 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
| Model: | LS3 |
| Category: | Preamplifier (SS) |
| Suggested Retail Price: | $unknown |
| Description: | Line-stage Pre-amp |
| Manufacturer URL: | Audio Research, Inc. |
| Model Picture: | View |
| Review by waj4all on November 23, 2010 at 22:48:41 IP Address: 208.131.186.2 | Add Your Review for the LS3 |
AUDIO-RESEARCH LS3 versus PASSIVE or PRE-AMP LESS OPERATION:
'The Review'
by W.A.J.
The AUDIO-RESEARCH LS3 is one of the greatest pre-amps the world has ever known. It MUST be. I cannot imagine anything sounding much better than this.
Sure there are some that cost more (Audio Research’s own latest Reference 5 is around twelve grand) and I’m sure there must be, at least, a slight increase in quality. Though cynics may say they’re mostly pandering to those who like to brag about the cost of their equipment, and filling the coffers at the same time. For me, perhaps after several ‘slight increases’ I’ll reconsider my stance, but the point of diminishing returns must have been passed somewhere long before this pre-amp's moderately expensive original price-point. However, if the Reference 5 somehow combines, and improves upon, the strengths of the LS3's disparate modes then it might just be worth the price, as you'll probably agree when I elaborate on the strengths of the LS3's two modes of operation, 'normal' & 'direct'. The LS3 line-stage pre-amp is one of the two components that have made the biggest difference in my current system (night and day). And no, good as it is, my UREI power-amp isn’t one of the two.
Compared to other pre-amps, including an outstanding Quad 33, the sound of this Audio-Research was/is natural, open, airy, notes are clearly defined, stereophonics are near 'holographic', instruments/voices are sharply delineated on a wide sound-stage, voices and instruments seem bigger, more life-sized as the lower-mid-range void is filled-in, never before revealed low-level details are now apparent, appropriate notes blossom, bloom, and glow, then linger and fade in a way they never ever did before - in a way eerily reminiscent of the live experience. Dynamics, bass, and treble are truly top-notch, but it is this pre-amp's outstanding and unerring fidelity to the WHOLE of the midrange that most distinguishes it from the pretenders - as we'll see. This thing is awesome, and fully deserves its place on Hi Fi Critic magazines best pre-amp list, and Stereophile’s class ‘A’ components.
This 'review' is, originally, a segment of the multi-part article, 'System-Building for Lifelike Sound', regarding the components of my own audio-system. However, due to the dearth of reviews on this outstanding component I've decided to publish this segment as a stand-alone 'review' with a view to assisting those who, like me, have searched fruitlessly for in-depth comment on the subject. I hope this is helpful. Insight into the popular 'sound' of high-end, today, is also intrinsic to this account as it relates to a comparison between this pre-amp and the "purists'" mode of system operation - passive or 'pre-amp less'.
There is, indeed, a school of thought which asserts; it is best to eschew the use of a pre-amp and connect ones line-level source-component directly into ones power-amp – a school of thought to which I once subscribed. For years, I used no pre-amp. My CD player was directly connected to my power-amps, and yes, it sounded significantly better than having a pre-amp in the chain. But then the LS3 arrived for a demo, and I was literally BLOWN-AWAY. An audiophile friend in attendance was also blown away by its performance. Its night and day effect on the system was virtually indescribable, so I’m tempted to leave it at that, for the most part. Suffice it to say, for the moment, that it made me appreciate the quality of both the UREI amp and my KLH/NS10-derived D.I.Y. speaker-system.
LS3 versus PASSIVE (or PRE-AMP LESS) OPERATION: The argument vehemently posited in certain circles is that operating without a pre-amp is the ultimate mode of operation for a system - absolutely nothing can be better. [Certainly, this mode is even purer and more passive than a typical 'passive pre-amp', for obvious reasons]. This is a perfectly credible argument loaded with an immense amount of logic advocating purity and simplicity of system-operation. And since I’m a former ‘believer’, it would be remiss of me not to specifically relate the details of my own experience regarding the difference between operating a system without a pre-amp, and operating with the LS3. In a nutshell - LOWER-MIDRANGE BODY, and a near indescribable, but life-like "GLOWING"-MUSICALLITY. Those are the differences. The LS3 IS better. At least in this system, it's better by a significant margin!
This pre-amp has become, perhaps, the most critical component in the system - take it out, and the system goes flat, the lower-midrange goes missing, it resorts to merely very good, perhaps even extremely good hifi, but hifi nonetheless. The LS3 is the elixir that breathes life and uncanny realism into the system.
A recent storm had caused me to disconnect the system for several days. Impatiently, I'd eventually reconnected without the pre-amp, that's what reminded me of what the LS3 did for the system, and inspired me to expand this segment into a full 'review'. Without this pre-amp the system, to me, sounds dry and analytical, the type of sound many seem to love, but with which I’ve long been dissatisfied as it lacks the afore-mentioned elements necessary for natural realism. It reminded me of how the system sounded before the LS3's arrival. Reconnecting this pre-amp returned the blossom, bloom, glow, linger & fade of appropriate notes, and also returned the all-important lower-midrange body. It allows all the other components to exhibit their prowess in these areas. Without the LS3, for instance, the UREI and the KLH's sound ordinary and flat, just like most other 'very good' amps and speaker-systems I've heard, they're unable to display their extra-ordinary abilities at operating in the area most other components and systems can't even visit - the lower-midrange.
The lower-midrange prowess, and that vibrant bloom, linger & fade of notes, in addition to its uncommon dynamism, these are some of the factors which distinguish this audio-system, set it apart from the merely very good, and facilitate its approach to the realms of sonic realism. And the Audio-Research LS3 plays the starring role in this scenario. In one sense - just this one sense - it's even more influential in a system than a turntable, I would argue. That's because the turntable's contribution is confined only to that source, but the pre-amp brings its benefits to every source - even CD's sound more realistic thru the LS3. It is THE KEY component without any hint, or shadow, of doubt!
A rare disappointed user at audioreviews.com, some time ago, described the LS3 as bright and analytical. I would politely suggest that it's more definitely the system, or other components of it, that is/are at fault. That criticism could never be further from the truth. For an example; I've already indicated, in the article, 'SystemBuilding for Lifelike Sound', that most ss amps 'chop-off' the lower-midrange (claims of ruler-flat 20khz to 20hz response, notwithstanding). That alone would negate one of this pre-amp's main advantages. Therefore, this combined with most high-end speakers which also 'chop-off' the lower-mids in addition to being overly bright-sounding and relatively thin on bass, will cause any component to sound bright and analytical - no offence meant.
