My DIs will be delivered this coming Thursday (June 14) and I am struggling to decide on how best to power them. It sure would be helpful if there was a way to catalog and post a standing list of components others have successfully used with DIs that includes room dimensions, treatments (if any), component MSRP, and a checkbox that indicates whether or not the reviewer compared different amps and if so which.
I don't know what to expect come Thursday but I am committed to the 60-day trial to see if they offer something that other candidates I've brought in have yet to. My only challenge is to try to make sense out of the many recommendations. One YouTuber says that a MasterSounD Box/DI combination delivers "great Synergy!" while another writes that their SET amp does the trick, another declares that solid state monos are the way to go, and yet another says that integrated are best. It's therefore difficult to assess the strengths and weaknesses of each combination short of buying and trying (which incredibly, after speaking to several manufacturers, this "buy and try" methodology is frowned upon. When did manufacturers become so boldly self-serving?) but if THAT (buy/try/keep or return) is the bottom-line reality then, okay.
|
@david_ten Included in the DI shootout are Spatial Audio M3 Triode Master and B&W 702 S2.
Will be driving it with PrimaLuna Dialogue HP Premium power amp (EL 34) and PrimaLuna Dialogue Premium preamp (wide assortment of 12au7 -- Mullard, TeleF, Brimar, Ciftie, stock).
Content is delivered via vinyl on a VPI Prime, w/2 3d arms outfitted with Dynavector XX2 and Ortofon Cadenza mono, via SoundSmith MCP2 phonopre; via digital through a Rocketfish bluetooth dongle by way of either Android or iPhone/iPad; via SACD through a SONY drive. Vinyl is typically (but not always) either original pressings and/or the newer 180g releases but in all cases I run them through an ultrasonic cleaner before use.
I’d have to double check but I believe that my interconnect cables are the ones <$100 purchased from Magnolia at Best Buy. Speaker cables are #10 Monoprice.
Room dimensions are 28x16x8, drywalled, carpeted, drop ceiling, no treatment; speakers facing into the long run, however this room is separated by a structural beam and so I have only half the space for listening. I’d like to try to post some images so that you can see the actual layout although it’s unclear how I’d do that.
Musical tendency leans toward vocal harmony groups and solos with decent (sometimes complex) instrumentation: Beach Boys, Beatles, Mamas & Papas, Turtles, Shirelles, Zombies, Ventures, Adele, Shadows, Dick Dale, Nat King Cole, Sinatra, ABC, B-52s, Go-Gos, Bow Wow Wow, Zeppelin, Elvis Costello, Gary Numan, Siouxie, Classics IV, et al.
I rarely play above 85db, most sessions are in the 68-78db range.
I read T. London’s review of the Pass Labs AX25 and Linear Audio ZOTL40 (when combined with the LTA pre) and he used a phrase that connected with me -- "palpability of individual players" during playback. He expressed in words the sensation that I would seek to recreate.
|
@david_ten Ok, I will reach out to Terry.
Do you have recommendations regarding cabling? Not too expensive? |
@david_ten Thanks again for the suggestion as Terry was kind enough to take time to go over my concerns and thanks to him I have a much clearer path ahead of me.
I’ve ordered a MZ2 upgraded with the linear power supply and NOS tubes, and I will also be demoing a ZOTL40.
Concurrently, I will be demoing a Pass Labs XA25.
I will mix and match everything, including the PrimaLunas, and see how it all shakes out.
Terry further suggested I consider rolling in NOS Tung-Sol black glass, oval plate 1947 6SN7, Brimar 12AT7 Yellow Label, and/or NOS Gold Brand Sylvania 1957 12AT7 (combinations of which he has used to his satisfaction) on the MZ2 and so I will also bring those to the dance as soon as I can track them down.
@lancelock Many thanks for the suggestion about the Ultralinear (UL) which is more costly. I did speak to Mark about that and at least for the moment we decided to try out the above combinations before anything else. So I will try to establish a baseline sound reference with the above gear and then may bring in the UL for a sound check. If the UL expresses "more" magic then I guess the question for me will be, does that "more" justify the extra expense.
