Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site

Last nigh I spend a couple hours to listening this thing. Since the amp is done in design phase and the final parts are still in order I can not finish it and close up – it kind of frustrating… Still, it gives opportunities to listen it knowing that it’ll be “like that” when it will be done.

I have right channel that is absolutely untouched old 3-chennal Melquiades with “old” Macondo. As the left channel I have the new 6-chennal Melq coupled with the new Macondo. Of course I feed them with the same mono signal and it gives a very good illustration where I have gone in term of Sound with the 6-chennal Melq revision.

As I said before the flexibility to write any sound I wish with 6 active channels is very appealing. Also, as I said before the top 2 channels on the new Milq/Macondo are the most interesting.

To best describe what the new MF channel does would be to imagine paintings that were painted by brushes of 8mm and 1mm. The narrower brash allow going into greater amount of details, if there is a need for it. Sonically it works very interesting as the channel goes into details not always but only when music calls to it. When it necessary it still paints the picture of Sound with the sweeping stoke of the large brash. Ah, the wonder of the 6E6P!!! What is very important to understand is that this new higher level of “resolution” has nothing to do with the idiotic illusion of hyper-resolution, escorted with harmonic castration, as the most of the nowadays manufacturers do (Kharma/Avalon/Magico and many other). Quite in contrary - the new Milq/Macondo MF channel has more dominant low order harmonic tail then the old MF channel, the tail that stays with volume. At the very same time the driver despite of the long harmonic tail runs across the dynamic range even faster then before.  Quite a positive result! What is also is very important to understand that the new higher level of “resolution” has also absolutely no Spectral-like HF dithering where the upper range hyper-structuralism is perceived by audio-Morons™ as  “quality”. The new MF channel goes up very forcefully but very pliable with grace and elegance. When the channel hits it’s limit (dynamic or response) it does not dive in convulsions but just crumbles with modishness and without calling to itself. It is in way reminds me the sonic fading of my channel armed with electromagnetic S2 driver but the new MF channel fades from the Sonic heights that the electromagnetic never ever approached.

The HF channel with the new Milq is completely different story and they are a totally new page of HF evolution compare to what I had before. I do not think I even heard that type of HF. It will be a separate set of the observations in the “Water Drop” thread when I feel I am ready.

I was playing Bach’s harpsichord concertos last nigh and I come to a very interesting observation that my Injection channel works quite different with new Super Milq then it was with old Super Milq. I was driving the old Macondo from the amp of the new Super Milq and confirmed that it was not because the differences in amplification. The new Milq/Macondo has subjectively higher dynamic range and height level of tonal saturation. That makes the colorizing-dithering effects of Injection less beneficial with the new Milq/Macondo. I still see the Injection benefits but I apply it now much more conservative then before – a very positive thing from my point of view. The good thing also is that the new Milq/Macondo’s in it’s new level of tonal saturation do not dive into the “Van Gogh colors” as my Injection Channel with Reds tends to do…

It looks like the new Super Milq/Macondo idea turns into something very interesting. I really would like see it all done and the amp is closed up and permanently installed. In reality I certainly do not know what is responsible for the positive upper range advancements in the new Milq/Macondo tandem. It might be the elimination of high capacitive 6C33C, it might be the use of the single stage amp, it might be the use of different output transformers, it might be the use the small topological changes that were made in there, it might be the use of different type of filters, it might be the use of different rectifiers and some other changes in PS section. If I were in audio business then I would catalog the changes and try to capitalize on them but since the success in audio for me is Sound in my listening room then I less care about the reasons of the result if the results are satisfying.

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site