In addressing those who would argue that a system should sound better without a pre-amp, and therefore this pre-amp's virtues may be due to a coloration, I'll say this: Any coloration that makes my system sound as good and as realistically lifelike as this, I welcome with open arms. In actuality, though, the LS3 is said to be as neutral as they come, neutrality is one of the pillars on which its reputation stands. I really don't know why it sounds so much better than pre-amp-less, so to speak, but it does, and I'm 'extreeemely' happy with that! And, yes, it does have a virtual pre-amp-less or, passive, mode labeled; 'direct' (its purest mode of operation). In this mode it operates as a 'passive pre-amp', where most of the circuit is cut out, and yet it still seems to sound better than when source-components are plugged directly into the amps. Audio-Research did make exactly this claim in an ad for the previous LS1. I'm inclined to concur, so far as the LS3 is concerned.
However, I use it most frequently in the (active) 'normal' mode partly because I do a fair amount of recording which can't be done in the 'direct' mode. Perhaps more significant, though, is the fact that I seem to prefer the sound - the fullness of tone - this unit produces operating in the 'normal' mode. Yes, the sound in 'direct' is slightly clearer, and perhaps slightly more dynamic, treble is also more prominent. But it is, also, almost as thread-bare in the lower-mids as when the system is operated pre-amp less, so while I appreciate the benefits the 'direct' mode brings to limited areas, I always find myself yearning to go back to the 'normal' mode for the full-toned naturalness that so enhances the overall realism of the reproduction. To put it simply, 'direct' is like an excellent solid-state pre-amp excelling at the leading-edges of notes, with due regard to transients and dynamics - the 'normal' mode is like an excellent tube pre-amp excelling at the trailing edges, and lower-midrange resonances intrinsic to many of those musical notes. But it goes further, for while the 'normal' mode is close in competence at the 'direct' mode's areas of strength, 'direct' cannot even approach the 'normal' mode's areas of excellence.
Because of its uncommon strengths, the 'normal' mode brings to the fore all the lower-midrange sounds, tones, and fades of notes that are usually hidden by the vast majority of components and systems which are mostly inept in this region. Every musical track is now a treasure-trove brimming with previously hidden gems of musical information that all conspire to make each recording sound much more like a live performance.
This pre-amp, in the 'normal' mode, loves acoustic instruments like the piano and acoustic guitar, for just two examples, and goes above and beyond the call of duty to reveal every nuance of tone and overtone, not to mention very nearly the last iota of the resonances all such instruments produce in live performance and, therefore, instruments tend to sound life-sized, not miniaturized as thru most components. Certainly because of its excellence with acoustic instruments, electronic instruments also benefit. For instance, the electric guitar so common to most popular music such as in reggae, rock & roll, electronic-jazz, 60's/70's R&B, etc., now display their full range of tones (which bloom, expand, and sound appropriately 'big') instead of the small, flat, and constricted generic nasal twang most components reduce them to. Most remarkable, though, are those previously barely discernible hauntingly melodic ghosts of guitar virtuosos extremely deep in the mix which the LS3 now more prominently exposes within their proper context. Moreover, the ringing and prolonged fade of those notes along with their melodic tones give insight as to why electric-guitarists have always insisted upon tube-amplification for their instruments. The LS3 in 'normal' makes all this information clearly apparent, more so than any other component I've yet encountered.
The foregoing notwithstanding, I believe this pre-amp's greatest accomplishment is with the most difficult of instruments to reproduce convincingly - the human voice. Many components, including the LS3 in 'direct' mode (and pre-amp less) seem to truncate certain voices at the bottom of their range causing a kind of 'clipping' effect where the voice hardens in this region. This I discovered with the LS3 in 'direct' while specifically comparing both modes recently for the expansion of this review. This effect rarely occured with Diana Krall's voice even though it generally sounded thinner than natural, but it was most blatantly apparent with Michael Franks at the low range of his (similarly thinned-out) voice, on one track especially, where the pre-amp in 'direct' seemed to reach the point at which it could trace the signal no further, so it 'clipped', for want of a better expression. The same phenomenon, though rare in both instances, sometimes occured in my days of pre-amp less operation. In the 'normal' mode of the LS3, however, this never ever happens, and there's no un-natural thinning of the voice or any other instrument - ever. I'm growing tired of using the word 'real', but that's exactly the way voices sound thru this pre-amp in the 'normal' mode - full, and natural, and REAL!
More evidence of the LS3's superiority is apparent in its treatment of previously barely-discernible voices deep in the background. Back-up singers, for instance, are afforded greater exposure in this pre-amp's 'normal' mode as it elevates them from the barely evident homogeneous blob most components reduce them to, and separates and projects their voices to reveal distinct individual singers with unique vocal characteristics (even chest-cavity resonances) just as it does with all appropriate instruments, whether they're up-front or extremely deep in the mix. Countless are the times I've belatedly 'discovered' 'new' singers and instruments I never knew were there on recordings I'd listened to for years thru other highly-rated components and systems - now revealed in all their lifelike glory thru the 'normal' LS3. It bears repeating; this-thing-is-AWESOME!
The ideal would be to combine the slight increase in purity/dynamism of the 'direct' mode with the fullness of tone the 'normal' mode provides. (If Audio-Research's latest Reference pre-amp actually does this then it's probably worth it's weight in gold). I'll continue to experiment with inter-connects, etc., to see if this can be achieved by such means in 'direct', but I doubt it. I have ideas as to how this can be achieved by other means, but that's another long story. Moreover, with the current level of performance, I really don't feel compelled to modify anything. So for now, since a choice must be made, the decision in favor of realism is easy, especially since the 'direct' mode's limited benefits are not that great, in comparison.
This review is, therefore, based primarily on the LS3 operating in the more realistic (active) 'normal' mode. But be advised; the LS3's prowess in the lower-mids will only be accessible to those rare systems which are also proficient in this area. [With most systems (which are, unfortunately, deficient in the lower-mids) the LS3's passive 'direct' mode will be slightly more mid/treble-'detailed', and 'better' (for them) even if not as realistic, overall - as previously articulated].
