Atma-Sphere with Gilmore on HE 2004


Have anybody heard Atma Sphere Music Amplifier MA-2 Mk. II.3 with some Gilmore speakers on HE 2004 NY ?
I have heard, read a lot about those output transformless tube amps, I was expecting audio nirvana, my expectation was very high, but what I heard was week non-dynamic, non-involving sound. Yes there was a lot of details nice soundstage, but still sound was lifeless. Was it speakers, or this transformless amps sound this way ?

I was mighty impress with transformfull :) Manley or VTL or even more with VAC Phi. I even went back after few hours one more time to Atma+Gilmore room unfortunately the some bad impression. Was it bad combination?
Does Berning's sound the some way ?
sorlowski
I was at the show as well and was less than impressed with the synergy. I have to agree that the amps are not able to wrestle with that many woofer motors, especially in that room. I echoe Trelja's comment that the combination was unable to resolve even the treble, it was indeed harsh. I have heard these amps do wonderfully well with different speakers but if your looking for a rich lush tone you may not want these. They are super clean, pure and very fast. The room was too big and they are better suited to moderate volumes.
I was with Trelja and Mechans in the room and we all agreed that the pairing did not work to our ears. I also have to add though that It WAS NOT the MA-2's at fault. I have heard them in Rushton's room driving his Eidolons, and they produce the most beguiling, involving music I have ever had the pleasure of listening to. Ralph builds a tremendous product and I myself would love to try a pair of the MA-2's in my room to drive my Magnepan 3.6. I just don't think the Gilmore/Atma-sphere coupling is a good one.

I am not saying the Gilmore is a bad product. I have not had enough experience with it being powered by more suitable amplification. But unless the three of us were suffering from a group hallucination, we all felt the synergy was non-existent and the sound was harsh and uninvolving.
Miler,
>I'm not a big fan of tube gear either.
You misunderstood me, I'm just not fan of transformless tube gear since the show. Sound quality, liveness of good tube gear I had heard from (Lamm, Hovland, Vac, Manley) is just beyond reach of any even outrageously expensive SS gear, at least to my ears. Not all tube gear is equal, like not all SS gear is equally bad :)
For example $144.000 SS rig from MBL sounded really good (only one SS I really liked on HE 2004), but I would prefer ~$40.000 Manley+Joseph Audio+"do not remember source".
I would encourage you to give OTL amplifiers another chance.

At the 2001 and 2002 HE shows, I found the Atma Sphere amplifiers sounded horrific with the Classic Audio Reproductions horns. Two months later, I heard the same amplifiers with a different pair of speakers and wound up buying them on the spot.
Hi Y'all, I thought I should put in my 2 cents as you knew I would eventually...:)

I'm sure you've noticed that there is not a consensus about what you all heard, with the exception of those being in the room at the same time hearing the same thing. Some say, smooth sweet sound, bass is too FAT, others- harsh sound, no bass, soundstage OK. Still others, no soundstage, highs too soft, amp can't handle the woofers, etc....

IOW, complaints, yes, but they are contradictory.

There is a simple reason for all of this. And since I was in the room a lot, I can tell you that I experienced all of the above, and more. There are no contradictions, just the system being true to the recording.

If that's what was playing at the time you came in, then that's what you heard. Thus the contradictions.

I heard a lot of bad recordings at that show and I heard a very small number of good ones. The goods ones were spectacular- the most realistic portrayal of string bass I have heard at a show, by a long stretch, and the system did very well with a recording that I know quite well- CANTO GENERAL. I recorded CANTO myself.

On other recordings the system faithfully revealed the flaws that were inherent in those recordings. There were a lot of them.

My feeling is that this speaker has raised the bar (IOW its a breakthrough) and we (myself included) are all challenged to understand that significance. I know this applies to me; as natural recordings (i.e. two mic recordings) I made sound fine, while other recordings I've heard for years did not have the bass I was used to (more *or* less), or had details I had not heard before, etc.

As I mentioned a previous post, it gave me food for thought:

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?ymisc&1085260344&openflup&20&4#20

-where I said:

" If I was having trouble with this, I cannot doubt that others would have too. The Organ Symphony was the eye-opener, as it did demonstrate that the bottom end was there and not lacking.

Mark claims that most speakers (planars included) retain energy for various reasons- box resonance, frame resonance (in the case of certain planars) or the inability of the diaphram to return to center (or the resting point) as in the case of certain ESLs. By placing the resonant frequency of the baffle an octave below the cutoff of the drivers, and by having no box at all, Mark avoids these issues, but boy is the bass different! He says if you add a little bass boost to simulate the energy retention of other speakers, that then the bass is presented the way most people are used to hearing it, but he maintains that such is not correct.

Are we used to hearing overly bloated bass? "

-Anyway, the bottom line here is that one had better have a good idea of the recordings one is listening to with a speaker like this. I use recordings that I have made and that has always been my reference. But if you don't have that luxury, it is a simple fact that you will have to bring a variety of well-known recordings with you to a show, and have them demonstrated to you.

One guy did just that, and had what was to him a startling revelation. He had two CDs, both of a 1960s Impulse jazz recording. One was HDCD and the other was the original digital issue. He had been listening to the original, but got the HDCD, which seemed to sound better on his system. But on our system, both CDs sounded better then he was getting at home, but the Gilmores revealed how the original CD was actually more natural sounding (more shimmer in the cymbals, more liquid sax tone, stuff like that) then the HDCD. He auditioned the difference several times.

So next time, bring your own recordings. Otherwise you will have no idea why a certain recording is playing and why the system is sounding the way it is. A revealing nature, as any audiophile knows, has its price. If you want the stereo to always sound its best, the recording has to have its ducks in a row. Unfortunately, there is a dirth of good music that is well recorded and altogether too much that is well-recorded that I will never want to hear again. For those who have to stay in the room all day, its hard to always play the same audiophile recordings ad nauseum. I play music that I like instead, and deal with the recording.

And that's what y'all were hearing.