Ultimate Integrated Amp For Compact 7ES-3 and SHL-5

[ryder]

Firstly, I apologise if this thread comes up as redundant to the "Amplifier selection for your Harbeths" thread created more than 3 years ago with many positive responses. After going through numerous posts here in the Harbeth user forums and Audiogon, I got to know that two consistent recommendation of high-end integrateds to match Harbeth speakers are the LFD Zero MkIII and Lavardin IT. These two integrateds particularly the former have received many praise from owners especially on the excellent sonic attributes and are claimed to rival some of the best integrateds in the market.

I am considering either one of these amps in near future when my financial allows but there is no distributor for both brands in my country. Hence, I am seeking advice as to which will be a better option to match the SHL-5 although I do know that listening preferences will ultimately determine which will be the "better" amp. I realise there are many happy owners here who use both Lavardin and LFD amps to drive their Harbeth speakers to great effect and I would appreciate your thoughts. I am currently leaning towards the LFD as it seems to be considerably cheaper than the Lavardin IT. There is currently a listing of a used Lavardin IT in Audiogon at $4,800 and the price is about double a brand new LFD Zero MkIII.

[Soundbyte]

Hi Ryder,
I am using Lavardin IS Reference and I love it... If I were to start it all over again I would choose Lavardin IT instead. I was using Lavardin for my previous C7ES2 and now SHL-5. I have yet to hear the LFD I am sure it is a fantastic amp... GanCK can help you on that! :)

Cheers...

[denjo]

I started a thread over at AudioCircle entitled, "Search for an Integrated Amplifier" sometime early last year, and in this time I have auditioned numerous Integrateds, owned at least three well regarded Integrateds. The Leben CS600 was good but, compared with several other Integrateds that came after, it was not spectacular. Issues with heat and tubes made me switch to Solid State. Of the SS that I have the privilege to audition or own (YBA Passion, Rega Mira, Bryston B100 SST, LFD MI100, Accuphase E-450), there are only two that particularly stood out for me - the YBA Passion and the Accuphase E-450, but I finally settled for the latter Integrated. Both have power and refinement, the 3 Ts (timbre, tone, texture) and PRAT, qualities that are very important to me. While the SHL5 needs very little power to sing (the proverbial 50 watts has been extolled enough in this Forum, with some succeeding in sonic nirvana with less power), I feel that the extra headroom of the Accuphase (180 watts into 8 ohms) allows the music to flow effortlessly and with great refinement. The Accuphase E-450 should be at the top of anyone's list of possible amplifiers! As they say, its a divine match! As a friend once advised, an Accuphase is the cure for anyone suffering from audio nervosa and once heard, I daresay few will ever look for anything else! Its that good!

[ryder]

Now we've got 3 ultimate amps for the SHL-5 although I initially plan to narrow down the choices to one. Not looking too good. Anyway thanks for the thoughts, I will still keep the Accuphase in mind. I don't doubt any of these amps will sound excellent with Harbeth speakers and it's just a matter of choosing the ultimate one that suits one's budget. I am leaning heavily to the LFD Zero MkIII since it is by far the cheapest among the rest. Anyway I will see how it goes. It is just a matter of time before one of these integrateds sits on my rack. I am extremely pleased with the current sound I'm getting with my Plinius-based amplification, and if any one of these little gems can outperform my separates I will be in seventh heaven.

Thanks again for all your time.

[Vlado]

I am considering either one of these amps.....



Hi Ryder,
consider also Glenn Croft amplifiers (ex Eminent Audio).
Glenn is running now his own company and I got excellent references on his pre and power amps and they are much cheaper as the Eminent products.

http://www.croftacoustics.co.uk/

Regards

V.

[Gan CK]

Now we've got 3 ultimate amps for the SHL-5 although I initially plan to narrow down the choices to one. Not looking too good. Anyway thanks for the thoughts, I will still keep the Accuphase in mind. I don't doubt any of these amps will sound excellent with Harbeth speakers and it's just a matter of choosing the ultimate one that suits one's budget. I am leaning heavily to the LFD Zero MkIII since it is by far the cheapest among the rest. Anyway I will see how it goes. It is just a matter of time before one of these integrateds sits on my rack. I am extremely pleased with the current sound I'm getting with my Plinius-based amplification, and if any one of these little gems can outperform my separates I will be in seventh heaven.

Thanks again for all your time.

I am sure any of the above 3 amps will be a big leap from your Plinius combo. While i won't say that the LE III is going to be the best of the 3 in absolute terms, but it will definitely stand out as far as value for money is concerned. Happy huntin.

[macraddy]

Sorry to throw another, obvious one in. The best integrated I've heard, and the second best amp I've ever heard is the Sugden Masterclass. I've heard it with the C7s. I've also heard the A21SE with C7s which was splendid... (I have another Sugden Amp with the SHL5s.)

I'll try not to repeat all the usual stuff about Sugden, but will just say, if you know what a violin, orchestra or piano sound like in a concert hall, to my ears only Sugden/Harbeth will do. Tone, texture, body, grain-free illuminated top end &c. &c.

