I think the obvious answer (but perhaps not the correct one) is that a component that excels in revealing minute detail usually does so at the expense of "warmth". Conversely warmth usually hides some minute detail. In my experience its hard to find any equipment that truly excels at both. I have opted for a small bit of warmth, it just sounds more natural to me. I do not think this same tonal balance need effect the overall dynamics of a system, that is the ability to convey the quietest sound and the loudest sound at the same time in an uncompressed fashion and the speed in which the system conveys the leading edge and the decaying part of the sound. To me this lack of compression, combined with a bit of mid-range warmth gives recorded music a more "life like" sound. In audio everything comes as a compromise of some sort.
Dynamics and Microdynamics
Perhaps this isn't an amplifier, but a speaker issue instead (or both). Here is my observation:
I recently listened to the same piece of music (Chopin, Etudes, Pollini, Deutsche Grammophon 431221) on two different systems (in the same room). System A: VTL MB-450 monoblocks in tetrode mode, driving B&W Nautilus 802. System B: Classe Delta CA M-400 monoblocks driving Wilson Watt/Puppy 7. Source, pre-amp, and cabling was the same.
Now here's what was strange: While the Classe/Wilson system was clearly better at microdynamics (ferreting out the hidden gems of melodical lines within the overall structure of the pieces), the VTL/B&W system did a better job at conveying the dynamical punches (from ebbing to swelling, up and down the tonal scale), i.e., the guts of the musical structure. From memory, when I listened to these pieces live, both mico-and macrodynamics were clearly audible, not just one or the other.
Also, system A sounded a little thinner, system B a little warmer. So my question: Any explanation for this? While I understand that the refinement you get with an accurate representation of microdynamics is system-dependent (and the Watt/Puppys are more expensive speakers than the Nautilus 802), both systems should have been able to get the macrodynamics right, or not? Or does this have anything to do with tube (VTL) vs solid-state (Classe) technologies?
Thanks for any insights.
I recently listened to the same piece of music (Chopin, Etudes, Pollini, Deutsche Grammophon 431221) on two different systems (in the same room). System A: VTL MB-450 monoblocks in tetrode mode, driving B&W Nautilus 802. System B: Classe Delta CA M-400 monoblocks driving Wilson Watt/Puppy 7. Source, pre-amp, and cabling was the same.
Now here's what was strange: While the Classe/Wilson system was clearly better at microdynamics (ferreting out the hidden gems of melodical lines within the overall structure of the pieces), the VTL/B&W system did a better job at conveying the dynamical punches (from ebbing to swelling, up and down the tonal scale), i.e., the guts of the musical structure. From memory, when I listened to these pieces live, both mico-and macrodynamics were clearly audible, not just one or the other.
Also, system A sounded a little thinner, system B a little warmer. So my question: Any explanation for this? While I understand that the refinement you get with an accurate representation of microdynamics is system-dependent (and the Watt/Puppys are more expensive speakers than the Nautilus 802), both systems should have been able to get the macrodynamics right, or not? Or does this have anything to do with tube (VTL) vs solid-state (Classe) technologies?
Thanks for any insights.