Mattnshilp: as I posted here, if you are using the stock tubes, you're in for a shocker if you try the National Union VT-99. |
I hate to sound like a broken record, but until you get the National Union VT-99 tubes in the Lampi, you are not even remotely close to hearing its potential. |
Mattnshilp: I guess the only way is for me to pop out the tube pair from my L6 and send them to you. Send me a note through my member name with your address and I can get them to you. Will be 2-3 days shipping, and a week to play and then 2-3 days back. Time this such that the other units will be "warmed up". If all will be ready for next weekend, I will send them out on Wednesday.
John |
Well Joecasey, if you like a flat 3D presentation with the middle octaves distant, then the Sylvania tubes will be for you. |
I spoke with Merrill and he warned me that "more air is sometimes more smear." My experience is totally the opposite. Moe air to me means more silence and thus less smearing. From all the years I spent comparing the Aesthetix Callisto Sig line stage and Io phone stage to other products I brought in for comparison, and then later with the Aria WV5 preamp, more air implied less smear and there was silence between the notes that did not exist before. This is most notably clear with piano. With the Aesthetix pieces, you get a lot of bloom and thus much smearing. With the Aria, the addictive bloom is reduced as you can now so much more hear the strike of a subsequent piano key that was clearly masked before. I tried so many solid state preamps out there and none come close to the Aria in this regard of the 3D portrayal and follow-on delineation. You get a lot of air with solid state line stages, but sadly you get a much flatter portrayal of space compared to the top tier of tube products. The above qualities were exactly where the Lampizator B6 excelled over my long-time reference, the Manley Ref DAC. And I went through even more DAC comparisons to this than line stages …. many of which were "highly-rated" solid state DACs but ultimately boring as hell 3D performance. To achieve such results can take many months or more of system tuning, exhaustive tube rolling efforts, and finding that magical IC between the line stage and amp. The easiest way for me to destroy a ton of performance that I have achieved in my system is to put in any one of 95% of ICs out there in this link. And smearing is a major issue with cables in this link. |
Tbg: It is ridiculous for you to go to an audio show and hear a system for a few minutes with the Lampi in it and have any idea what contributions it makes or not relative to the rest of the system. If you have not heard it directly compared to another in a familiar setup, you have no idea what its sonic signature truly is. And 50 years of experience means nothing. |
Thank you Steve. It's always good to hear when a designer puts out a great performing product at a lower cost. For your products, did you ever try using linear power supplies from such companies as Lambda or HP and were they ugh more affective than the wal wart supplies? Was there something lacking that motivated you to design your own external PS as an option? |
Thank you Steve for the details. I have read about Hynes PS's for things like Mac Mini's. With an OffRamp 5 and a Mac Mini, maybe Hynes could make a custom PS to drive both. I will enquire with Hynes on this. |
Thank you Wisnon. I sent an email to Paul. |
Thank you Steve. With limited remaining shelf space I was trying to reduce the number of more boxes and power cords. I will start with the Turbo 5 PS after I spend much time comparing the T5 with the wal wart vs. MacMini str8 into the Lampi B6 via USB. |
The Lampizator is musical but of no real interest to me. It doesn't sound real. Well if the L7 in stock tube form is somewhat dimensionally flat as is the stock B6, I would have to agree. But like any tube product, if one goes with stock tubes and tries no other, then they likely have already set the failing state of such a product. We spend so much time tuning the rest of of our system with cables, isolation, room treatments, etc., but the tube products, with the potential of much improvement, are completely ignored….either out of laziness or the nonsense that we are told that the product was "voiced" for the installed tube set and thus this is the optimized implementation. Such voicing is often mediocre at best. I have been able to take EVERY tube product to a major level of performance increase with the swapping of one or more tubes. As for what is musical is what I define as a system that makes me feel I am listening to the real mccoy. On some great recordings I have, on LP and Digital, the Lampizator B6 is mighty mighty close to the Clearaudio/Graham/Decca phono setup I'm currently using. The B6's tonality and dynamic contrasts are spot on and only lags behind the phono with some lost ambiance and depth. I've been to enough audio shows to know maybe 1 in 10 rooms make it worth my while to stay more than 30 seconds. Much talk is the time to setup and let the system settle down in the "new" room. But I recently moved a system upstairs and had awesome results with the start of the first track…..room not treated or optimized at all. So I don't think it is a room issue as much as it is the assembly of products that work well as a system. Unless these have already been optimized ahead of time, it is futile to expect them to simply work well in any room whether familiar or an unfamiliar demo or mid-sized hotel room. |
I like the 7 better than the 6, but its a matter of taste. Now now now! Nobody has yet heard both, back to back, in fully optimized status. The 6 does not offer DSD. My B6 supports DSD but I am not willing to pay the ripoff prices of DSD downloads. |
Wisnon, as reported on the Lampi B6 thread, I tried the RCA VT-99 and it was a disappointment. I will try the Tung-Sol VT-99 one of these days but for now I am very content with the B6 sonics. |
Component "burn in" times are purely subjective. Having to wait 800 hours is absolutely ridiculous! 50 or 100 hours might easily be enough time for the component to perform mighty fine. Unless a component is severely flat or lacking extension at X hours, I highly doubt you are going to be able to quantify the exact differences 100 or 200 or whatever hours later based on memory.