Putting the above into perspective, pre-amp less operation is similar in sonics to the LS3's 'direct' mode, but even less accomplished. This is because some of this pre-amp's 'glowing' musicallity is still displayed in the 'direct' mode, albeit to a lesser degree than 'normal' - call it a 'thinned-out musicallity'. But pre-amp less operation doesn't offer even that - producing, instead, a dryer more mechanical sound along with its lower-midrange anorexia.
Connecting a source-component directly to one's amp is no panacea for sonic realism, in my experience. It can even be a deterrent as the life and body of the sound can be sucked out of a system which is perfectly capable of LIFELIKE reproduction. What is left is a thoroughly competent sound that is crisp and clear but dry and analytical, and also bereft of lower-midrange body, liquid-lucidity and lifelike-musicallity. Let us even concede that it minutely lowers the 'noise-floor', which logic would suggest - but the price is too high. And I'd much rather to have the big-picture whole and complete than to have that picture missing a major part, but brandishing a microsonically lower 'noise-floor'. The bare-boned 'nakedness' of this type of sound does encourage and facilitate analysis of the detail of what's left of the music (after the life and body have been sucked out) but to me analyzing a dead inanimate object, minus a major part, is not a pleasurable prospect. I'll leave that to the coroner.
Nevertheless, I can see why lovers of analytical detail would endorse this type of sound. It does not really provide that much more detail, but it does make it easier to examine what's left after some 'distracting elements' (mainly the lower-mid body) have been stripped away. To each his own. But the truth is; music cannot live, or be lifelike, without its body. It's a fact of nature. It's a fact of life! I've said elsewhere (re; 'From HiFi to High-End: What's Wrong?') that approximately 90% of the sounds of nature and music are in the midrange. [This can be verified by a glance at any graphic sound-spectrum analyzer as it responds to music from a CD or LP, for instance - not from the speakers]. Therefore to compromise the midrange in any way, is to compromise the realism of the whole reproduction. That lower-midrange, which is currently so uncommon in today's systems, is what gives live instrumental sound its robustness, its body, among other things (not the bass - check that spectrum-analyzer again). Take away the lower-mid, as most systems do, and the resulting sound can never be regarded as accurately representative of the real thing. It can never be lifelike. This is a fact!
LS3, PRE-AMP LESS, & TODAY'S HIGH-END SOUND: Sadly, I realize that this is the type of sound many people appreciate if only because most amplifiers and, absolutely, MOST modern speaker-systems are incapable of reproducing the lower-midrange body (and the almost indescribable musicallity) to which I refer. For a system to be truly lifelike it simply MUST be competent in those areas (especially the lower-midrange) as a pre-condition. But even with the most competent speakers and amps (in these areas) pre-amp-less operation could negate those abilities, as I've discovered. It limits, strangles, and withholds the lower-mids from the rest of the system, so even if ones amp and speakers are proficient in this area, one will never be exposed to the wealth of information in the lower-mids.
The LS3 releases all that lower-mid information to amps and speakers capable of operating in this area. The result is enhanced realism; musical notes become whole, and complete, the resonance of certain instruments is liberated allowing the instrument(s) to sound truly like the real thing and as big as life, notes in this region are more full, they expand, they linger for longer, then they slowly fade into oblivion regardless of the cacaphony around them. I was lucky to have an amp and speakers that were capable of showcasing the considerable advantage the LS3 holds over 'pre-amp-less' (and other pre-amps) in the lower-mids - otherwise, I might never have bought it. If, however, ones amps or speakers also limit the lower-mids, as the vast majority do, then one will never notice that much of a difference in this area.
Perhaps other systems react differently, perhaps I'm wrong, but I sincerely doubt it on both counts. I almost wish I were wrong, believe me, as these findings run counter to the opinions of some whose opinions I respect. What's more likely is that this dry, analytical sound bereft of the lower-mids (such as that provided by pre-amp less operation) is more widely accepted and loved than I'd initially thought. In hind-sight, though, I should have known better since I’d already recognized that this is the type of sound that has dominated high-end since the late ‘70’s when mini-monitors, and their detail-filled but thin midrange sound, took the world by storm.
Lower-midrange sounds are, indeed, a prominent feature of nature (and live, un-amplified music). And previous generations, recognizing this, incorporated the capability of reproducing the lower-mids in their speakers (and amps) calling it ‘good tone’ then. Examples are; Tannoy, Bozak, Acoustic-Research, Klipsch, KLH and Advent, to name a few, most of which are still acclaimed as being amongst the most realistic reproducers of sound, in one sense or another. Despite short-comings in some areas – all were/are proficient in the lower-mids. In a recent discussion about the requirements for sonic realism, in issue # 162 of The Absolute Sound, stacked Advents were mentioned amongst the most realistic reproducers of sound - ever. (Oddly though, they neglected to highlight its considerable advantage over modern speakers in the lower-mids - the very trait their designer, Henry Kloss, was famous for ensuring in virtually all his designs, including A-R and KLH). Tannoys are still widely used as studio-monitors, and universally respected for its realism, so is the Klipschorn, in the latter respect. But then mini-monitors came along with all their impressive features, but also with the intrinsic inability to properly reproduce the lower-mids. Yet this thin detail emphasizing mini-monitor style midrange is the standard the industry adopted, sacrificing the essential lower-mids for the sake of the analytical detail and superior imaging mini-monitors provided. Indeed, the current high-end standard-bearer, arguably, is just such a pup, with a woofer attached. This thin midrange is what is now described as neutral, since the 'standard' has been long translated to all categories of components.
As I see it; that thin mid may be ‘neutral’, but it is a 'neutrality' compromised by ineptitude at the essential lower-mids - and at sonic realism, as a consequence. Restore the lower-mids and ‘neutral’ expands to become ‘NATURAL’, as nature defines it – that’s what a component like the LS3 excels at.
Nevertheless if, and only if, the results with my system are universally representative, then any truly lifelike-sounding audio-system operating pre-amp-less could only be achieving its lifelike reproduction despite its pre-amp-less operation, not because of it. [And, do remember, a system cannot be truly lifelike without realistic response in the absolutely essential lower-midrange which such a mode of operation seems to compromise]. So, while I will not say it's impossible for such a system to be lifelike with the requisite realistic response in the indespensible lower-mids, I will say this: Provided the speakers can accommodate the lower-mids, such a system must be compensated by the crucial contribution of lower-midrange body (and 'life-like musicallity') from some other source such as tubes (perhaps the 300B tube - notorious for its wonderful 'harmonic-distortions' fattening the lower-mids) or a solid-state component which displays the sonic characteristics of tubes: - A component with characteristics similar to those of the LS3.
