<<
Druid V will likely sound fine in the same locations as your Def2s are currently. Toe-in may be different.
Without actually hearing your system in your room and watching how you react to a variety of music, I can't give you a more definitive answer for whether you will be happier with Def2 or Druid V. If you are up for the experiment, you might consider having Sean ship you a set of 2010 HO drivers *if he still has any*, to try. And install a Clarity cap on your Def2 supertweeter network. Then settle on the FRD that best floats you. Then if you're still missing Superfly, get Druid V. The whole question really rests on how much you truly value Definition's spatial and dynamic scale, once you don't have those attributes. Most people who have been to my house to listen to both Druids and Definitions -- any version of each -- are intrigued by Druids but decide on whatever level of Definition they can afford, from used Def2s to new Def4s. It's always the scale that grabs them. Just two chose Soul Superfly and Druid V over some form of Def, and for the right reasons for them. You have to be quite self-aware to make a lasting choice.
Phil |
>>Srajan Ebaen reviewed the Druid V and felt it wakes up with 50-100 watt amps.<<
Sometimes Srajan gets it radically wrong. I do agree that Zu speakers in general are not best served by flea power SET. At least 15w seems generally right. I use 24w SET, 845 on my Def4s and 24w 300B PSET on my Druid Vs. The problem with 50 - 100w amps is that you are mostly forced into either solid state, or push-pull KT88 or KT120 tube amps. No thanks. On the other hand, one of the ironies of amplification of Zu speakers is that the McIntosh MC1.2kw or older MC1201 1200w monoblocks sound beautiful on them -- much better than the lower power, cheaper Mac quad-diff amps. And much better than almost any 50w - 100w amp, SS or push-pull tube. Of course, that's $20K worth of amplifiers. A PSET 845 of, say, 50 - 70w could be awesome, however. I'll agree with the 50-100w recommendation *if*, say, the sound of my 24w monoblocks can be scaled up without compromise. So far, it doesn't work that way.
>>He says they sound better with transistor rather than SET tubes.<<
Srajan is ten years older than when I first started reading him. Maybe that's the reason he thinks this. That's a joke. Sort of. Let's just say, I don't agree. I'll go further: Balderdash!
>>Did you find the Druid (specifically) better with the S.I.T. amp as he does?<<
Nope. Nor Def4. SIT-2 is inoffensive but really not interesting nor engaging. SIT-1 monoblocks, with the bias run a little on the hot side, deliver the best music sound I've ever heard from transistors, but even if someone *gave* me a pair gratis, my Audion SET amps would stay. More to the point, until Nelson gives us parallel-single-ended SIT monoblocks for more power from that device, the dynamic ceiling of SITs at 10w is just too low. It's irreconcilable to at once contend that Druid V needs 50 - 100 watts to "wake up," while also advocating the 10w SIT amp for them. Which is it?
>>Different listening priorities result in variety of conclusions, valid due to the nature of subjectivity.<<
This is a pretty standard dismissal of strong opinions in audiophilia. It allows for preference, but it is a sentiment that also excuses a lot of wrongs in music reproduction. Except for the SIT-1's exemplary deep bass character (plus it is a quiet amp), I can't think of *any*thing it does as well as fast, transparent implementation of SET on Zu. And I know of no 50-100w amp that equals or betters the right few 15 - 30w amps on Zu. But then, I say this as someone who also advises that in any given category there are only a small handful of product offerings worth buying.
Phil |
Warren,
You ordered Def4. It's the one. For anyone who can afford Def4, there's no debate, especially if you've already lived with Definitions for years. If you ever build a second system, you can build it around Druid V. But at your price, performance level, music habits and the room you have, Def4 is the ticket. Stop, cease, terminate any second-guessing. You're going to be ecstatic.
Phil |
>>I would hate to swap out what is evidently a good all rounder to replace with something much more program dependent. Any thoughts on this? And is your Duelund experiment going to stretch to the CAST Cu, or the Sean-recommended VSF Black?<<
As I wrote earlier, on the Radian 850, none of the caps I discussed sound less than excellent. There is nothing wrong with the Mundorf silver-in-oil. Sean Casey was in Los Angeles delivering a pair of Def3s to a customer when he stopped by to see me and we spent the better part of a day noodling with cap changes and listening to a wide variety of music, while discussing the results. I ordered some Duelund caps from him but they got diverted to another, noisier, customer so I didn't have a chance to listen to them at that time.
In listening to the three caps we had on hand that day -- Mundorf silver-in-oil, V-Cap CuTF, Clarity MR -- none of them had advantages restricted to any type or genre of music. Clarity is of these three most forgiving of poor recordings. They are all applicable as "all-arounders." The Mundorf is really very transparent and it can slightly accentuate roughness in a voice that's close-mic'd, or in a brass instrument, for example. Whether that's accurate or not depends on how much you know about the recording and the performer. On Leonard Choen's "Old Ideas" for instance, with the Mundorf and V-Cap the rasp in Leonard Cohen's voice is accentuated compared to the Clarity MR, where it's fully present but a little polished and recessed. To Sean Casey, the Clarity's rendition sounds more "right." I'm still evaluating but I'm leaning to the V-Cap's voicing being more natural, even if the Clarity's is subjectively more agreeable to the ear.
To most people these cap differences will seem quite subtle. We who really make something of them are hard core; admit it.
I'll also repeat: no matter what anyone says, none of these caps are completely neutral. Caps are invariably a choice in voicing, as much fixed parametric tone and voicing controls as are cables. I think there is a generally-agreeable hierarchy, and for Sean it's Mundorf SIO on bottom and Duelund on top, with Clarity, V-Cap and Audyn offering specific performance-per-dollar increments in between. Keep this up and we'll need next versions of our speakers to have some kind of quick change arrangement for the high-pass network caps!
I don't hear anything in ClarityMR that I consider "program dependent." If you listen to music with a lot of intentional distortion, Clarity will recess some of the sawtooth nature of it while keeping it present, whereas V-Cap will do nothing to polish it and will put just a touch of spotlight on it. Clarity gives a little more harmonic grace and beauty up top; V-Cap a little less so but in exchaange you get more snap. Mundorf is more like V-Cap in this respect, with the added difference that it sounds more "excitable" as SPLs rise. Comparatively, the Mundorf shows less grace with rising complexity and volume. While the Radian 850 reveals with finer nuance the differences between caps, than the older Zu supertweeter, the benefit of Clarity over Mundorf is much more material to the older Zu supertweeter in Def2 & 3. In Def4 and Druid5, the upgrade is a choice. In Def2 & 3, it sounds essential to me.
I won't blindly comment on Duelund in Zu until I try them. I've heard Duelunds in other speakers' crossovers and they were upgrades but also diluted by the nature of a multi-drivers/multi-way speaker. They are expensive and the company is erratic on delivery, since it is essentially a craft shop. Doing these cap comparisons in Definitions and Druids is highly inconvenient, so maybe I'll just go straight to trying CAST when I have (or take) the time. But Sean's take is that Clarity improves his speaker in the same direction that Duelund does, just not quite as far. If that is true and you want to upgrade for less than the cost of Duelund, then my recommendation is to go with Clarity if you (slightly) value smoothness over texture, and to go with V-Cap CuTF or TFTF if you (slightly) value texture over smoothness. If that's too difficult a choice to resolve then forget about all this and stick with your stock cap. It's just fine.
Phil |
|
>>I'm curious how a Berning ZH230 amp would sound with the DruidV?<<
The Berning should sound fast, transparent and controlled on Druid V. I beleive the ZH230-12 Class A monoblocks will sound even better, and more sublime. That amp maintains its power into 16 ohms. It doubles 8 ohm distortion performance into 4 ohms, so with Druid you are off the impedance centerpoint in the right direction. The high damping factor (for a tube amp) should complement the very good bass control already imposed by Druid V's full Griewe implementation, for which the acoustic impedance can be adjusted at the floor gap. The high damping factor in the amp should let you adjust the floor gap a little high, to optimize for bass extension from the Druid, while sharply limiting the added bloat that would normally accompany that tuning.