One more note I thought I should share (although I wish there was a way for me to display photos of my listening space because then this explanation would be clearer to anyone reading it). After speaking with Terry, I went downstairs to my set up, and essentially redid the configuration. I moved the speakers perpendicular to where they had been, put towels in front of each of the full length movie posters hanging on the walls (in front and to the sides), hung sheets from the center beam to basically separate the length of the room. So now I have a strange looking but essentially cordoned off listening space. This effort produced an immediate, startling, positive effect that has me questioning my entire effort above.
Nonetheless, I am committed to the journey ahead and look forward to hearing where it takes me.
|
I wanted to add that I've ordered a Peachtree Nova300 integrated amp to my demo scenario. It should arrive at about the same time as the ZOTL early next week.
All I've done since my last post has been to break-in the DIs by running them 14 hours/day with a highly dynamic CD. I won't do any serious evaluation until all of the amps/pre are in the house.
Two quick observations to share: 1) the DI sonic signature noticeably changed from right out of the box to about 10-20 hours in, and 2) the DI has a sonic presentation clearly different from the Spatial Triode Master M3 and B&W 702 S2; not "better" to my ears, but just different, and time will tell how affected I am after a focused test.
I didn't really appreciate what the other speakers did until I had the ability to do a quick side-by-side comparative listen. The well-broken-in Spatials are able to deliver a very clever, palpable, convincing, and engaging 3D simulation with my PrimaLuna gear.
|
My impressions of the DI ($3300 vers.) after bringing in in one fell swoop $45k+ worth of gear to demo (which included Martin Logan ESL-X and Motion 40, B&W 702 S2, Spatial Audio M3 Triode Masters, Polk Audio RT600i, Pass Labs XA25, Linear Tube Audio Zotl40 and MicroZotl, Prima Luna HP Premium DiaLogue separate power and preamp [outfitted w/ various configurations of stock EL34, Mullard, TeleF, Brimar, Cifte, RCA, and Amperex 12Au7s], Peachtree Nova 300, and McIntosh MA-252, among other misc IC accessories, with content delivered via two 3D tonearms outfitted with separate Cadenza mono and Dynavector XX-2 MkII stereo carts via a SoundSmith MCP2 on a VPI Prime, Pioneer Elite SACD, and Bluesound Node 2 fed Tidal MQA):
- The DIs are nice sounding speakers, and I liked what I heard, but in my space, my content, and for my listening preferences they could not match up to the M3 Triode Masters which, with my component chain, deliver a much more lively sonic experience. So the DIs were returned. The TMs also proved to be FAR more versatile than the DI/ML/BWs in terms of placement.
- When compared side-by-side to the B&Ws, it was obviously apparent to me and the other reviewers that the Bowers provide a much clearer, more articulate and vividly real vocal presentation than the DIs and ESL-X, regardless of content. That difference was significantly less noticeable when compared to the TMs but it was still apparent (and for my listening pleasure not worth spending another $4-5k to move up the Bowers model line -- at least not at the moment -- even for a demo. I now understand why Bowers’ enjoy the accolades it’s received over the years).
- The DIs and ESL-X presented a much wider and seemingly fuller sound stage than did the Bowers, but the TMs provided the widest, deepest, discernibly "palpable" images and most aurally convincing experience.
- I underestimated the size of the DIs and in that regard my demo may not have been a fair fight. The DIs are nearly twice the size in total volume when compared to the other speakers demoed.
- The DIs were the Eric-recommended speakers for my space.
- In the end, the primary lesson I learned from my demo experience is how significant a part the listening room plays in creating a sensation that turns mere music playback into something more.
- The second lesson I learned is how sitting positions affect listening observations. For example, we were all startled when the "old" pair of Polk Audio rt600i towers sounded to us equally as "good" as the DIs but we had to sit on the floor when listening to the Polks to get that sensation (as opposed to sitting on a chair to demo the DI).
A special thanks to Terry London at HomeTheaterReview.com, Gene DellaSala at Audioholics.com, Kevin Deal at Upscale Audio, and Mark Schneider at Linear Tube Audio for their direction which informed my efforts.
I do want to say that even though the PrimaLuna power/pre components sounded "best", I would have absolutely NO qualms about switching over to the Linear Tube Audio gear. In fact, I found that I didn’t even need the ZOTL 40 to power any of the speakers -- the MicroZOTL was capable of delivering the goods on its own. I am definitely keeping my eye on ZOTL for future needs.