There are far too many attributes in the listening room, temperature, humidity, time of day, listener's mood, electrical power voltage,, etc. that can easily result in perceived changes. We all have experienced a time or two where something just did not sound right and we return another day for the magic again to be there.
One way to actually document differences would be to use a "fully-burned in" component as a reference, and do a comparison day to day, documented/detailed. This would determine if the differences are now constant or whether the additional day of burn-in time of the component under evaluation is truly "changing" quantitatively/qualitatively relative to the differences documented the day before. After a few days of no documented differences, it's time to end the "burn-in" process. To expect additional time to result in a black sheep suddenly becoming a golden unicorn at burn-in between day 33 vs. day 34 (800 hours) is silly at best. This comparitive process is far more objective than relying on personal memory of exactly how a component sounded or changed the day or days before.
When I first powered on the L6, I was very concerned about weak bass. In an hour or so, the expected low-end presence was there. This is very typical of tube products. I always turn them on an hour or so before I even sit down for serious music listening. |
Shawbrows3: yes, "trash" is very harsh. And that's how it was in my system relative to the NU's. I have started with components full of stock tubes and the designer is clearly proud of the sound in stock form. But experience already told me about the benefits of replacing certain tube types and brands. And with some effort to try a handful of tubes, the component can take on a level of performance that likely the designer never experienced.
A past L6 owner told me to listen to both of these VT-99 tube sets. He was very nice to send me the NU pair to do a compare. He said one was the Lampi tube and he said the other was the one he liked. After I listened to both, I sent him my report and he replied that his experiences matched with mine. But I don't know of the degree of the differences for me vs. him.
The focus of my system has always been to achieve decays and harmonic structures. Sacrificing things like the ultimate in resolution and bass extension were done to get the 3D magic. Bringing on the Aria preamp, Jade Ref cables and now the Lampi took the 3D to a new level and brought on many refinements previously needing much attention. And lots of effort of tube rolling throughout majorly brought on accumulative benefits. I still feel there is clarity and resolution to achieve by replacing the Sound Lab speakers' backplate components with all the latest changes. This could Be huge. And would probably show even greater tube differences.
So I'm not sure what it is about my system that makes the NU significantly outperform the Sylvania. But in my system, relative to the NU, the Sylvania is horribly flat and way too distant. Had I only had the Sylvania and this was used in a multi-DAC shoot out, I doubt I would end up picking the L6 as a top-performer relative to it's competition. |
As with any tube rig, I understand that rolling tubes will allow me to fine tune the sound. I also understand, JaFox, that the UN 99 made a dramatic difference to you; and I sincerely appreciate your generous offer. But I don't think the Big6 needs to be improved upon, it's stunning as it is (at least in my system). Rolling tubes will only change the flavor of the magic. NO NO NO NO NO, trust me. Once you hear the NU VT-99's, the performance will be like going to a L7. Why turn this opportunity down? It's up to you. |
I am not here for any agenda on the Lampi or anything else. I simply suggested a tube change that in my system, which excels in 3D presentation, might give the reviewer here another view into the Lampi sound. And with the CAT amps/SoundLab pair, I can compete with all but the very top systems at the frequency extremes as well.
Solid state designers have many amplification devices to chose from. Tube designers are stuck with a few limited choices which are in high supply, sadly poor performers compared to the past tubes. But the consumer can resolve this with a little effort.
If I based any listening sessions to the tube products I have owned over the years with their stock tubes, I likely would never have been satisfied with any of them. The stock tubes barely give even a glimpse of a tube product's potential…..I don't care what any tube product manufacturer says about this.
I will soon try a number of rectifier tubes in the L6 and share those findings in a new upcoming thread. |
AL, my experience is that tube-rolling is much more profound than power cables in SOME links. I have found that tubes in any component can contribute to dramatic sonic changes. However, with cables, my experience has been that there is a definite pecking order that make the greatest difference in a system.
Today I can replace the IC from line stage to amp with any number of highly reviewed ICs and render the system almost lifeless…..it's like putting in a SS line stage. No other cable link in the system affects the 3D performance even remotely close as this. Once I have this link performing well, do other cable changes and tube experimentations begin to make serious contributions.
The best way to learn how significant each cable is, or tube may be, is to first achieve a level of personal audio nirvana. For many of us, this takes years and years. Then go back to some of your previously used tubes and cables…..and, with only one change, swap in that one item. Document the sonic change. Replace with original and repeat with other tubes, or ICs or only one power cord at a time with a typical $10 power cord from Home Depot. It will become quite clear as to which links in the system are most contributive or vulnerable to change. And such an experiment removes all the objective opinions by others as to which cable or tube or component is most important. |