Phil |
>>I'm sorry but that color commentary isn't ideal to promote a particular sound one fancies while, by direct implication, calling anyone who disagrees deaf, moronic, misguided etc. That's the real balderdash -:)<<
Don't read too much into it, Srajan. I wasn't "promoting" a sound, I was describing it. I'll add something I wrote in a private exchange with someone else earlier today: While no Magico (or Wilson, Focal, Vandersteen or whatever mainstream high-end, crossover-intensive speaker you want to name) can match Druid V's unity of behaviors, *whether any particular listener thinks that makes it a better speaker is another matter entirely.* A Magico anything cannot, does not, will not deliver the Zu FRD's coherence. That's true. But whether someone else hears that, or values that highly if they do, I can't predict. I didn't say nor imply that someone who likes Magico speakers is "deaf, moronic, misquided." I instead described a quality that Druid has which they don't, and which I obviously both by direct statement and implication assign priority to. I certainly understand why someone might like a Magico speaker. After all, as crossover-intensive, multi-drivers speakers go, it's (especially Q models) competent. I'm just not going to be one to recommend them.
>>A 50wpc transistor amp will deliver 25 watts or less into the 16-ohm Druid V. That's far from irrational. And I didn't claim that's what it took to 'wake them up'. What I did say is that particularly the low end gets wirier. Someone listening to a lot of power Rock for example might really enjoy what the added power does if no subwoofer is run.<<
No argument there. I was answering another poster's question about whether I agree Druid V needs a 50-100w amp. If he misstated your sentiment, thanks for correcting that.
>>A 300B or 845 amp for my tastes would be a bit too dark and chewy in that critical presence region.<<
True for many but you just have to choose the right 300B or 845 amp, and then choose the right tubes, to avoid that "chewiness." I agree with you on the 45/50 DHT amps. Illuminating but too weak.
>>Because the Druid V's presence region is darker and less lucid than say a 4.5" Fostex widebander run as a dedicated midrange (with a Raal ribbon brought in around 2kHz)<<
You lose me when you would rather have a bit more lucidity even though a crossover point of 2K is along for the ride, handing off to a ribbon driver no less. But maybe it works for you.
>>But all this is simply a function of personal tastes. What I think becomes a bit counterproductive is making judgmental narrow-minded statement that border on gonzo jingoism.<<
Gonzo, maybe. Jingoistic, no. Categoric, sure. I think the entire crossover-intensive, multi-drivers speaker world is off track and it happens that Zu has done the best job of making it possible to leave that behind. There are others who offer good alternatives, often with either usability restrictions Zu solved, or demanding greater domestic intrusion and accommodation, which Zu has largely avoided. This is a forum, not a journalistic vehicle. This is also a Zu thread, so while some people might be on the outside looking in, most participants are looking for clear answers when they ask questions of one another. I try not to disappoint! Most of what is claimed to be "high-end" gear in audio disappoints me and I do consider the vast majority of product designers misguided, before any consumer wears that label. I've plainly written here for years that I will only ever recommend a very short list of gear, for anyone who asks me, because over the 43 years I've been spending my own money in this market, it has proven ever true that only a few bits of gear in combination produce an exceptional semblance of musical realism. As an observer, I am however interested in and fascinated by the huge variety of approaches and innovations people try to attain the same end, and am equally fascinated by the many rationalizations for where they end up. I'm also impressed by the build quality of some musically questionable gear as well as the disregard for build quality in some gear that sounds quite good. But when it comes to actually helping someone understand what's truly worthwhile musically, I make my judgments and say what I think. From there, what others do is up to them. It's not personal. But you know as well as me, by the way you choose to write in 6Moons: It's better to be vivid and leave people knowing, than to be bland and leave people wondering.
It happens that I agree with most of your assessments of hifi gear, and still find your descriptions useful when I don't. You also recognize the value of what Zu brings to our market so we're more aligned than apart.
Phil |
>>Curious, (not a factor anymore)but can a layman install the Caps (Def4) we're talking about?<<
Yes, but it's a PITA. You have to lay the speakers down; drivers have to be removed; you have some three-hands maneuvering. Better to just order the upgrade with the build and be done with it. I believe Clarity is the new stock cap as of last month, so your speakers are going to be fine. If you want to pop for Duelund, amend your order now.
Phil |
Where anyone ends up with their sub-bass module settings on Def4 is really only relevant to that system in that specific room. I don't know why Zu suggests customers start with a low pass filter point of 60Hz other than to suspect they have learned from experience that many customers overvalue bass in their perception of satisfying sound. I've set up a few pairs of Definitions in widely-varying rooms and imagine very few situations where that much overlap with the natural low end response of the Zu FRD in Def4s would be appropriate for the sub driver.
My settings currently are:
Gain = 8
Low Pass Filter = 32Hz
PEQ Gain db = 3.0 (12 o'clock)
PEQ Frequency = 31Hz
Phase = 0 deg
A few qualifying notes:
1/ Why is my Gain so high at 8? I have an early pair of Def4s. Initially, Sean installed the Hypex module with its normal gain as shipped. I was surprised when I installed the speakers, to need the sub gain that high because my room has a bass hump in its natural response. I then set up Def4s in a bass-hungry room and ran out of gain. Talking to Sean about this, he said he could modify that owner's sub module for more gain, which he did. Hypex refused to ship amp/PEQ modules with more gain than their design spec. It dawned on me that the problem is that Hypex assumes people are using more conventional cross-over-based speakers, probably with less than 90db efficiency. Hence, their stock gain setting is right for that application, in terms of matching to main speakers' output. Zu on the other hand is hitching that Hypex module to 101db/w/m FRDs that have good response down to 38Hz or so. To keep up with that, more gain can be required than Hypex has in their design spec. So now Zu mods the Hypex modules for more intrinsic gain. So my "8" setting is probably more like the "4" setting on current Def4s.
2/ Why is my hinge point for the low pass filter set so low? Because the FRD has very good low-end response, especially since in Def4 some Griewe effects have been built into each FRD's chamber. And the low pass filter is not steep. This point is also below the main energy center of the bass hump in my room. The PEQ gain of just 3db touches up the occasional 32Hz and lower fundamental nicely. There aren't many such instances.
***
Overall, my general experience with hifi listeners is that most feel the need for more bass energy than is natural. But if you're listening to EDM, house or hip-hop, what's natural? It's kind of whatever you want it to be. I'm not listening in those realms very much so my settings seek the perception of natural acoustic bass in balance with other instruments, and getting that right works out fine for orchestra, big rock, etc.
I suggest new Def4 listeners start with:
Gain = 4
Low Pass Filter = 35
PEQ Gain - 2.4
PEQ Frequency = 31
Phase = 0 degs
Listen, note what you like and don't like, and make subtle adjustments from there. Focus on just a few recordings that capture convincing bass as you understand it; get the settings right with them (3 or 4 carefully-selected recordings at most); settle in and cease obsessing. If you obsess, you will come to appreciate the Def2's gain-only knob!
There is no one correct setting. Make changes to one control at a time until you understand its effects well. Gain controls the sub-bass module's total output. Low Pass Filter controls the hinge point below which the sub is fully fed and above which the declining slope is meshing with the natural low end roll-off of the FRDs. PEQ Gain controls the bump in bass energy narrowly focused around the chosen PEQ Frequency. PEQ Gain has a range of 0 - 6db, so you can't dial it into negative territory. There is some argument for starting PEQ Gain at 0 instead of the 2.4 I recommended above, but most rooms don't support very deep bass well. If you have a large room, start with PEQ Gain lower, even 0. Phase allows continual variability of sub-base phase between 0 - 180 degs which can be helpful in overcoming room nodes as well as integration with the main drivers. But in many rooms its effects are quite subtle. You can get into phase futzing where everything sounds not quite right, including 0.
And if you love exaggerated deep bass, knock yourself out. It's your system, not mine. But understand how exaggerated bass compromises perception of the rest of the bandwidth above it, including spatial cues and nuance.
Phil |
>>Most vitally, a slight stridency in upper frequencies is replaced by a mild hint of smoothness which really allows extra levels of info to be revealed. This is not at all at the expense of excitement or involvement, it's an even more addictive cart than before. If you have a spare Zu 103, I really urge you to consider the mods.<<
Spirit,
My skepticism about this remains, in part because you refer to your stock Zu103 having had stridency in the upper frequencies. If you had stidency in a Zu103, something was amiss, and it could have been any of several things. So your post-surgery comparison to the stock baseline is hard to reconcile.