Again, my impressions above are FWIW. And if anyone ever gets near the Philly area and wants to stop by for a demo, give me a heads up and I’ll try to accommodate.
|
@divertiti
I hesitate to say anything because if my impressions don’t measure up to what appears to be the consensus of others, I start to wonder that maybe I’ve done something "wrong" when auditioning. But because you’ve asked, FWIW, here goes.
I brought in the Pass Labs XA25 because Terry London had written how much of an impression it made on him with his chain/room/etc (as compared to the Linear Tube Audio) so I was curious to see if it would have an impact on my listening configuration. As you probably know, in addition to the myriad differences in his vs my chain he uses the more expensive Tekton speaker.
When asked, Eric suggested that I might try either a Parasound or Peachtree Nova amp because apparently others had reported "success" with those products. I couldn’t get a Parasound in as quickly as I would have liked but had no problem getting the Peachtree within a few days.
Many people report being impressed with Pass Labs products; and the XA25 is reported by some to be the closest thing to the "tube" sound that an SS amp can get. It just didn’t play out that way for us. Yes it delivered a pleasant rendering of our selected content but when swapping between it and the PrimaLuna or the McIntosh or the LTA it was so obviously apparent how it renders noise differently. With the XA in the chain, playback seemed "flatter" than with the pure tube or hybrid. It wasn’t "bad" but it wasn’t as expressively "palpable" (to quote Terry London) as the PL or Mc or LTA gear. Believe me when I say that we spent A LOT of time with the XA25 trying so many configurations in our attempt to reproduce what others reported.
It’s probably important to stress that I prefer a bouncy, sponge-like rendition when I hear content. To me it’s that "sponginess" that makes performances seem more palpable. When a drum head is hit, the sensation I want is not only to feel the depression but also the skin bounce back -- the warble. That gets me engaged physically and emotionally. This was the key element that differentiated the Triode Masters. They can deliver the warble with effectively convincing imaging and the others could not. No doubt by design, the Triode Masters pressurized our room in such a distinctive manner that to us was and is seductive. This is the sound that I’ve been chasing. The result was true regardless of the chain components but clearly more pronounced with PrimaLuna in the middle.
[All the speakers we heard gave varying degrees of "warble" but the TMs deliver it in spades. When finished, we all just looked at each other, shook our heads and said, "There’s no comparison". What’s more, the TMs can deliver warble almost anywhere in our room. They are a placement dream. The others were very finicky placement-wise so much so that I would call them one-dimensional in this regard.]
In our chain, the Peachtree was the worst of the amp bunch and left a bad impression on all of us. It detracted instead of augmented.
If we were to rate amps in terms of the "warble" factor from highest to lowest (when paired with the TMs) it’s PL, LTA, Mc, XA, PT.
With respect to how we heard the PLs, for us, we know that it’s mostly in the tubes. We didn’t change out what was sent to us in the LTAs even though I tried to find the tubes that Terry London recommended but no one had them in stock (and as of the writing of this reply no vendor has notified me that they have them in stock).
What made the PLs stand out was how it produced a more "meaty" (?) presentation, a more "flesh on the bone" reproduction regardless of the tubes rolled.
To compare: a note got struck on a piano, and with the LTA/Mc/XA it’s there and feels "real". A note got struck on a piano, and with the PLs it’s there but it felt "much more real", more tangible. When we heard it on the PL it conjured up a vivid image of a decaying oscillating string. It was as though we were standing at the back of the instrument looking down actually watching the decay (as opposed to sitting in front of the piano watching it get played but only hearing strings get plucked. Yes we heard decay but it felt two-dimensional by comparison). Maybe for others this is too subtle a distinction to matter. But because we weren’t able to ignore it, we all noted it. So the PLs gave us that "looking inside" impression and did it with all content. Again, it did it with the benefit of the TM’s deep warble.
Everything that we brought in (with Peachtree as the lone exception) was capable of delivering a satisfying aural experience. I know that if I heard these components in isolation without benefit of comparison I probably would have been happy to have any of them. Yet they wouldn’t have "nailed it" for me. I would have been left with that lingering "What if?" or "How about?" So I felt the need to do what I did to resolve any doubts once and for all (in the price range that I wanted to spend). It was a great learning experience that clarified A LOT of things about audio and audio claims.
