New LFD Zero LE mkIV

I still cant convey a lot more detail on the Mk4. It's impressing me sound-wise, and I am very comfortable with the looks. The top plate is now a channeled affair, not a flat piece of metal, and overall the changes with the front panel groove and top cover at least to me look good. As much for me as the aesthetics matter but i agree i'd not want to put an ugly unit on display, but this is far from being ugly. I've seen plenty of gaudy high end amps i'd not want to have openly displayed but i would expect many people try to create a nice look for their gear where its a feature or another family member is focused on that (my move from my audiospace was exactly for that reason).
Bass is certainly an interesting topic. I may have wanted the tighter tauter bass described in the Mk3, as my speakers are ending up needing to be relocated to account for what appears to be "more" bass now with the Mk4. But back to back changes are making me question exactly what there is more of and my environment is difficult to really test correctly in - needless to say there is some subtle difference i can hear, but whether the proac's are now showing up a flaw in their bass handling or there's just a lack of synergy I need to find out.
Thanks for the additional discussion on this, it's helpful to get more information and i am looking forward to others who get the amp to provide real world experience i can learn from. The agent here also noted that this unit has pretty much the same "signature" changes I've seen announced for the North America model. I cant confirm that, and have no plan to open up and its probably far beyond anything I can detect or would notice a difference from anyway.

Perspex was a suggestion that occurred to a number of end-users simultaneously. It isn’t dogma. It was a suggestion. Nothing more than that.

If glass could be bent into the appropriate shape at a reasonable price then no doubt the end-users would have gone for that. You don’t like Perspex? Well fine. The point is though that microphony is not an imagined event. However it is certainly true that not everyone can hear the effect. It’s a question of choice as to what to do about it.

Mind you, to ability to hear the effect is somewhat dependent on the process involved. If for example you take a unit (not necessarily LFD) and play it in the system with its resonant top case attached, and then at the identical volume without the case attached, a slight difference may be perceived. Fair enough.

However in my experience, listeners are more likely to hear the effect when the process is reversed. By this I mean the system is played without the case and then with the case. The latter is more time consuming though.

In each instance, for the effect to be heard, the case must be screwed tight to the chassis. No easy matter with LFD as the deliberately soft-head Allen screws used are not happy about being removed and replaced frequently. Frankly, I do not advise it.

For those that can hear it, and don’t like it, a solution to microphony is desirable. Battleship-type construction is one approach, applying semi-inert sticky panels is another and safety issues not withstanding, removing a top cover (most certainly not endorsed by me as a retailer nor LFD as the maker) is another. That’s the reality. The end-user has a choice. Unlike a number of other UK audiophile makers, LFD recognise that their end-users are adults and, in the main, readily able to think for themselves. Over here in the UK, that’s an approach which is as refreshing as it is rare.

Thank you

HP
Stereonow Ltd

Forgive me, but I'm unclear as to why, on the face of it, your opinion is any more important than LFD’s opinion? Is there some logic to this that I'm missing?

Dr Bews is not a person to apologise for not designing ‘jewellery’ that attempts to play music! He can’t, and so he doesn’t.

He has his priorities as indeed you have yours. If your priorities are incongruent with his then hey, you have a choice – right? LFD are not the only decent-sounding gear on the block. The USA has over the years produced outstanding examples of true state-of-the-art integrated amps and a lot more besides. You could buy those if you’ve a mind to.

If you expect a better fit finish, then don’t buy LFD. A bit of a no-brainer I’d have thought.

You don’t like ugly. Fair enough. Right on! Neither do I - but is your ‘ugly’ the same as someone else’s’ ‘ugly”. If so, how do you know for sure? Who is the arbiter of good taste in visual design? Certainly not me.

Your understanding of a “stat” seems to me to be a variance with the mathematically accepted definition of that term. What I stated was not a stat. Sorry about that. You said ‘to put it in context’. Can you expand on this. Unfortunately you’ve lost me on that one!

In conclusion, LFD as indeed all makers of all items do, is offering an invitation to buy. Not an edict to buy. Not a command nor a compulsion to buy. Merely ….. an …… invitation. So you don’t like the invitation and you decline; well fine. Nobody died did they? Hi-fi is only a tool for reproducing music. In absolute terms, is nothing more than that.

Thank you

Howard Popeck
Stereonow Ltd

Howard. I am aware that microphony is an issue that concerns audio component designers, recording engineers, etc. I certainly have seen my share of see-through covers on audio exotica and on affordable gear too. I have no opinion as to any audible differences these clear panels/covers may or may not provide the end user. I smiled at the use of "gaudy" that "JTsin67" uses in his post. It will offend some here on audiogon when I say I see many audio components as gaudy. Taste is so subjective. As an example, when I've visited listening rooms with huge mono amps with big glowing VU meters that upstage the decor of a residential living room, it immediately strikes me as gaudy and perhaps ostentatious, and I think again about that talk of the male's acquisitions being an extension of their self-esteem/ego. I've often heard it said "I don't care about the appearance of a component, it's the sound that matters most", and while I agree in principle with the premise, I find myself doubting the sincerity of messengers. Call me suspicious and a pessimist at heart, but don't assume I'm naive as to the ways of man.

Hello Airegin.

So you find myself doubting the sincerity of messengers do you? Surely that must compromise the dissemination of both knowledge and awareness? Would you class Bach as a messenger. Mozart perhaps? Monet, Newton, Darwin or indeed the morning call of a blackbird. I'm pondering on how they might be perceived as insincere. Interesting thought! Thank you.

You invite me to call me suspicious and a pessimist at heart. So okay, I will. I don’t feel any better for doing so. Perhaps my heart wasn’t really in it.

I’ve searched the postings here to try and figure out how you might have come to the conclusion that leads to your statement “but don't assume I'm naive as to the ways of man” My response is uncomplicated. Why on earth would I assume that – or indeed anything about you?