Now, I have no doubt that with a sapphire cantilever and Paratrace stylus you are gaining resolution of all kinds over the stock 103, and that may have been exactly what you were looking for. But substituting sapphire where there was aluminum, and a Paratrace profile where there was conical, will revoice a cartridge. It's unavoidable. I don't doubt you like your result, however. I might even prefer it! But it's going to be different and if that's the case, I then wonder whether I'd be better off going for a 47 Labs MC Bee. That's what I have to think about, since the Zu103 is what it is, intentionally.
However, by all accounts, ESCO is highly competent so like Soundsmith I highly regard their work and they offer sensible modernizations that can turn out well, as yours has for you.
Phil |
Charles1dad,
Re: Srajan and the speakers divide -- exactly. It's not perjorative to point out what the crossover-intensive/multi-drivers speakers cannot do that Druid V does, but it is a clear choice and the migration path tends to be from the mainstream to the alternative, rather than the reverse.
Phil |
>>Phil,any revised thoughts on the SIT-1 amplifiers with further listening?<<
No; SIT-1 is a dead end. Great tonality, body & speed for solid state. Closer to realism than anything else silicon I've ever heard. But while bass character & texture are stellar I agree with Keithr -- the bloom on the uptick and the desiccated decay are inconsistent & distracting if you've lived with better. Sean Casey, who has heard the alleged magic of a DHT preamp into SIT-1s felt my various tube preamps do a fine job of driving the SIT-1 for valid evaluation. I didn't have even a few seconds of desire for SIT-1 over any of my Audions. Best SS is a benchmark but it doesn't elbow the Audion SETs, so what's the point? Then the dynamic limits quash any edge SIT retains. Sure, if someone stipulates they have to own SS or need absolute quiet, I'll suggest SIT-1 monoblocks as best alternative for them. Because with Zu they will be. But absent such stipulations (I have no reason to eschew tubes, and a little noise isn't my chief worry in life) a small minority of fast, transparent, toneful SET amps will yield more natural, holistic results. SIT-1 interest is now in my rear view mirror. Next topology challenger?
Phil |
Keithr's A23 speaker cables sound very fine. Great balance of smooth, toneful & resolution. If you're not for some reason going to use Zu speaker cable, A23 is a great alternative which also in today's non-rational cable market is affordable. It's old school copper & natural dielectrics, which greatly contribute to their natural sound, and freedom from lengthy break-in.
But Zu cable is more revealing still, and that's especially true if you have a speaker with the Speakon connector and use it to connect amp to drivers with full Zu B3 geometry continuously intact. The B3 cable geometry improves tone, event separation, resolution of complex music and the presentation of space. It's worth using.
Ibis was a ruthlessly revealing cable with which commensurate sources and mid-path electronics were needed. It's been superseded by Event, which has the same wideband voice but with the most x-rayish traits of Ibis dialed back a bit. It also has a nicer "hand" than the older Ibis.
For people whose budget, preferences or associated gear calls for a resolving, revealing, toneful but more forgiving cable, Zu Mission is just right, and more like Keith's A23.
In IC's, Varial corresponds to Ibis speaker cable traits, so Event and Mission ICs can be chosen accordingly for updates -- or you can stick with Ibis/Varial and knowing that if you've been happy so far, you'll continue to be so. I am still using Varial + Ibis, with Mission in a few places in my phono chain, and Event digital for SPDIF to my DACs.
Phil |
>>...comparison of the Essence, which I have had for 3 months, and the Druid Mk V...<<
I have had Essence in my Druids system. The Druid V will be a huge upgrade, but essential differences are easy to outline. As anyone who read my prior postings on Essence will know, I consider that speaker the "least-Zu" Zu speaker though for that reason it appealed to the market and did its job of widening Zu's appeal. I'll limit my comments here to the sonic traits. For Essence, Zu had to detune the Zu FRD to scrub out some of its shove and efficiency to match the ribbon supertweeter. For Druid V they did not have to do this, as the nano FRD and the Radian 850 are much better mates. So all the trademark burstiness, liveliness, 101db/w/m efficiency and shove that were truncated in Essence are back in Druid V, as they are in Superfly, also a post-Essence single FRD Zu speaker.
The harmonic completeness of the Radian 850 also far surpasses Essence's ribbon, and gives Druid V greater top end beauty and absence of fatigue. The Nano FRD and the Radian's dynamic and solution traits are also better matched, for much better unity of behaviors over the older, less expensive Essence. Overall speed and scale are upgraded comprehensively. And while Essence had the first full implementation of Zu's Griewe acoustic impedance loading scheme in a single FRD speaker, both Superfly and Druid V incorporate further refinements, so bass texture, definition, energy and quality of tone are better.
Just mind the floor gap. Essence fixed the setting with it's double plinth. With Druid you have some work to do, and very small changes yield significant differences.
>>...it's all on your shoulders, Phil...<<
Not for the first time. If you get the Druid V and have any anxiety during break-in, post here for group experience or private-message me with questions; or call Sean. I am sure you will be pleased however, pretty much out of the box.
Phil |
>>...is Phil saying that any Cap is great?<<
The Radian 850 puts every cap in its best light. The former stock cap, Mundorf Silver-in-Oil sounds fine in isolation and that's the bottom rung insofar as Druids and Defs in 2012 mostly had that cap. Clarity is smoother, with more finesse in harmonics and details. V-Cap CuTF or TFTF are smoother than Mundorf, but deliver a little more snap. V-Caps do, however, take months to break in. Clarity go through their unsettled weeks but stabilize sooner. Sean also likes Audyn True Copper, and their price, so that's worth talking to him about. I haven't heard them but the distinction from Clarity is said by him to be relatively minor. A tweak at best. They are both "in the realm."
The question constantly raised here is Duelund and whether they are worth their cost, especially the CAST cap. I have no advice on this for Druid V or Def4 until I hear them in the speakers. Duelund adherents here endorse their use in Zu unconditionally, within anyone's financial constraints, and the folks who like them have very fine associated gear and tastes. If you are getting Clarity, that's an excellent default that won't disappoint you.
Zu, btw, detests solder....
Phil |
|
>>What are you thoughts on the merits of Druid V with a pair of Submissions vs. Def4's?<<
The choice here will be made in a variation of the trade-off between Druid V and Def4. Running stereo Submission subs will give a more massive sub-bass foundation than Def4, so if you have a large space to fill or strongly prefer structure-permeating deep bass even if mid-range scale is smaller, or if you want monster available deep bass energy with Druid's focus and immediacy over Def4, then Druid V + stereo Submissions is a tenable combination for similar dollars as Def4. Some of the people I have corresponded or spoken with about this choice may choose the Druid V path because they literally want to energize a house and are more concerned with social or party performance than focused listening.
But for the main music band of, say, 50Hz - 12kHz, the FRD arrangement is the determinant of scale vs. focus. If you want spatial scale and a higher dynamic ceiling along with greater sheer resolution, then no question Def4 is the better choice. If you want precision, intimately-focused imaging, scary-good guitar tone, and a bias toward warmth over scale, then Druid + Submission.
So, that's the balance of factors you have to think about. It's not my intent to discourage subwoofer sales at Zu. People who demand the bottom octave foundation Submission delivers are going to get it, and it's the right solution for that. I don't know of any non-Zu subs that mate well to the Zu FRD. However, my personal view is that Druid V particularly should be used unaugmented by a pair of subs. Its natural bass quality is so high and so much in continuity with midrange performance that I don't want the distraction -- and dilution of that integrity -- imposed by outboard subs. I think Superfly or Omen Def are better anchors for a system incorporating subs, and any future Zu model that gets inserted between Druid & Definition will be too.
Meanwhile, Definition 4 has excellent bottom octave presence. And its sub-bass section's upper end seamlessly mates to the FRD, subject to the user's judgment on the parametrics. It is the standalone full-range, scaled music solution for most environments. Omen Def, with dual FRDs, does a good job of matching midrange scale to Submission ambition for structure-permeating bass as adjunct to a Zu Griewe speaker having a lower limit around 34 Hz. That's how I see this.