TUBES or NO TUBES: Indeed, Audio-Research has built its reputation on tubes, they make very few solid-state components. And being a fan of long standing, I've always been somewhat familiar with most of their products. I knew, for instance, that their LS1/LS2 pre-amps were hybrid combinations of tubes and transistors. So naturally, when the LS3 arrived for a demo, I'd instinctively assumed that tubes were integral to its make-up. (There was/is no official review on the LS3 that I could find anywhere, and the manual doesn't specifically mention its parts. An overwhelmingly glowing rave-review by Martin Colloms in which he may have hinted at this pre-amp as being one of the world's best - is not currently displayed on the 'net by Stereophile magazine in their 'Archives'. However, I've been promised that this omission will soon be addressed, so LS3 fans may look forward to that, thankfully). Anyway, even after looking thru the mesh top and seeing no tubes, I'd assumed that they were lying on their sides under the circuit-board. With the shock of hearing the natural and glorious sound it produced, I commented to a friend that nothing but tubes could ever sound as natural and as realistic as that. The seller made no comment. My audiophile friend agreed whole-heartedly, adding that he'd never heard any one component make such a big difference in a system that was already 'top-flight'.
The only change I'd made, after playing the first demo track, was to unplug the CD-player from the power-amps and insert the LS3. 'What Will I Tell My Heart' is a jazz track (#7) on Vanessa Williams' 'Comfort-Zone' album. This is the same track I'd played 'pre-amp-less' for the demo before-hand, and was blown away when the LS3 started to play. Lower-midrange body appeared from nowhere revealing a level of performance I was never sure those speakers and amp were capable of, not to mention that CD-player (my turntable was not in use at the time - long story). That piano sounded solid and present in the room, tones and over-tones, and over-tones of overtones were now arrestingly apparent, and dripping with melody. The same for voice and horns. Even drums and bass, in some sense, every instrument now assumed a solidity and tangibility, a vibrancy inordinately more representative of the live sound. Certainly, dynamism was stellar. There was more air and space between performers, and between musical notes. The notes of every appropriate instrument - piano, for instance - now radiated the glow and resonance they portray only in live performance, and (rarely) in reproduction with some outstanding tube equipment. But this was even better than the previous tubed equipment I had been exposed to. I made the decision to purchase the unit there and then, after the first notes of that first track.
I'll never forget that song, and that experience. Nothing but a tubed component could display this extra-ordinarily NATURAL sound. [I should know, I'm a 'seasoned-expert' (yeah-right, - expert my a...) I'd previously owned a few tubed pieces - nothing that made such a difference though]. But I was wrong. Comprehensively wrong. The LS3 is wholly, solely, completely and, yes, comprehensively - solid-state. Audio-Research's William Zane Johnson must be an absolute genius, it seems everything he touches turns to TUBE. That's all I can say in my own pityful defence for being fooled so, ahh, comprehensively. I'm too ashamed to mention how many months I went along listening to this outstanding component, in blissful ignorance, thinking that tubes were responsible for its natural sound - so I won't mention it. No one can force me to mention it. Can they? Naw, my lips are sealed!
The seller never made me any wiser, and I don't blame him because, knowing me and my affinity for tubes, he probably knew I would have called-off the demo long before the listening-stage - and I probably would have. Now I'm glad he kept his mouth shut and allowed me to listen, I have no regrets. Now I seem to have the best of both worlds; the natural realism of tube-like sound without the hassle and expense of tube replacement. Is that cool or what?
I'd advise any audiophile more interested in overall sonic realism than in fad-of-the-week hype, and narrowly focused obsession, to look closely into Audio-Research's products. For me, the LS3 is tangible testament to the relevance, and authenticity, of their forminable reputation. Therefore, I harbor no reservation in proclaiming that the best of these deservedly highly-acclaimed components can be ab-soo-lutely PHENOMENAL in their ability to lift a system closer to the realms of LIFELIKE-REALISM!
Since my early 20’s I had lusted after the classic Audio Research SP8. The many rave reviews on this pre-amp waxed lyrical about its vast superiority over virtually every other pre-amp known to man, at the time, and about its transforming, and elevating, effect on every system it graced. But now to own the Audio-Research LS3, which some say is even better, is an honor for which I am truly grateful – excuse me while I wipe a tear!
Associated Equipment; E.A.R. 834P tubed phono-stage pre-amp, Linn Sondek/Ittok turntable/arm, Grado Sonata cartridge, Thorens TD125mkII/SME 3009II (reserve t'table/arm) Revox A77mkIV 2 track 15i.p.s. open-reel tape machine, Sony SLV 675 HiFi VCR tape machine, Dell D600 lap-top computer and an unmentionably cheap DVD/CD-player, Sherwood AM 7040 (sub-woofer) power-amp, two 5' D.I.Y. subwoofer enclosures with 18" Goodmans woofers (for deep-bass and lower mid-bass) and two Yamaha NS10 7" drivers - per channel - assisting at mid-bass. Cables include; WireWorld and several versions of Monster-Cable inter-connects, and Esoteric-Audio speaker-cables. Each channel of the D.I.Y. full-range speaker towers includes; one Altec-Lansing compression tweeter (without the horn section) two 4" high-mid drivers, one Yamaha NS10m 7" mid/woofer from that award-winning studio-monitor (for its strengths at accuracy, detail, clarity, and transient attack), and two KLH 12" mid/woofers per channel (for their uncommon strengths at the oft forgotten lower-midrange) - all together conveying a much more realistic and dynamic performance than my previous Spendor BC1 speaker-system. A UREI 6150 power-amp drives these towers with better quality than some other highly-esteemed amps which have been rejected (a Crown Micro-Tech 1200 power-amp is held in reserve). A description of these components and the performance of the complete system can be gleaned from the article, 'System-Building for Lifelike Sound' at http://wajonaudio.webs.com
http://wajonaudio.webs.com e-mail waj4all@yahoo.com
Copyright 2010
| Product Weakness: | Still looking! |
| Product Strengths: | Super-NATURAL REALISM / Neutrality. Dynamism. Authentic LOWER-MIDRANGE BODY with the right amp & speaker-system.<br> |
| Amplifier: | U.R.E.I. 6150 power-amp (Sherwood AM7040-sub-woofer amp) |
| Preamplifier (or None if Integrated): | E.A.R. 834P phono-stage pre-amp |
| Sources (CDP/Turntable): | Linn Sondek/Ittok/Grado Sonata |
| Speakers: | D.I.Y. systm (94db/1w/1m) See assoc-equip above |
| Cables/Interconnects: | Wire-World/Monster-Cable/Esoteric-Audio |
| Music Used (Genre/Selections): | Jazz/R&B/Reggae/Classical/Folk/Other |
| Room Size (LxWxH): | 1 x 11 x 8'9 |
| Room Comments/Treatments: | Drapery & acoustic-pads |
| Time Period/Length of Audition: | 1000's of hrs. |
| Other (Power Conditioner etc.): | Generic-protector |
| Type of Audition/Review: | Home Audition |
HI waj4all,
First, thanks for the heart-felt review. Second, thanks for being such a good writer. You make reading a forum both informative and fun.
