Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site
In the Forum: Audio Discussions
In the Thread: Devid Berning amplifiers: the anti-trnsformers frenzy?
Post Subject: Transformers and mePosted by Paul S on: 9/24/2007
Thanks for the tech info, Merlin; it helps a lot, especially combined with the preferred music revelation, up the thread.
I agree that the OPT figures in to the sound, all right, for better or for worse, and there is no mistaking the OTL "clarity" by contrast. However I also find the OTL to be harmonically challenged and lacking a certain motive force compared to a nice SET with a nice tranny, not to mention the OTLs lack of image density. While I do not like the "lack of grip" with the typical SET, neither do I like the way the OTL lets go. I admit that the Berning grips with amazing authority, but I also found it lacked finesse in just the way that PP does, ie, it makes the music happen as oposed to letting it happen, and harmonics are not a strong suit, IMO. Also, I found it basically lackes the "OTL clarity", anyway. Ironically, the ML2 more or less treads a middle ground here, but it also offers a number of other sonic advantages that AFAIK are unobtainable elsewhere. But if you listen mostly to techno with TADs, then I guess you could with that combination get a pretty fair "club sound" experience. I heard the Siegfried with pop, jazz and classical blockbusters and, as I said, I would not hate to own one, although I liked it better with the smaller speakers, as you must as well, given you outsource your LF.
I am thinking now of the LO MC cartridge, and how different people choose to provide gain for it. I am a trasnsformer-all-the-way guy, because to me the step-up transformer is where the sound gets its "life". Perhaps it is simiar with the OPT? I know I am on thin ice here, but I also think at this point that a good transformer "reconstitutes" the sound in a very beneficial way by putting music ahead of noise, "restoring" timbral color and subtly "re-organizing" the sound. I do very much "like" the OTL clarity, but it just does not sound correct to me for accoustic music, and this is the hi-fi hinge for me, that a note will be as fully developed as possible, with its correct pitch and also as much of its harmonic "signature" as possible, along with occupying its correct time/space. This is why I chose the ML2 over everythig else, because it does this very well, and I will suffer its faults to get the things it does well. If I keep my present speakers I will eventually get another pair of ML2s to slave the bass/save the upper registers, because, as we all know by now, dedication rules. I do love the OTL way with the small part of "dynamics" it does well; but, come on, I have to say the same thing about a 45.
With respect to sonic "detail", this is the original sonic horn of dilemma, I think. I love detail as much as anyone, and other factors being equal, the more within "natural" the better. But detail is certainly not a measue-for-measure index of sound quality, as we all know. Rather, it is how those details are presented that matters, and I think so far the well-transformered SET is the champ at natural, convincing accoustic music, at least on that score.
BTW, I am pleased that you use a separate bass amp, but this does deflate your original claims somewhat, ironically leading right back to the viability of the DSET idea.
I hope everyone understands that I am not "standing up for transformers". Most of them suck, anyway, but beyond that if I really thought there was a viable way to get around them, then I would gladly do without.
Best regards,
Paul S
Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site