Phil |
>> there is growing discussion on improving support to the Def4s and DruidVs by replacing the stock spikes.<<
Coupling/decoupling, mechanical grounding or isolation are highly situationally dependent. Nearly every hifi component's sound is affected by how it is supported and what material(s) if rests on. Speakers are no different. I've taken time for extensive experiments in component support, using both coupling and decoupling techniques, and product combinations I think of as "grounded decoupling." So far, only an Aurilic DAC, which has materials and construction engineering in the case design to control resonance, has been virtually unaffected by the variables. Which is a clue that this is an area receiving too little attention from designers.
With speakers, my first consideration is in slashing mechanical energy put into the floor, transmitted through it and into the rack or floor-mounted gear, affecting adjacent component performance. You might think, for example, that changing out the stock Zu spikes cleaned up your bass, when the actual change was reduction or change in vibrational energy piped into your electronics, especially your amplification. Like a lot of audio matters, it depends.
But speaker support itself has consequences to the speaker. Depending on your floor type and material, the Symposium sandwich platform can be excellent for what I call grounded decoupling, slashing floor-borne vibration emanating from the speaker while allowing Zu's mechanical draining cabinet architecture to work as intended. I think bearings under speakers is less certain to help. Bearings do a great job of converting micro-vibrations to heat while still giving a firm vertical ground. You don't want your speaker rocking, but you don't really want it moving in the plane parallel to the floor either. I'll say that bearings will certainly make your speakers sound somewhat different, and whether that's an improvement or detriment will be situationally dependent and perhaps influenced by your biases.
The Sistrum platform approach fixes floor contact at three points but it may reduce the grounding efficiency of the Zu Def4 aluminum plinth. I have to investigate that possibility. I don't believe the Sistrum platform under speakers is the only way to achieve its benefits, and other approaches may do a better job maintaining physical stability. But I don't doubt people hear clear benefits in their specific installations. While it's true that three points determine a plane, it doesn't always follow that three points under what is normally a four point load is as stable against toppling forces. I live in quake-prone California. I won't be placing my Def4s on a three-point platform under the aluminum plinth. But if I lived in, say, Pennsylvania where I grew up, I might be more inclined.
However, Starsound Audiopoints are excellent replacements for stock Zu spikes on Definitions. So far I haven't bothered, instead using Zu's more recent hardened steel spike on my Def4s, into Herbie's decoupling sliders with the titanium spike receptor embedded, instead of brass or stainless steel. That made a bigger difference than any spike replacement alone that I experimented with, on my composite-over-concrete floor.
On Druid V, most of these options are moot because the floor gap is critical. However placing Druids on a platform and then placing the platform on bearings or spikes or Sistrum platforms or whatnot can be tried, and there will be sonic differences. I look for simpler solutions that don't have me building a totem pole, however. But that's me.
Brass cones on bearing solutions under two of my three turntables, and bearings under my DACS, however, brought dramatic benefits far in excess of grounding variables under my speakers.
Phil |
>>Have either of you heard the Melody SET-PSET 845 amps<<
I have heard the Black series Melody 845 amps, but not on Zu. I heard them on speakers I had some familiarity with and they are consistent with the Melody traits I hear in my Pure Black 101 preamp. They are quiet, have their dynamic strength in the form of tidal surge rather than explosiveness, are loaded with tonal beauty and resolving finesse. And they can be improved by upgrading the stock tubes. I have not seen a Melody item that doesn't show good design. Execution is generally excellent with first class inventory of parts inside. The house sound is somewhat "darker" than the wide open, fast and immediate Audion sound, but Melody brings similar tone density and finesse, with strong energy reserve, in all of its amps. I have no reason to doubt good synergy with Zu.
Phil |
>>Could I request you to comment on the Zu Libtec speaker cable versus the Zu Event (if you have personal experience)?<<
Libtec is more like Mission in the current line. It is to Ibis what Mission is to Event, and Event is a bit more fogiving than Ibis. If you're concerned about accommodating mediocre recordings, using the HO driver in Superfly, Libtec will be a good match. A friend of mine has exactly that combination.
Phil |
>>...speakers are well away from the rest of our gear (mine, some 22'), that aftermarket footers will be of no advantage over the stock feet?<<
When speakers are well away from any proximity to the sound sources and amplification, whether a change in spikes or footing will be of any advantage is highly situational. Differences are likely to be smaller. Also keep in mind that if you're running vinyl, your stylus on a record is the front end of both a microphone and a seismograph. And many DACs or optical disc players are highly sensitive to vibration (internal and external) affecting sound quality. You can be surprised how much mechanical energy is transmitted over distances through a floor.
>>I have carpeting over wood framed sub floor. Or is there more to isolating the mechanical energy from the speaker than just transmitting it to the rest of the gear? <<
Yes there is more to managing mechanical energy than attenuating transmission to the rest of your gear. Considering the speakers alone, the objective is to provide a path for structure resonance to be channeled out of the speaker components and cabinet. You also want the speaker to be firmly placed so it doesn't rock, even infinitesimally, wasting the energy of the pistoning cone. Carpet makes both of these objectives difficult unless your spikes are fully penetrating through the carpet and underlay to firmly contact the floor.
Here, the slender Zu spikes may be an advantage, as it is easier to pierce and penetrate the carpet layer with a sharp, thin spike than a thick one or a cone. You'll know if your spikes aren't on the underlying wood floor -- your speakers will rock with lateral fingertip pressure.
On carpet, many people choose instead to place slabs of a hard material, whether maple, granite, marble, or some composite, so the speaker is firmly grounded on the slab which is in turn floated on the carpet. This is beneficial acoustically for Druid speakers because of the critical floor-to-plinth gap, but it isn't ideal for mechanically grounding a speaker, though it is usually better than having spikes not reach the underlying floor. Also slab materials sound different from one another.
On hard floors, Audiopoints may prove to provide somewhat better grounding because they are bigger, more massive, and brass. Titanium may be better still. They may not make a discernible difference in your situation but they almost certainly can't hurt. And, well, they look spiffy, if you don't mind mixing brass color with the aluminum plinths of Druid V and Def4.
More than the spike itself, I am interested in what is the receptor on the floor side. When piercing carpet you're planting the spike point into the non-cosmetic underlying floor, likely crushing plywood fibers. But on bare floors you need a receptor. Keep in mind that the spike or cone-point interface to what it rests in can be both a transmission and reflection point, depending on materials and vibrational frequency. You want it to be the drain for energy, not reflecting vibration back up into the cabinet. It may be moot if your gear is far away from your speakers, but generally I find it helpful to have receptors that are firm yet dissipating and attenuating of vibration. For that reason, in most places I have spikes or cones, they rest in one of Herbie's Audio Lab's several cone/spike decoupling gliders. His material compound and combinations are 15 - 20db attenuating of vibration and yet are not spongy -- they don't compress. Speakers and turntables, especially, sound grounded and all manner of details clean up. Definition and dynamics improve and overall grunge, blur and hash are wrung out of your system.
For any Zu speaker other than Dominance, Herbie's Cone/Spike Decoupling Glider is sufficient for their weight. For more serious vibrational problems where you need or want more attenuation, supporting higher weights, or on carpet, the Giant Cone/Spike Decoupler is the ticket. The spike receptor insert can be brass, stainless steel or titanium. I also use these under my equipment tables. Herbie's has a variety of other useful resonance control schemes in their products. Everything is quite affordable, effective, and he grants 90 days return privileges.
Example: My Druid V system is in a near-field listening space. The speakers and gear are adjacent. The main gear table is solid maple, on cones resting in Herbie's gliders, and the Luxman PD444 turntable and mhdt Havana Balanced DAC are on Aurios Media Bearings. This table sits between the Druids. The tabletop is laminated maple boards 4" thick. proximity to the Druid Vs presents no problems that aren't addressed by the measures taken. The 300B PSET monoblock amps are on the floor adjacent to each Druid V, resting on Herbie's Medicine Balls. Since Druids depend on a precise floor-to-plinth gap for the Griewe acoustic impedance model to work, placing thick spike receptors under them isn't an option. I have to accept energy being dissipated into the floor and attenuate it before it gets to the nearby gear. The main gear table arrangements take care of this.