I would end this note by saying that what I’ve written barely touches the tip of our evaluation iceberg. We also tried a variety of ICs and speaker cables and that was a great learning experience too. In addition, we spoke to many manufacturers and vendors, and that too was quite an interesting experience on its own.
|
@corelli I rarely get into Audiogon so I only now read your question:
"I read your post on AudioCircle where you upgraded your Spatials to the TM’s. If I read you correctly you seemed to be a bit underwhelmed and were ready to go "back to the drawing board."So I am assuming your last two posts represent that effort.
Now you seem very taken with the TM’s despite using the same PL electronics you had before. So was it by way of comparison you realized just how good the TM’s really are? Not being at all critical here--just trying to understand what changed your opinion.
Lastly, it would be helpful if you could comment on imaging/sound stage of the DI’s vs the TM’s. While I won’t be parting with my DI’s, I have a second system that I have considered the TM’s for. They would be driven by a PL HP integrated. In particular, how does the height of the stage compare to the DI’s. Thanks. "
Yes, you are spot on, my last two posts here represented the "effort" to find a sound particular to my needs. To put some perspective on this, given that this thread is specific to DI, my comments should be read strictly as one man’s (along with the others who were involved in the demos) opinion about how DIs compared to TMs, MLs, B&W, Polks, etc. in my room/my chain/etc.
There never was a moment when I "realized just how ’good’ the TM’s really are". What I realized is how important room configuration/treatment/speaker placement is to achieving a sound that suited my aural goals. "Aural goals" is a moving target though, I learned that it’s always going to be on a spectrum because content delivered was/is never identical from song to song, artist to artist, playback unit to playback unit.
I also learned that there is no holy grail, i.e. one speaker/amp/etc. that will "nail it" or do it all. That’s why now when I read manufacturing marketing or post claims that imply this, I know that it’s complete and utter rubbish. Some of it is well-intentioned yet perspectiveless, most of it is PT Barnum fabrication in its purest form.
To put it another way, if I listened only to Beatles vinyl I would have bought B&W. Vocals presented via the 702s were the most articulate in my space. But I’d have to give up some of the previously described warble in exchange. B&W couldn’t pressurize (warble-ize) my room consistently with other content. Thus the TM’s represented the best compromise among all of the gear demoed across all of the type of content I listen to.
To more specifically answer your first question, the key was speaker placement. Changing placement changed what I previously found to be a lackluster not-so-emotionally grabbing aural experience into one that turned out to be a game changer for me. I didn’t care which speaker would have done it, it just so happened that it turned out to be the Spatial Audio brand/model. The others couldn’t offer what the TMs do. We tried to get them to, but couldn’t. The "do" to which I refer is a certain aural sound/experience that appeals to me (and appealed to the others who were with me during the demos). I would never assert that anyone else should/would prefer what I happen to like.
So maybe it begs the question -- could I have saved myself all of the time and effort I put into this quest if I had simply more thoroughly experimented with TM speaker placement/treatment at the onset? Possibly yes, although I know myself well enough to know that I would have still had that lingering nagging question, "What if (with other gear)?" I needed to scratch that itch once and for all. And I figured why not do it with a speaker in the demo chain that some people were calling a "giant killer". Well I learned that for me it’s not a giant killer after all. It’s just another nice sounding speaker among many many other nice sounding speakers. They all had benefits and limitations. But the DIs cannot pressurize my room the way the TMs do. They simply cannot do it. The TMs it turns out, with the baffleless rear design, do something that I found unique and that I personally like.
With respect to "how does the height compare"? The question implies that "height" is a variable that gets rendered consistently across all content, all delivery platforms, which I found not to be my experience. I can say that, looking at my notes and recalling our demo sessions, there was no appreciable difference TM vs DI, otherwise we would have noted it.
Again, as I’ve mentioned in prior posts, if anyone is flying by Philly and wants to hear what I’ve built, send me a PM and I’ll try to arrange a private listening session so that others can hear what I hear/experience.
After re-reading my posts, I see that the discussion has become somewhat academic. If anyone learns anything from my experience it's that there's no substitute for bringing in multiple gear into one's listening space and taking the time to experiment. I found it to be an enjoyable experience, for the most part. The big downer for me was some of the experiences I had when speaking with various manufacturers. I will never again separate a marketing claim from one's self-interest.
|