I don't know how to make my comments both honest and not sounding like I'm talking down to you. So, please try to simply accept what I have to say as my straight forward reactions. Clearly, you know what you like and have experience. What I intend is an impression of your past audiophile biases.
It’s mentioned above by another poster that you are basically commenting on the ARC house sound. I agree. I have had ARC preamps starting in 1984 with the SP-8 Mk 2 (bought new), through the SP-10 Mk 2 (bought new) and finally the SP-11 Mk 2 (bought used around 1992). I still have the SP-11 and love it. I could give my thoughts about the SP-8 and 10 and the reasons I changed but I won’t. The subject has been thoroughly covered in other threads. Suffice it to say that I think the SP-11 is better in almost every way. To finish this introduction, I have also had the D115 (bought new) and my current D250 Mk 2 Servo (bought used in 1994 and still current in my system) tube power amps. So, I have quite a lot of experience with ARC tube gear. Obviously, I like ARC.
I have zero experience with ARC’s solid state products and I have not heard the LS3. So, I won’t quibble with your opinions. I should mention that the SP-11 is an FET/tube hybrid design but definitely not pure solid state. I must admit that I also have zero interest in ARC’s solid state products. It’s not that I claim that they are not great, rather that their tube gear is so good that they leave little room for curiosity. Please check out my profile to see how I have built my system which forms the basis for my comments.
To me, your review comes off as written by a person who has not explored the outer reaches of high end hi fi. I see a person who has had had an epiphany. You clearly have different sonic priorities from mine. It seems you have built your systems around a very specific goal of a great lower mid-range. This is indicated by your choice of equipment and your review comments. While worthy, I see this as a fallacy.
Hi fi, to me, must, in the final analysis, do all things equally well, in fact be great. No one sonic aspect should dominate the sound. I believe you will now move to a more balanced sound which will, of course, revolutionize your system and be a huge learning experience. It will also be expensive. Buy used. You can always resell at no loss.
In my view, your next move should be to purchase an ARC tube power amp. There are many good ones out there used. Everything you have experienced with the LS3 will be enhanced. As for your speakers, I have no idea what they sound like since they are custom made. But, I suspect they, like everything else in your system, emphasize the lower mid-range. In my view, all the speakers you mention in your review emphasize the lower mid-range. I don’t think the KLH’s, the Advents, or any of the others are even close to what is possible.
Good luck and, again, thanks for the review.
Sparky
Hi again guys,Is this a great forum, or what? I'm buoyed by the level of expertise displayed by virtually every member I've encountered so far. And, strange as it may sound, I'm happy to be an inmate of this Asylum. (Perhaps I should have been consigned to one long-ago).
Gripweed44, thanx for the kind words. Congrats on your acquisition of the LS3, and if my so-called 'review' played even a tiny role in your decision, then its purpose will have been served. If so, then I'm incalculably proud, allow me to wish you years of audio-bliss.
And now - to the main event!
Karma16, thanx to you, also, for your initial kind comments (though they may cause me to be shopping for a larger hat-size). However, I'm most grateful to you for taking-up the challenge, I was looking-forward to just such a response.
You expressed a disinclination to 'talk down' (and I do believe you are sincere) but yet you proceeded to do so, or so it seemed. I take it in the spirit I believe it was given though and, likewise, I bear no ill-intent in my response. Nevertheless, you did proceed to make a few unwarranted assumptions which should, perhaps, be addressed. For instance, you seem to have assumed that I aspire to owning ARC amps. I don't. I believe ARC makes some of the better gear in existence (the best in some instances, historically) and I do love and respect the brand. However, I also believe a lot of their gear is un-necessarily expensive (the LS3 is one exception) and that similar to better quality may be had for much less, in some cases. The ASL Hurricane, for example, is reputed to be as good in sonics as some ARC amps, at half the cost. And, if you'd refer to the 'Vintage Files' of the Audio Critique, you'll see where the Hurricane has, in turn, been trounced by an ancient pair of Stromberg-Carlsons which one could pick up and recondition for, perhaps, two grand, or less.
In so far as the very best amp in existence is concerned, I subscribe to the K.I.S.S. principle. I'm also an advocate of highly-efficient speakers. Therefore for me, there is nothing more attractive than the simple circuits and sonic purity of an OTL or SET amp design. In that context, I tend to side with those who claim the Coincident Frankenstein 300B is one of the world's best, at $5000 the pair. However, since I've always believed that the big picture is more important than the details of each individual part, I've never been prone to chopping and changing for miniscule benefits. And since I'm relatively happy with my systems current performance, I think I'll keep it as is, for now at least. In thanking you now for your suggestion, though, I'm utterly sincere, as I do believe you meant well. With regard to speakers, I have rejected Apogees, in the past. Perhaps that fact may further shed light on my way of thinking, the cost was not the cause. So then, let's address the other issues as we go along. But before broaching the subject of the lower-midrange, perhaps I should address your curiousity regarding my past experiences/biases in the realms of hifi.