However, my Garrard 401 turntable is on a smaller solid maple table that sits four feet from the right channel Druid V. Even though the wood composite floor is laid over a foot of concrete poured into the earth (it's not a suspended floor), the Druid transmits enough bass energy through the floor boards, up the table and into the Garrard to form a feedback loop when playing an LP. Aurios Media Bearings did not break it because they don't dissipate vertical energy. Magnetic repulsion feet under the turntable solved the problem but left the turntable less stable and they lightened dynamics, transient event impacts and compromised bass definition -- literally sounding "ungrounded." Herbie's decoupling gliders under the table's cones, and also under the Garrard's plinth solved the problem completely, restoring bandwidth, definition and clarity while allowing me to play LPs on that turntable at that system's maximum clean SPL levels. Decoupled yet grounded.
>>...do you think there will be any advantages? (to AudioPoints)<<
Maybe. But I've heard more significant advantages to using Herbie's decoupling gliders under stock spikes than from changing to any other spike I've tried, alone. As I said, Audiopoiints can't hurt and they may, as Warren found, help. Audiopoints resting into Herbie's Cone/Spike Decoupling Gliders should be a clear win.
Phil |
>>I reccently replaced Herbie`s Tenderfoot(very good) with Star Sound Audio points(1.5 inch) under my components and heard an improvement.<<
This isn't surprising. I've written about how I use Herbie's decoupling gliders in specific applications, to good advantage with speakers, turntables and racks, but these are areas where the mechanical resonance challenges are fairly straightforward, and Herbie's dBNeutralizer and Grungebuster materials allow the "grounded decoupling" I referred to.
But Herbie's has a lot of different products and Tenderfeet aren't the same kind of solution as the gliders. Since the supply of Aurios Media Bearings seems to have been interrupted, I wrote Steve to ask him what among his products would work well under a DAC that had responded well to bearings. Now keep in mind Herbie's has products that allow a customer to assemble a simple bearing solution. But Steve's answer was simple and clear: Tenderfeet.
I bought a set and they promptly failed to do any more than incrementally improve some glare in the DAC's sound. I found a set of Aurios here on Audiogon and all is right with the world. Tenderfeet are somewhat compressible and compliant. I did not find them effective under my digital nor analog active electronics, compared to other solutions -- including from Herbie's -- already in place. But before I put them aside I did find one support application for which Tenderfeet yielded a clear improvement -- under my S&B TVC. No active electronics; just a pair of transformers in a steel chassis with some jacks, wiring and switches attached. Nevertheless, passive magnetics are also sonically sensitive to vibration and in this case, Tenderfeet brought improvement where nothing else I tried has.
I don't blame Steve. The point is that when you are considering coupling/decoupling for sources and low-signal electronics, the variables are wide-ranging and both situationally and gear dependent. Steve has his views on which of his products are best bets for a given situation, but even he follows that with, "....of course you might also get good results from...."
Another example of the variables: his Isocup + ball combination are right for my 845 SET amps, yet his Medicine Balls are better for the same-chassis 300B PSET amps. You may find Audiopoints or cones to be better under source and signal components, but I suspect there are more significant differences in what the spike of cone rests in, if you haven't explored that. Speakers and racks are straightforward by comparison, in my experience with coupling/decoupling choices. Optimizing resonance control for electronics can be like search engine optimization: once you start you're never done. You just have to tell yourself you are when you've had enough.
Phil |
>>Anyhow, I shall drop you a line soon. We'll need to have lunch or something.<<
Hugh,
Just ping me when you have time. Being 70 miles apart should be easy but we have the entire breadth of the LA metro between us, complicating rendezvous.
I've been catching up after a busy 2012. I just submitted my commentary on my Melody Pure Black 101 preamp in the Preamps/Amps forum for posting.
Phil |
I am scheduled to get some time with the Melody 845 and the P2688 preamp in my own systems in about 10 days.
As for the 300B Melody, I can say at the moment that their sound, like many 300B SET amps, is heavily influenced by what 300B tube is used. I don't doubt that stock they are darker than an Atmasphere OTL. I also did not hear sludge-like voicing in the 845, though it wasn't on Zu speakers. We'll see.
Phil |
>>This apparently got under Srajan`s skin.<<
Inconsequential. And regardless, I don't try to anticipate who and how many will agree or disagree before I write. Nor does Srajan as indicated by 6moons. It's not a popularity contest.
>>I don't see why Sean would shake his head...<<
Sean's cool with it. No worries. He's busy selling speakers & cables to people all over the planet, who read what's posted here and in other forums.
Phil |
Steve,
Unless you are setting up a compact listening area within your 30x30 space, for relatively near-field listening, I think you will prefer Message for its Definition-like ability to spatially and dynamically scale, and to be more energetic with most amplifiers -- assuming the price difference isn't a barrier. Since you plan to delegate the deep bass duties to one or two Undertone sub(s), for that size space, if you want the most general sonic satisfaction for that room, Message's Definition-configuration scale will likely satisfy you more than Druid V. For anyone here who doesn't know what Message will be, it's Def4 sans powered sub, Griewe-loaded instead. Or put another way, it will be Omen Def built to Def4 levels of execution. Message was briefly outlined on Zu's web site and is referenced in some of the background in the 6moons Druid V review.
You certainly *can* use less than the available space to set up a near-field listening area to enjoy Druid V's advantaage in focus, but then you wouldn't be concerned about acoustically loading the whole space.
Think of tone, as I write about it, as sufficiently conveying the complete texture, distinctive harmonics and the fundamental character of people and instruments to be convinced of their presence naturally. The more you have those distracted moments when your attention shifts because a saxophone, singer or guitar, for example, sounded absolutely real and present, the more you are noticing tone. It's also the way electric guitar players think of tone -- the whole note is there; the character of the whole sound chain, from fingers, pick (or not) and style; neck wood, frets, nut and bridge materials; body, pickups, cable; the full voice of the amp along with the cone type of the driver and its motor; whether the baffle is ply or mdf, etc. The whole note is there; note just the suggestion of the note. Tone is comparative, since nothing gets all the way to absolutely real. To most, what I describe as a tone advantage in Druid V over Def4 is an esoteric difference that a lot of people aren't even sensitive to until they abandon crossover-based speakers. Message and Druid V are both going to give you essential Zu tone. But if you are biased to nth degree of tone over scale, then you'll appreciate Druid over Message. Most people are more variably excited by scale at small sacrifice of some nth degree of tone. Either way you're getting the essential Zu advantage in convincing tonal fidelity and dynamic life, and that's a big advantage over the vast majority of what you can buy at any price, in that particular respect.
Phil |
|
>>Could I also inquire as to a little more clarity or comparison regarding the "focus" as pertains to Druid vs Def/Message?<<
This is difficult to answer for a general audience, because I don't want to magnify or overstate the difference, yet I do want people who are interested to understand it. OK, try this: Definition/Message/Omen Def are IMAX Digital at your stadium-seating multiplex. Even if you're alone, it feels like a group experience. Druid V is a personal screening of a 35mm fresh film print, plush and organic, with some of the sharper details sanded slightly smoother in exchange for a seamless continuum in color tone. Even if others are with you, it feels like watching something intended for your eyes only.
Definition and Message have higher...well...definition. But their presentation of a performance doesn't seem quite as personally and singularly directed to you as with Druid. On the other hand, Druid's personal experience doesn't wash over you with tidal wave of sound like Definition and its dual-FRD relatives.
There's also the small but discernible factor that two of something never behave with quite the absolute unity of one of the same thing. But Definition's benefits from the dual FRD M-t-M arrangement outweigh the small sacrifice in absolute unity, so it is for most circumstances the more convincing speaker, at higher cost.
This trade off between focus and scale in the Def/Druid comparison has narrowed considerably with Def4/Druid V. It was a big difference previously. But Def4 has more range downward in its scalar characteristics, and Druid has more range upward in scalar presentation, than prior versions of each. In the Def3/Druid V comparison, it's also a narrower difference than Def2/Druid4.
