Your question is really hard to answer. One of these amplifiers might sound better in your system depending on your speakers and preamp.
The best thing you can do is to try to borrow one of these amplifiers and listen for yourself.
What is the rest of your system? Perhaps the amplifier you are currently using is more than up to the task and there is something else in your system that needs to be changed.
|
And these would be driving... what speakers?? And driven by what???
I.e. what's the system? All your parametres -- but esp. 2-3 -- refer to spkrs and amp-spkr interface primarily.
For example, 901 was more satisfactory driving Tannoy Westminsters than the expensive stereo Boulder (whatever its number).
Neither produced 1 or 2; 3 was OK on both probably due to spkrs set-up more than anything else.
What was wrong? Amps? Speaker cabinet? I don't know... Cheers |
The preamp : MBL 6010D reference preamp
The speakers: Usher Be-10 / Kharma 3.2FE (own the 3.2)
Proac 1s (own these also)
CD Transport: Oracle 1000 (New)
DAC: PT P3A , P1A (BEst so far)
Speaker cables: Silver ovals Analysis plus
Ics: Nordost valhalla
I was hoping for a difference in sound characteristics. I own the Boulder 2050 monos right now & thinking if the MBL would sound more in tune with my stated preferences.
Is it worth the change ?
My impressions: Listening to these great amps in different setups does not make for fair comparisons, but here are my thoughts.
The MBL sounded more warmer and softer but with higher extension on the top. The boulder had better lows and also had a warm midrange but more to the neutral side.
Maybe boulder had better detail ???
Any input guys ??? |
Sthekepat: The MBL sounded more warmer and softer but with higher extension on the top. Well, your quick comment is reasonably close to my experience with Tannoys above. Only, I did not detect the same anomalies in the bass region from the MBL. Hence, I preferred the MBL in that application. I would probably prefer them driving the Kharma's ceramic driver set-up -- but am just speculating. |
Has anyone compared the MBL 9011 v/s 9008A s ?
Would be interesting to hear the sonic differences !! |
I would consider different i/c before I switched out amps since Nordost has some serious issues. The sonic flavours are very different cable to cable and would be a to hear new sounds from the same amps. Hope this helps Dennis |
Given the preferences you list, Sthekepat, you sound like a prime candidate for MBL speakers. Given that you already have the preamp, I would take a good listen to the 111 or 116 speakers coupled with the 9007 amps. They together would clock in at a lower price than the 9011s alone, and I'm absolutely certain it would give you the improvements you ask for. :)
Now, if you have a large room (35-40m2 or larger) you really want the 101 speakers, but they are a bit expensive, and also want the larger amps like 9008 or 9011.
To my ears, 9008 and 9011 sound a bit bass-heavy when played on other speakers than the 101, which is what they were designed for. So if you want to couple these to other speakers I strongly recommend an in-home demo. |
Thanks Osgorth.
I will be considering speakers pretty soon. My room is a dedicated room of about 22 x 15 x 9. I got e-mails from some who swear by the 9011s being the most transparent amp of all and as you mentioned with the MBL preamp it might make a swell combo. In about 10 days, I will have a shootout between the boulder 2050s and the mbl 9011s. Will post the results soon after. |
That'll be fun I'm sure, the shootout between those beasts! :)
I'm just thinking that in the setup you have, I would look at the speakers first for an improvement. I have heard the Ushers several times and I'm not that impressed with them. Given your room size, I strongly recommend an audition of the mbl 111 or 116 speakers before you do anything else.
In any case I'd love to hear your views after the shootout! Both are fantastic amps. |
Sthekepat
you might try and add the Karan mono blocks to the shootout of the beasts. Karans are a paltry 1500 watts and and a damping factor that is 20,000. Neutrality is a strong suit of the amps and there is a great review in HiFi+ comparing them against some of the most current designs.Have fun gunslinger!Cheers Dennis |
I totally agree with Osgorth. I say go for it with the 9011's and 101E's. You will be amazed. |
Off topic, I am thinking of getting MBL 121's to go with my own powered bass units (to save money over the larger 116) and with my Atma-sphere MA1's.
I sit pretty close to the speaker position - 7 feet, and speakers can only live about 2 feet from the back wall - side walls are 5' and 10' away, in a fairly lively room.
I can't audition the speakers in my room, Any thoughts if this will be too much omni energy for me? I have corner tunes but can't do much more in terms of room treatment. I was also told I may have to get rid of my Acoustic Resonators with MBL's.
I love the 101e's but have not heard the smaller MBL's. |
The MBL is not the most transparent amp. FM Acoustics and Telos 2500 from Goldmund beat it at that. I own all of them so I know. I also own the Krell One which is equally detailed, maybe even more. The thing that the MBLs do well is that they deliver amazing power without sounding powerful. They are a good compromise between the super resolution of some of the solid states and the beauty of some amps like the Wavacs which come very close to the detail, are very refined but can not drive tough speakers with anywhere the performance of the 9011s. I have "only" heard the 2060 in my system from Boulder, my impression is that the differences you described are quite accurate. That was using the amps on the full spectrum with difficult to drive speakers in a smallish room.
Speakers really matter, to state the obvious, in assessing amps. My comments are based on the amps driving above 200hz with Gryphon Poseidons or the full range with Marten Coltranes. Actually, one of the better results was bi amping with the 9011 and Wavac 833 v1.3s. Although there are techincal reasons this would not be the easiest match on earth, it actually worked fine, especially with some equalization.
A lot of people really liked the 6010d preamp. I have owned it and compared it with many of the preamps people write about such as teh VTL 7.5 mkii, Krell Two, wavac, Lyra connoisseur, audio research ref3 and other. Again, a mid point, great bass but not at the caliber of some of the very best preamps (also not at their price).
In my view, the 9011s are one of the best products from MBL including their front ends which are even better.
At this level this is all about taste!! |
I did make an A/B comparison in my home of the 2050 monos with the Burmester 911 MK3.
The burmester had a liquidity that the boulders couldn't match. The Detail was better with burmester. The 911 was more open & transparent with a more natural tonality to it. The Boulder seemed constrained in the higher octaves compared to the german contender. The midrange was very clean on the 911s where the boulder produced an infused warmth.
The Boulders were better in imaging, I guess since they were monoblocks.
Well, I'm still in shock ....
I tried switching several cables and direct connections without the MBL 6010 preamp, but through all configurations the german amp was clearly better.
Any comments ?
Are the burmesters comparable to the MBLs ?
Thanks |
Hi, to some FM Acoustics is da best amplifier in da world, period! This is regardless of loudspeaker impedance or capacitance. They are better than Boulder, MBL or Burmester. I know this is quite a statement, but if the ear is the judge this might be the truth.
Chris |