In a nutshell, while I do not have the benefit of your years on this planet, I'm no pup either. Bitten by the bug at age nine when my parents presented me with my first record-player, I bought my first hifi magazine at age eleven (more than thirty years ago) and never stopped since. I'll omit the details of my experiments with my father's stereo-system, and my success in finding a way to connect my record-player to our Philips TV, at age 13. I should mention, btw, that my obsession with that TV was due to its sound-quality, which was superior to anything I'd encountered up to that time, and long beyond - in certain aspects. Maybe if I mention that those Philips TV's were tubed with OTL (output-transformer-less) amps, you'd grasp some of the reasons they were so outstanding. The fact that, as with most, their high-quality whizzer-coned speakers were crossover-less, might also give insight into their 'excellence'. But all of this was recognized by a 13yo hifi-nut at the time, and, If I may add more fuel for controversy, those Philips TV's still sound better in many ways than many respectable hifi-systems I've since encountered - no joke.
A top-of-the-line Kenwood KX910 stereo cassette-deck is the first component I ever bought myself, at 16, followed by a crappy Sony receiver (the TV sounded better) Dynaco Pat 4 ensued, over-rated tubed Dynaco ST70 (the TV sounded better than these too) JBL L100, and Goodmans 15" drivers in self-made enclosures built to an Altec slot-loaded corner-horn design. This heralded the birth of my semi-commercial DJ mobile sound-system. From age 16 to nearly 30, I'd always owned/operated such a system thru many iterations, and composed of many different components, in addition to my home system(s).
But even in my commercial systems, my major focus was always sound-quality. And this led me towards custom-built speakers, pre-amps, and amps since they sounded better than many of the best such mainstream components, including ARC, at the time. My major problem in retrospect, though, was with speakers since I'd misguidedly persisted in modeling even my commercial systems off the domestic-speaker paradigm, thereby denying myself the benefits of high-efficiency/dynamism, and lower-midrange fidelity. Though they always sounded 'better' than virtually all of the 'competition', those others always sounded more dynamic and more REAL to me, despite their horn (and other) colorations. Yet I just couldn't endure the colored sound of those highly efficient/dynamic horns in my own system. I've no doubt my electronics were always on par with the outstanding ARC gear you named (though I was, for some time, anxious to directly compare SP8/10 or 11- mainly for the phono-stages - head to head with the custom-pre in my system). It wouldn't have mattered much at that time, though, since my speakers were always the limiting factor. The custom amps, however, had ARC pretty-much covered, without doubt, yet I can't be sure about the D150.
Cutting a long story short, I'll skip to the best domestic system I'd ever owned (for many years) prior to my current rig, which I've had for a number of years in its present configuration, more or less. [My LS3 'epiphany' as you rightly call it, was 7 years ago. My second epiphany with it, however, was just recently, after a storm, when I was reminded of the difference it made in this system]. I should also point out that my insatiable love and enthusiasm for music and top-quality reproduction had always led me to seek and experience the best systems EVERY chance I got. I'll also point out that some of the nicest-sounding were domestic rigs, including my own at those times. But the most REALISTIC were mostly commercial, including Tannoy-equipped recording-studios, and even some DJ systems (despite horn, and other, colorations). This was/is my opinion even though I had one of the sweetest-sounding, most neutral systems on the planet, at that time. That system of mine was; Thorens TD125mkII/SME 3009II/Shure V15III, Quad FM34, 33, 303, and Spendor BC1. This system was reputed to have been state-of-the-art at the time I had it (circa early1980's to mid 90's) and would definitely better many of today's systems, I'm sure. [It performed even better with a custom-built 'Tho-mas' tube-amp I also had, which is no surprise since the Tho-mas also bettered an early ARC VT100 (which, I assume, is one of the amps you're suggesting I 'upgrade' to). I've been there my friend. That VT100 holds nothing of significance over my best solid-stater today, either - slightly different, yes, but not really better, in fairness].
That (Spendor) system epitomizes the sound of most of the better systems today. However, I was/am VERY dissatisfied with it, and others like it - they sound NICE, but NOT REAL. For a further illustration of the reason for my discontent, I'll quote an excerpt from one of my essays on the subject:
"For many years, I’ve lived next-door to an army-camp’s grassy airfield. Every few months or so, the army holds nocturnal functions on this airfield on which their 30-piece (un-amplified) military-band/orchestra is set up at various points close to, or further away from, my house. And whenever I listen to this band, even from great distances, it’s always possible to unmistakably recognize the sound as that of a live band – a humbling experience which always made going back to my highly-rated system (at the time) a disappointing prospect.
By far, the most significant elements of this live sound was/is (a) its dynamism (the ebb and flow of notes floating – sometimes those transients jumping – across the distance), and (b) its middle-range ‘full-bodiedness’. Minor details are not very apparent from great distances, yet the sound was undoubtedly LIVE, and very enjoyable as such.
Having also listened to this band (and others) up close, I can also appreciate the minute details including; the rustle of music-sheets, the scuffing of feet on the wooden platform, etc. - in addition to details similar to those previously articulated. But while these minor details do enhance the experience, the main elements of the live experience still remain; the DYNAMISM and the MID-RANGE ‘FULL-BODIEDNESS’ – even more so, up close.
So now, in assessing my system, any system, I first try to listen from a distance (from another room, or even from outside). I ask myself how close it sounds to a live singer or band in there. I listen for the macro-elements of live music. And then I go inside to continue my assessment of these elements, and also to listen for the minute details, and other secondary aspects such as stereo-effects, etc. Yep, I did say 'secondary'.
Thankfully, my own system is now somewhat closer to the ideal I seek, much closer, in my opinion, than the typical high-end system."
My frustrations with that Spendor-system caused me to step away from the pursuit of the cutting-edge of audiophillia for a while. For a few years my home-system was pretty ordinary - high-quality, and more exciting than the Spendor-system in some ways, but certainly not as good, in audiophile terms. As I continued to listen to the above live acoustic band, and others, I pondered on what was missing from the sound of that so-called 'state of the art' Spendor-system and most others. As illustrated, I eventually came to the realization that dynamism and lower-midrange body were the two elements most lacking in that, and the majority of today's systems. I therefore embarked on a quest, ten years ago, to build a system that excelled in these areas along with all other parameters. My current system is the result of that quest, and with it I'm extremely satisfied. For the first time in my life as an audiophile I can listen to that band next-door, then play the same or similar tracks on my system, sometimes simultaneously, and say, "Yes, this is it" - or very close to it. Needless to say, I'm happy - now!