Before writing this, I made a point of listening yesterday for a few hours to bigger, more bombastic music on Druid Vs, that I usually play on my Def4s. Druids had no trouble exciting me with the energy of the music. They stepped-up nicely, cranked. So it's not a stark choice that denies you one thing to get another. I also played smaller scale music on Def4s that I usually play on Druids, and Defs didn't force bigger-than-life sound on the performer.
Phil |
>>What do you think about Omen Defs (with stereo subs) vs Def 4s? Suppose the Omen Defs had radian tweeters?<<
Def4s will sound more authentic and refined, capable of far more nuance and finesse. The cabinet of Def4 is a huge upgrade over Omen Def, all by itself. It ought to be. Add the Radian 850 in Def4 and it's no contest. Even if the Radian were available in Omen Def, the comparative cabinet talk in that speaker remains an issue, not to mention the greater challenge of attaining equal sub integration.
If however, your priority for similar money is bone-shaking house party sound not serving a listening position, Omen Def + stereo Submissions will get that job done impressively.
Phil |
>>Would you care to comment on the Soul Supreme vs. Druid V?<<
Soul Supreme is Soul with the Nano FRD, and the Radian 850 in supertweeter dutiy, just like Druid V. It also has the Speakon connector, so with Zu cable, full B3 can be extended to the amp outputs. Soul Supreme costs $1000 less than Druid V in the US, so you can imagine the two are not quite the same.
Soul Supreme is a smaller speaker. Not surprisingly, Soul Supreme sounds smaller than Druid V. It also does not have Druid V's massive machined aluminum plinth, so it sounds a little less "grounded." Soul's center of sonic gravity is a little higher. Additionally, the cabinet has less internal treatment so it contributes some measure of cabinet talk that Druid V silences. And Druid V's Griewe acoustic impedance loading scheme is more sophisticated and complete than Soul's, so Druid V's bass is more agile and controlled.
The two speakers have the same essential voicing, but these differences are genuine. Soul is nominally the higher value-per-dollar product because it has the essential benefits of the Nano FRD + Radian 850 + B3 + Griewe in a smaller, easier-to-produce and lower-materials-cost package. But for anyone willing the pay the price difference, Druid V will be the higher-finesse speaker, and the one I think closer to the preferences that led you to Harbeth after owning the original Superfly. And for that Druid V is the better bang-for-the-buck speaker for you.
Phil |
>>so what be the 70mm fresh print version via Zu Audio?<<
I knew as soon as I wrote that 35mm film reference, someone would raise the 70mm question. And I also knew I wouldn't be surprised if it was you to do it, Warren.
The 70mm fresh print is Zu Druid V driven by Audion Golden Dream 300B PSET silver-coil-content monoblock amps running KR Audio 300B globe style tubes, just like in my Druids system!
Phil |
>>have you had any reliability issues with the KR 300b tube<<
Nope, not a thing. I've never had a problem with either KR Enterprise or the current KR Audio 300B tubes. They can be a little noisy for the first 50 hours or so as they burn in, but that disappears and they get quiet, dynamic, detailed and toneful. They are very illuminating in Audion and other 300B amps I've listened to them in, with the best bass of any 300B tube I've used over the years.
I think Blume isn't using it because of the cost. They have risen quite a bit over the past decade. No one makes it their stock tube except KR for their electronics. The Coincident amps would have to cost more if stocked with KR.
The prior KR Enterprises company from Dr. Kron's days made reliable 300B tubes but I think the current KR Audio 300B sounds a little better. The older tubes were dialed more to impact and definition and less to tone. I think the current tube is more centered in that continuum. I have a quad of NOS KR Enterprise tubes and I suppose on close inspection I can see some more meticulous workmanship in tubes built when Dr. Kron was still alive, but this has not translated into any difference in reliability that I've experienced. These tubes are at least on par with Emission Labs and EAT 300B, which are also excellent, but the KR Audio is the "fastest."
How it compares to your Takatsuki, I can't say. But I've heard the KR 300B against everything else relevant and comparable that I can think of and I have no hesitation to recommend it. I prefer the KR to the modern-production Western Electric and the Shuguang re-issue of same, for instance. One notable exception: I haven't heard the Sophia Royal Princess yet. KR Audio offers the 300B in both globe and coke bottle glass. They sound subtly different, but both have the essential KR traits of speed, discipline, definition and bass control with convincing tone.
I say this all with some conviction, since my Golden Dream monoblocks are PSET and require 4 300B tubes, total -- which means there are some pretty decent amps that cost less than my Golden Dream power tubes.
Phil |
Warren- just ask him for Speakon>wire-ends adaptors.
Phil |
>>have you heard the KR 845<<
I have. The KR is an "out-of-spec" 845, really KR's idiosyncratic take on the tube. It sounds fast, clean, linear and extended. Bass is deep but somewhat leaner than the 845B, at least in my Audions. Other circuits may vary. The top end is quicker than the 845B and sounds somewhat more extended. Midrange isn't as meaty tonally but it is clean and pure. The KR sounds spatially big and trades away a little shove in favor of more nuance, than the B tube.
The first few years of the KR845's production were rocky. KR put a ribbon filament in their 845, and poor production tolerances let to filament shorts in the field, resluting in some spectacular failures. So I had avoided that tube. It's also gotten much more expensive over the past six years or so. KR believes they have solved the reliability problem, and I certainly can't say they haven't. Reports of failures seem to have abated quite a lot. The owner of Audion says the KR is a drop-in replacement for Black Shadow and Elite amps, and it's his favorite tube for them, for example. He's had no trouble.
However, the filament current draw is different from 845 spec, so depending what amp you are using, you may need to make a component change in the filament supply to be sure of reliable operation, particularly for the amp. Ask the maker. BTW, if you have an 845 amp that uses the tube conservatively, you may be able to get many of the KR benefits from the Shuguang 845C sheet-metal-plate tube. But its dissipation rating is only 70w against the RCA spec of 100w, which the B conforms to (dissipation, not power). If you put it in an Audion amp, for instance, the 845C mildly "cherrys" but doesn't go runaway. It's tolerable but will shorten the life of the tube. The 845C also has an extended top end and crystal clarity, but in some amps, like mine, also is decidedly bright.
If you're interested in the KR845, two other upmarket priced tubes might also be interesting. The very limited production, scarce, and difficult to buy Elrod 845 is reputed to be unbeatable. Last I saw they are $1800/pr., with a long wait. For less than half that, the new Sophia 845 Mk III is gaining traction as a premium 845. I haven't heard it yet.
Of course at the prices of the top-of-market 845 tubes, you have to consider NOS RCA, United or GEs. They are still available though perfect pairs can be $1600 - $2400.
Phil |
Dale,
I'm happy to help. Let me add one thing: Everything I write here is stream-of-consciousness -- one pass and I submit. I squeeze these posts in between obligations elsewhere in a professional life completely removed from audio. I don't have the time to edit to the polish of a publication, online or print. So my posts are what a publication would consider a rough draft, and unfortunately some typos don't get taken out before I post.
I use my time here to try to be as direct as possible with answers that I hope become actionable, in the absence of the robust dealer network that existed when I started out in hifi, and you could just go hear what you were interested in, in just about any city. We're a long way from those days of hifi being mainstream.
Phil |
My error; Elrog, not Elrod. And it is cylinder glass but a flat/nipple top.
Phil |
>>Are you aware of any premium quality 845s from that country (Germany)?<<
Yes; Elrod. Scarce, hard to buy, always back-ordered. Cylinder bottle with a flat top. Kind of its own thing; reputed to be outstanding. Something like $1800/pr. Most of the photos of Absolare 845 amps show the Psvane 845 in use, which was disappointing to me for $52,000 amps. Elrod should be commensurate with the amp.
Phil |
|
Dale,
I'm happy to help. Let me add one thing: Everything I write here is stream-of-consciousness -- one pass and I submit. I squeeze these posts in between obligations elsewhere in a professional life completely removed from audio. I don't have the time to edit to the polish of a publication, online or print. So my posts are what a publication would consider a rough draft, and unfortunately some typos don't get taken out before I post.
I use my time here to try to be as direct as possible with answers that I hope become actionable, in the absence of the robust dealer network that existed when I started out in hifi, and you could just go hear what you were interested in, in just about any city. We're a long way from those days of hifi being mainstream.
Phil |
Definition 4 is an 8 ohms load speaker. Yes, you can drive it easily with 2, 4, 6w but that doesn't mean you will get the full dynamic life that's both convincing and possible from more power. It's not a "problem" running small wattage from an efficiency and loudness level, but you are not going to get all the drive and shove that a Zu speaker is capable of with small output triodes. "Singing" and showing the truer burstiness of real music dynamics are not the same thing. I started out with 8/8w on Zu back in 2004. I've also heard them with 1200w McIntosh mono amps, where the advantage was that a lot of sound could be derived from the first couple of Class A watts, but the unlimited headroom brings clarity that tiny amps don't deliver. It's not an average SPL level, it's energetic clarity. On a 6w amp in a sizable room, you're going to hear the dynamic limits of the amp, even on a 101db/w/m speaker. Remember, that's 101db/w/m -- as in @ 1 meter distance. No one is listening at 1m.
This power requirements thing is an easy thing to pencil out and convince yourself that a handful of watts will be fine. It can be beautiful. But when you compare it with the drive and shove of a big glass triode @ 20-25w, the effortlessness and clarity of nano-duration peaks at satisfying levels makes it hard to return to flea power. You end up with the experience Morgan has articulated. For Definitions or any of the Zu dual-FRD speakers specifically, the synergy between Zu + 845 SET is breathtaking for the twin deliveries of musically convincing shove and tone.
I have to point out that a Sonus Faber's 90+db/w/m efficiency argues for the sufficiency of a 50/50w amp, but that in fact sounds woefully inadequate after you've heard their speakers on equal-clarity high power. This is consistently true for other 90db/w/m speakers too. The trick is finding equal-clarity high power. Zu's extra 11db of efficiency means you can get that and it's effects at 25w SET.
Phil |
I've heard the Frankensteins and the Sophia 845 mono amps on my systems. I cannot reconcile Germanboxer's assessment that Sophia 845 dynamics were inferior to the Frank's, 26w v 8w, with my own experience. I can agree that the Franks yield better "bass weight, bass texture" than the Sophia because, well, the Frankenstein 300B amps are simply higher resolution that the Sophia. There is a key point in my earlier post: equal clarity in a higher power amp yields different impressions than higher power of inferior clarity. The Franks clip gracefully and deliver more information than the Sophia 845. Trying to get the same clarity from the 845 by playing it louder won't do anything other than magnify its deficiencies. But I'll also say that it was easy for me to hear the Franks run out of headroom in an unbounded 2240 cu ft space that feeds into a similar virtual volume as GB. In fact, aside from the Frank having good design and execution, good ratio of power supply to power output, there is nothing else exceptional about it physically. it sounds great, but it doesn't sound any more powerful than a pair of Audion 8w 300B SETamps with physically smaller power supply, I heard at the same time.
But this really isn't about Sophia vs Coincident. You don't have to be listening at levels of aural violence to hear the dynamic limits of an amp on anyone's 101db/w/m speaker. Yes, you can get quite a lot of sound out of 6 watts from a single PX25 tube driving a 101db/w/m speaker but that's in terms of SPL, not the same as achieving dynamic clarity and shove.
There are many things that affect this. One is perceived speed, transparency and the burstiness of one amp vs another on the same speaker -- the apparent instantaneousness that a sound emerges from blackness or silence. Another is how precise or sloppy is this event? Is it slow to start; is the initial defining impulse dulled; does the aftermath linger beyond natural expectations?
Yesterday I listened to a pair of Melody M845 monoblocks and to my Audion Black Shadow 845 amps on Def4s at some length, again. The Melody amps cost less than half the price of the Audions, so there is no criticism in what I am about to say. There is a rated diffence of 2-3w between the two amps, with the Melody having the slightly lower measure of output. In all ways the Melody M845 is remarkable and energetic, and a few good tube upgrades put it in another sonic league from stock. It would be easy for a listener to claim more bass weight from the Melody, but the Audions sound more powerful because they are more resolving and maintain their resolution to higher SPLs. The Audions are "faster." Sounds burst from the Audions with more finesse and projections. Morgan heard this as well, a week ago. But then I put a WWII production 6sn7 input tube Melody and the Shuguang 845C. The 845C is a metal plate variant of the 845 and Shuguang's example has lower plate dissipation, so you give up about 20% of a normal 845's power in a given circuit. That took the M845 down to about 16-17w. However, with the better input tube and the metal plate 845s, the M845 got a lot closer to Audion resolution, blackness and clarity and it wasn't surprising to me that one result was the amp sounds more powerful than it does with the higher output potential of the 845A, though it in fact has less in 845C configuration.
The Sophia 845 monoblocks are built around a more complex circuit than Audion's and somewhat more than Melody's. In my view the new ones carry this too far and I recommend them much less. The older Sophia however is highly sensitive to tube choices and can sound anywhere from just fine to excellent, for their prevailing price on the used market. But it doesn't have the resolution of the very competent Frankenstein.
I don't have to listen at high SPLs to sense an amp's dynamic restrictions. And it's not "strain" we're sensing and what Morgan was referring to. It's the clarity of unbridled transients and the overall sense of ease. In digital filtering there is the phenomenon of pre-ringing, wherein the evidence of a distortion is apparent before the cause. It's like hearing the resonance of a bell before it's struck. It's not really happening that way, but we experience the distortion as though it is. Not directly, but by analogy the dynamic ease of an amp/speaker/room combination is a way of sensing an amp's available headroom before the music exceeds it. The same is true of playing an acoustic guitar. You can play softly and pretty well anticipate how that guitar is going to respond to a massive input. I don't have to thrash an acoustic guitar to reliably know how compressed it will become on hard pick attacks. I can feel and hear its limits before I test them.
The PX25 is also sonically the leanest of modest power triodes. It's very clear but shove isn't among it's assets. Morgan gets 101db from the1st watt. He gets 104db from the 2nd. He gets 107db from the 4th. And then on the way to 110db he instead hears clipping. Now he's not sitting 1m from his speakers and he has a room to load with all kinds of soft and hard stuff in it to swallow acoustic energy. So is it so hard see how he would experience one amp that clips around 109db differently from one that clips around 115db? And even then, the drive and shove of my 845 amps exceeds the "experiential power" of my *same-rated* PSET 300B monoblocks.
I don't listen to "Highway 61" any louder with Zu speakers at 101db/w/m efficiency today than I did with Large Advents in 1974, but I do it with 1/6th the power and more clarity. When I started with Zu on 8w of 300B power I could achieve the same SPL on "Desolation Row" but not the same dynamic ease. Once you hear it, there's no mistaking a dynamically inadequate amp for a sufficient one. There are beautiful sounding 2w 45 amps that produce lovely sound through Zu Definitions. And if that floats you, fine. The common knock on big glass triodes by the SET aficionados is that they lack the finesse of the flea bottles. Well, to a point. But it's a lot less true today than when clumsy big bottle SET amps returned to the market in the 90s. And more to the point, the admirable finesse of flea glass triodes has its own lack: shove and ease. Things start to change when you get into 106db, 114db horns but then you have to deal with their anomalies. 101db/w/m is great in the context of more than two generations of 82db speakers but Zu gave us 101db speakers along with the resolution, speed and clarity to show you why dynamic ease is just as valuable as tone, resolution and finesse.
Phil |
Atmasphere M60s are, let's face it, 60w push-pull, OTL monoblocks. Sophia 845s push out about 25w SET. the Frankenstein, 8w SET. All three being mono amps give you a dedicated and robust power supply for each channel. The OTLs are clean, assertive amps delivering more than twice the power of the Sophia, which in turn delivers about 3X the power of the Frank. So if Germanboxer's dynamic reference for evaluating dynamic traits in amps is his Atmasphere M60 pair, the issue comes down to which SET more closely approaches them for dynamic traits that are credible for music purposes.