I agree with your assertion that a system needs to be balanced. But from what I've seen, and heard, for most people 'balance' is relative. It means different things to different people. In today's hifi context, balance seems to mean stripping away the lower-mids so that the detail of the middle-mids may be more exposed for analysis, and this is the way most speakers sound today - to each his own. For me, though, balance means exactly that - no more, no less. You wondered at the sound of my DIY speaker-system, and in describing it, I'm tempted to say it sounds like a live acoustic band. But since I'm sure you seek a loudspeaker equivalent, I'll say it basically sounds like a large Tannoy system, but with deeper bass, sharper tighter mid-bass, lower-midrange is similarly authentic (without any hint of boom) but middle-midrange is much more detailed with more sharply-etched transients, treble is about the same. A description of its concept and conception can be found at the URL below, in an essay/article entitled, "DIY Speaker-Systems..." It combines the detail-resolution of today's speakers with the lower-mid prowess of those such as the Tannoys, Advents and KLHs.
Indeed, it's unfortunate you singled out Advents and KLH's to criticize as no-one could claim that, unmodified, they're as 'advanced' as modern equivalents. I certainly didn't. Tannoys and Klipschs aside, the 'New England' sound of Advents and KLH's is certainly too dull to be realistic in the trebles and high-mids, for instance, I agree. But my point was that OVERALL, and certainly in the lower-mids, they're more realistic than what generally pertains today. And they're more realistic BECAUSE OF their prowess at the lower-mids. Somehow, you seem to have also missed the point where I mentioned that TAS magazine also cited stacked Advents as being amongst the most realistic reproducers of sound - ever (issue #162).
My verbal emphasis on the lower-mids in the 'review' was not intended to imply an advocation of an imbalance (in systems) favoring the lower-mids. If this emphasis led to your misunderstanding of the points being made, then I humbly apologize for misleading you. However, I'd thought it was sufficiently clear that my emphasis was to stress the point highlighting the LACK of competence at the lower-mids in today's speakers, and systems. Let's face the facts: Starting with the BBC LS3/5a in the late 1970's there have always been mini-monitors which are claimed to represent the state of the art in sound reproduction. But, with due respect to those who own them, no mini-monitor on earth can ever properly reproduce the lower-midrange, just as they can't properly do bass for the same reasons - it is a physical impossibility, especially at realistic levels. Yet, this is the standard, the 'state of the art,' the industry conforms to. From floor-standers to monoliths, all conform to this mini-monitor standard of midrange reproduction. They produce a mini-monitor's thin midrange, with lots of bass and lots of treble. The lower-midrange is now consigned to ancient history. Speakers that show signs of it are described as 'warm'. I believe this paradigm is wrong. But then, that's only my opinion.
Allow me to clearly reiterate my stance: The speaker is, by far, the weakest-link in hifi systems. And the lack of high-efficiency afforded DYNAMISM and LOWER-MIDRANGE BODY are, by far, the two main reasons for their monumental weakness, and ineptitude at replicating reality. Nevertheless, they do sound pretty, and they're wonderful tools for analyzing detail and stereophonics. 'Air' and 'space' have nowhere to hide from the best of these. But for sheer natural realism, you need to go elsewhere - please!
I used to feel alone in my views, but it seems one or two-hundred thousand share similar sentiments, or so it seems evident. Many thousands of Tannoy-owners, for instance, across the world, and in Japan, especially. Stereophile's late J. Gordon Holt, I recently discovered, once did a piece expressing similar sentiments (I'll look it up again and post the URL, if anyone's interested). TAS's Anthony H. Cordsman also did a piece on the Gershman Black Swan in which he expressed similar views. His personal reference, at the time, was the TAD 1. That's the one with the dedicated lower-mid driver, I believe, not that I'm suggesting that a driver needs be solely dedicated to that range (competence in this region certainly needs to be designed-in, though, from all I've seen). However, I believe he did point out that competence in this region is one reason for his affinity for the TAD, and for the Gershman. I myself have written a few (4) essays on the subject. All can be seen at the URL below, starting with, 'Part 1; From HiFi to High-End: What's Wrong?' Now I'll quote from another of these essays since the writer I'm paraphrasing here seems to share my views to a tee. The comments are mine as they were made when this was paraphrased:
"Since writing those preceding articles, another piece has come to my attention. And since it makes me feel less like a lone wolf howling in the wilderness, I am compelled to high-light sections of it. The following is by Thomas W. Mallin of Stereo Times magazine. From a review of the $15k Legacy Whisper speaker system, dated 3rd April, 2000:
He asks that we: [Understand first, that unlike most people these days he still uses the absolute sound of live un-amplified acoustic instruments playing music as a standard against which to judge the sound of audio equipment. Also understand that tonal balance, dynamics, and the ability to play large orchestral works at subjectively realistic levels are quite important to him. While he fully admits to the joys of a visible auditory sound-stage populated by three-dimensional images, great imaging and sound-staging will not distract him from serious deficiencies in tonal balance, dynamic contrasts, and dynamic range.
When judged against this standard, to his ears, most serious audiophile speakers sound tonally a bit thin (meaning lacking tonal weight from the bass through lower midrange) and a bit bright (exaggerated upper mids through lower highs). Most such speakers are also unable to encompass the dynamics of live music at any frequency, much less with the effortlessness of the real thing. And especially in the bass, most such speakers just don’t move enough air to at all resemble the tremendous power and scale one hears from organ, bass drum, tympani, lower strings, and the lower brass in a hall].
This mirrors exactly my own experience with most high-end speakers I’ve encountered. He could almost have been describing the sound of those B+W’s (802D) I alluded to in part 2 of this series, even down to the prominent treble. The question is; Why haven’t more reviewers ‘recognized’ these major FUNDAMENTAL FAULTS, and highlighted them for what they are, instead of misleading their readerships with raves about the stereo-imaging and detailed-resolution of the tonally/dynamically-flawed ‘musical notes’ these speakers produce?
Previously, even while writing the prior pieces, I’d questioned my own perceptions as very few reviewers seemed to even notice these faults – now I feel vindicated, somewhat."
I rest my case.
Over to you Karma16. Nice chattin' withya, though, it's been interesting. Thanks for your patience, everyone. Jump in at any time!
Now - "Let the music play"
WAJ
Edits: 12/21/10 12/21/10 12/21/10
HI waj4all,
OK, I agree to disagree. I refuse to compete with your sheer volume of words. Suffice it to say that I have heard many systems whose sound I admired but would make many different choices for my own use.Sparky
Edits: 12/20/10 12/20/10
Hi again Karma16,
Aw, shucks, you disappoint me my friend. See, I was looking forward to a pitched battle between two audiophile Gladiators of different convictions in the high-end Colosseum. Nevertheless, it was great while it lasted. Short-lived though this debate may have been, please accept my thanks to you for your part in an interesting discussion. I too agree to disagree.