I can imagine the information resolution of the Frank and its low frequency reach being preferable to the Sophia at a given SPL. It's not a preference I would attribute to the smaller amp somehow having "bigger watts" but certainly accept it can make a bigger impression. If a listener's perception of power is disproportionately influenced by perception of bass weight, however, I'd also have to point out that if in the Sophia the stock 845A tube was replaced by the 845B, that alone might completely change the perception because the B tube substantially alters that amp's apparent bass traits, favorably for someone predisposed to valuing bass weight.
The comparative judgment is complicated by having judged (and remembered) the 845 amp's dynamic traits against the larger OTL on Def 1.9 and then more recently rubbing the 300B against the OTL on Def4. While the rated efficiency of Def 4 and Def 1.X are the same (101db/w/m), the power transfer traits are somewhat different with advantage decidedly going to the Def4. Sean Casey has said that Def4 has power transfer characteristics of a 104db speaker. Plus the nano FRD has a lighter, stiffer, quicker cone shoved around by a much beefier motor. Def4 sounds more efficient and certainly sounds more dynamic and burstier on a given input signal than earlier Defs. The Franks through Def4s today will sound about 2-3db more powerful than they would have on Def1.9s.
Further complicating this comparison is that both the whizzer and the Radian 850 supertweeter are cleaner, clearer, smoother on the top end. With the same push, Def4 holds things together better and is absent the fatigue factors that lingered in the then-relatively-fatigue-free Def 1 & 2. Plus the more perfect cabinet of Def4 eliminates the "talk" of Def1's encased-mdf cab as well as the damped compression of Def2's dreadnought ply box. If the little amp wasn't evaluated on both, I posit that junior is now getting a lot of help from the Def4 itself!
On GB's last point, reduction of the apparent scale of sound staging is a non-tonal cue that you are overdriving (or nearly so) an amp in stereo pairs. In guitar amps where way-beyond-hifi-clipping is routinely and intentionally employed, this happens in the extreme where you can hear the mono speaker literally begin to sound smaller as distortion runs amok. A Marshall stack compensates for this, though:).
I don't have any argument with Germanboxer's preference for Coincident and Atmasphere. He has been listening to *three* amps that the majority of audio buyers would envy if they heard them. If 8w Frankensteins deployed as a stereo pair meet or exceed his expectations for convincing musicality, which includes dynamic credibility, then that's all that matters because those are sonically excellent amplifiers for Defs. If however he ever has a chance to hear a big-glass amp that delivers similar resolution with more shove, my guess is the point will be made. It costs much more, however, to get Frank-level resolution from an 845 circuit and that's the downside.
Phil |
Spirit,
Since the Black Hole is a sensing/correcting device it is interactive with the sub module in Defs. I expect it will sharply reduce if not nullify changes to the PEQ settings because it will make both frequency and amplititude corrections to whatever it sees as an anomaly in the bass region. So in your case, I suppose you can use my starting positions and to the extent you can hear changes, tune to preference. But most if not all of your tune-to-preference leverage is likely removed. Perhaps turn off the Black Hole, tune the sub module's settings to your preference, then turn on the Black Hole to hear how far out of the Black Hole's computation for proper bass you were. The phase control is much more subtle in its effects than the other four controls on Def4, and I don't know how or how well the Black Hole handles phase correction to say whether it will nullify control changes.
Phil |
>>...one of the speakers is framed in by a wall and not the other speaker, (no wall and very open space/ we're talking 12foot ceiling) would that still require the same low pass filter setting on both speakers?<<
You will want, in that case, unity in the hinge point for both speakers, but may require a lower level setting for the speaker closely bounded by a wall. You also might find some advantage to a different PEQ gain level in such a circumstance, but the PEQ frequency is likely best set the same on both speakers.
Phil |
The flea watt triode aficionados gripe about the big glass high power triodes not delivering all the nuance and subtlety of, say, a 45 in SET application. To an extent they are right but when well executed, the big glass 845 and 211 do quite well in this respect while delivering shove, headroom and dynamic slam that the little guys can't hope to muscle out even on highly efficient speakers. So since the 211 has no advantage in nuance and subtlety over the 845, and it delivers only about 60% of the power of the 845, I didn't take the 211 route. However, a good 211 amp can be built to a given tone and resolution standard for less cash than an 845 so it gets someone into the big glass sound at a lower entry price, at least theoretically. I don't dislike 211 amps intrinsically. I just don't have a reason to prefer them over an equally well-executed 845 that is more dynamic still.
That said, when execution is unequal, in favor of the 211, sure I'll take that. For example, the excellent Melody AN211 is $6299. I definitely prefer it to lower-resolving, less convincingly-executed 845 amps. The same-execution AN845 is $1100 more in the US. If the extra $1100 is immaterial to a purchaser, I'd recommend the 845 version. But if that difference is a valuable and necessary saving, the AN211 will be better than several less convincing 845s for a similar price, coming out of Asia.
Another factor to consider is that while this is changing, there are still more 845 tube options for rolling than 211s.
Phil |
Holley,
I leave my subs powered unless I have an extended absence. Especially with the Hypex amps, the idle current draw is low, and generally on-off cycles are an aging factor to internal Class D electronics at least as influential to MTBF as always-on.
Phil |
Charles,
I missed the 845 part of your question, in my answer about Lamm. I think the Lamm SET amp is more resolving and accurate than the 845 Black Shadow or any 845 SET amp. But the Audions are more emotionally communicative and engaging, with real shove to project dynamics and space. And they don't have the Lamm's bass shortcoming. I have my ultra-resolving Golden Dream PSET amps on my other system when I want Lamm-like resolution with truly holistic tone and full engagement, sacrificing some of the punch of the 845.
Phil |
Charles,
It would be too much to say that I am mystified by the delta between what I hear from LAMM and what reviewers describe, but then it's just more reason to consider most reviewers fiction writers of varying narrative capability rather than journalistic scribes with good normative skills. I don't remotely expect objectivity.
Lamm certainly offers smooth resolution but I'm not a fan of the triple nipple tube, or at least I'll say I've yet to hear an amplifier that sounds natural and engaging that's built around the 6c33c. Everything about the Lamm SET amps should make them stellar: Relatively simple circuit, robust power supply with quintuple choke regulation, careful parts selection. And a designer who clearly has both a point of view and unassailable expertise. My kind of guy.
Robert Harley wrote that Lamm SET is "magical" and among the best amplifiers in the world. He thinks "music comes to life" with Lamm SET. Well, that's him, and it means nothing to me. He's also left enough qualifiers littered about his text to give him an out for any argument that might be waged against his conclusions. And Harley's not alone. You can find plenty of praise for Lamm in the planet's digital repository.
The problem is the Lamm SET amp inadvertently spotlights what it doesn't have. Don't get me wrong -- it's in the white hat realm of amplifiers. But it does have a high bar to clear because it isn't a value buy, and while it wins kudos for resolution that lacks inflammation, particularly in the midrange and within its power limits for the speaker it is driving, it doesn't sound tonally holistic. It consistently sands off both beauty and ugliness in music, just enough to notice that it is imposing an enforced "neutrality" on everything that shaves off distinctive character. It wants to be authentic but it's always editing. Now, I'll say that lesser triple nipple amps do this too, but far worse. That Lamm does it at all, given its reputation and price, isn't acceptable to me. Nor interesting.
Harley reviewed the Lamm as not having the limitations of SET, as though he hadn't listened to a single-ended triode hifi amplifier in the past 40 years. The art, science and execution of SET amp design has come a long way since ham--handed searchers of the 70s through the 90s revived this topology for hifi. Today, the quality (and qualities) of SET amps is as widely disparate as for push-pull bottles or silicon in any configuration.
Lamm SET amps give me a very good photograph of a music performance. More objective than a painting; less involving than HD video or film. Lamm does a nearly perfect job of presenting music as a finely-rendered artifact, but like a photograph only suggests the dimensioned person or object, Lamm fails to envelope me in the emotion driving the music. Nothing washes over me. Maybe it would mean something to say that, to exaggerate a bit and make the point vividly, Lamm makes even Bob Marley sound like Philip Glass, emotionally.
Bottom line: I'd much rather listen to my Audion Golden Dream PSET amps with KR 300B tubes. And if I replace those it will be to go from Level 6 to Level 9 for full silver and the rest of it. I don't know what Harley is talking about. The Absolute Sound indeed....
Phil |