Before closing, though, I was unable to access your system-profile, as you suggested. Does your moniker hint at the speakers you use - Kharma Grand Ceramique, perhaps? And do you use a turntable? Just curious.
Apologies for the paragraphing on that previous posting, there probably was a glitch when I pasted it, and saw it too late.
Thanks again.
WAJ
HI WAJ,
I'm not sure why you are having trouble with my profile. I am not having any trouble. Are you clicking on the "A" after my moniker? From my computer I'm having no trouble.
BTW, you can edit your posts if you wish to change the formatting.
Sparky
Great system, Karma16 - magnificent. If systems had military rank, I'd figure that to be a 2-star General, at least. I salute you, sir. Now, I must return to my Lt. Colonel. - WAJ
Edits: 12/21/10
Well
this is fun to read. I just picked up a LS3 last week. I have to say it sounds great. More real words to follow. The soundstage grew 4 feet right away
John
Thanks for the comments guys. David S, I admit it's a bit of a gushing review but this thing deserves it, I think. kentaja, I've had this thing for years now, and it never ceases to amaze me with its natural realism - and I'm still gushing. It's solid-state, after all, and has no right to sound more tube-like than most tubes, it fooled me for MONTHS! But its greatest strength is at the lower midrange where many other components and speaker-systems fall flat, that's where it reigns over many, and that's the crucial element, essential for realism, that's missing from many components and speaker-system in high-end today. G Squared I agree, I'm keeping mine too!
I have used an LS3 since the 90s and really have found it to be excellent. There is some grain in the upper midrange but it is a tremendous deal.
Liquidmidrange, you're right. And I'd go further to say that, compared to the very best in existence, this pre-amp was a steal at less than two grand, new. At its 'used' price of a grand or less, it's a dead give-away.
I've never heard, for example, the top VTL or Audio-Research's limited-edition 'Reference Anniversary' (who has?) but my bench-mark for 'the very best in existence' has long been 'no pre-amp' (pre-amp less, as I like to call it) or a very good passive pre-amp, which the LS3 also offers in its 'Direct" mode.
And I suppose the 'grain' to which you refer is the slight obscurity of the high-mids and trebles of the LS3 when operating in the 'Normal' mode, in comparison to its clarity in 'Direct'. If so, then I agree. But in my view (for systems which can accomodate it) the monumental gains in realism afforded by the addition of the previously missing LOWER MIDRANGE BODY featured by the LS3's 'Normal' mode COMPLETELY over-rides the slight gains in clarity offered by other modes and components, such as the LS3's own 'Direct' mode. In my opinion, ANY pre-amp which combines, in one mode, the LS3's upper-frequency clarity in 'Direct' with its lower-mid weight and prowess in 'Normal' is an absolute contender for the 'world's greatest pre-amp', period. It is IMPOSSIBLE for any ACTIVE pre-amp to surpass the upper-frequency clarity and purity of 'pre-amp less' (or LS3 'Direct') the pretenders come close, but at the price of also omitting the lower-mids, which most don't notice because of the fact that most systems do the same - omit the lower-mids.
From all I've gleaned, the 'world's greatest' active pre-amps (such as the top VTL's, and Audio-Research's SP8's, SP10's, and References) also approach, but not quite achieve or surpass, the clarity of 'pre-amp less' (or LS3 'Direct') but unlike the pretenders, they also excel at the lower-mids. This is also what the LS3 in 'Normal' does. And it is in this context that I consider the LS3 to be one of the 'greatest pre-amps' ever made - regardless of cost, configuration, or any other consideration. [Martin Collums in his Stereophile review seems to have held a similar view, and I'm hoping my efforts to have that review once again displayed by that mag will succeed]. In the mean time I await, and welcome, any howls of derision focused in my direction. After all, what would this hobby be without controversy?
In furtherance of some of the points made in my 'review', perhaps I should raise this topic under its own heading, for instance; 'Lower-mdrange body - the missing element in today's high-end sound'. I'm anxious to debate this point with anyone willing to do so. I think this point is crucial to our hobby. In a four-part essay/article beginning with one entitled, 'From HiFi to High-End; What's Wrong?', I expressed the view that the industry may be misguided in its focus on the resolution and analysis of minute DETAIL, at the expense of the vastly more important elements of; DYNAMISM and CORRECT-TONALITY (including the missing LOWER-MIDRANGE). This can be found at my little web-site below. I appreciate the fact that many may agree with those points, but I'd dearly love to debate those persons willing to dispute them. Thanks guys.
I thoroughly enjoyed some years with an LS3 in my lineup. It is certainly system dependent, but in the right setup it is very much a winner!
Yes, I moved on to what I feel are better pastures with a VTL Ultimate, but the LS3 is a screaming deal on the used market.
Great review! Thanks.
"the sound of this Audio-Research was/is natural, open, airy, notes are clearly defined, stereophonics are near 'holographic', instruments/voices are sharply delineated on a wide sound-stage, voices and instruments seem bigger, more life-sized as the lower-mid-range void is filled-in, never before revealed low-level details are now apparent, appropriate notes blossom, bloom, and glow, then linger and fade in a way they never ever did before - in a way eerily reminiscent of the live experience. Dynamics, bass, and treble are truly top-notch, but it is this pre-amp's outstanding and unerring fidelity to the WHOLE of the midrange that most distinguishes it from the pretenders"
You have pretty much described the typical ARC house sound. For those that like this sort of sound nothing else will do. For the ARC bashers? Whatever.
ARC knows how to do solid state! Yes I love my ARC tube gear, but their SS stuff is top notch and could certainly make me go solid state. I recently purchased the CD-5 player, solid state, and I would swear there are tubes inside! Solid state just cannot sound like this. But ARC solid state gear does and will trounce most tube gear by a fair margin.
I do not change components often or quickly. I have had my LS3b for about 6 years now and see no reason to change. I use both the direct mode (SACD) and the normal mode PC based audio and for the front channels of my HT set up. Low midrange, mid bass reproduction and dynamic range is a system focus for me. As you indicated, these are some of the clues that lead to a more live sound especially if you listen to rock, jazz and classical a lot.
The quality of the control feel is also high on my list of LS3b attributes.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