Good luck with the search...

[A.S.]

I disagree that the differences between any first-grade amplifiers are as marked as you state. There may be incredibly subtle differences but they are not, in my limited experience, always repeatable under uncontrolled domestic comparison.

I think that it may be unhelpful to the consumer - especially in these credit crunch times - to create the impression that if he spends his hard earned money on exotic electronics that the performance of Harbeth speakers can be significantly enhanced. They really can't be. It might be possible to squeeze another, say, 0.1% of performance, but that's about it. If you left the room and someone swapped the amp, could you detect with absolute certainty a 0.1% change for better or worse? I couldn't.

Is that 0.1% worth paying for? Is it a good use of your money? Only you can decide.

There is a regular undercurrent through this group of people who say what attracts them to Harbeth speakers is that they can now 'can get off the hi-fi merry-go-round' and enjoy the music. Please can we be very careful about strong claims about particular electronics when as I say in Section 2 here (http://www.harbeth.co.uk/usergroup/showthread.php?t=373), any properly designed amplifier will make a Harbeth really sing. Let's not forget that the weak links in the chain are the mechanical devices (microphones, turntables, speakers) and that is where real improvements can be gained.

[ryder]

Hi Alan,
I appreciate your views and concur with your thoughts especially on the statement below.


I disagree that the differences between any first-grade amplifiers are as marked as you state. There may be incredibly subtle differences but they are not, in my limited experience, always repeatable under uncontrolled domestic comparison.Problem is I am not sure whether my gears can be categorised as first-grade or not.

The Lavardin and LFD will probably be in that group with minimal/negligible sonic differences between them so it makes sense that a Lavardin user does not consider upgrading his amp to the LFD or vice versa. May I know if you are responding to other posters in comparing first-rate amps(Sugden, LFD, Lavardin) or to my post in comparing the Plinius to other first-rate amps (which may further suggest that my Plinius is in the same rank as the other highly-rated amps)? The reason I ask this question is I have compared the Plinius with Yamaha and Sony amps, and the Plinius totally blew these two amps away. The Plinius made both Yamaha and Sony sounded like garbage.

[sunshine]

Hi Ryder,

Audio Research and Plinius that you have, makes a fine amplifier(and is definitely first grade product) and i'm sure music sounds wonderful at your end. You'd already invested a sum so should be making the most out of them, do not be a slave to these equipments. Even if you are to change to any of these amps, you'll gain and lose some. So don't lose sleep over them, enjoy your setup.

Cheers,
Sunshine

[A.S.]

Problem is I am not sure whether my gears can be categorised as first-grade or not.... The Plinius made both Yamaha and Sony sounded like garbage.Good question. How do we define "first-grade". Indeed, I chose those words carefully.

In my opinion, at the core of this issue is the integrity and motivation of the designers. Japanese multinational corporations have shareholders and hence a business agenda which imposes a certain approach to product design. In simple language: pressures are brought to bear on the designer and if he is under the hammer to minimise cost then he cannot simultaneously maximise quality. If he is tasked by management with maximising fuel efficiency then he must give up his personal dream of designing for incredible acceleration. Design is all about the art of compromise. But what compromise? Ones that you'd agree with?

We, the consumer, are not privy to the precise route map that a manufactured products took to market, nor the corners cut, performance trade-offs and (slight? major?) compromises here and there - certainly not after the marketing dept. have put a positive spin on the product.

If the product emanates from a smaller company - Sugden for example - it's possible to actually identify the designer, talk to him and get a feel for his challenges and how he balanced cost v.performance v. ease of manufacture v. size v. long term reliability v. retail price. I believe that the public (and the media) should be far more curious about identifying who the designer really is, what's in his head, what his design brief was, how he thinks he performed; that's why I'm here. In my opinion, you should be able to identify the designer by calling the sales office or emailing the company. If you don't get a satisfactory feeling from that contact then I'd be very cautious. Audio products designed by an anonymous committee just can't satisfy picky audiophiles.

So - to answer your question - I'd say as a general rule, if you can identify and build a bridge to the designer then he has a personal reputation to nurture, and this would most likely lead to a better product, a 'first grade' product. There are many examples of audio amplifiers (and designers) in this category. But, integrity or not, skill or not, ability or not, desire and goals or not, amplifiers are electronic devices that obey fixed universal physical rules: there is very, very little magic that even the most highly talented and motivated designer can apply without risking amplifier breakdown, unreliability, warranty claims, radio interference, whistles, hums and buzzes. The circuit design parameters have to fall within a very tightly controlled window in the interests of stability and reliability. Tizzy, neurotic, highly strung amplifier designs that just might have a minor sonic advantage are not marketable because the consumer will not tolerate the inconvenience and cost of random breakdowns (possibly destroying the amp and speakers) for a minor performance advantage. So the amplifier designer is highly constrained in what he can actually do with his circuit design* if he is to minimise after-care and stay in business.

Sadly - realistically - mechanical systems including microphones, turntables, gear boxes, car suspensions, car engines, rockets and loudspeakers are hideously complex in comparison with electronic systems, which is why there are so many variants available to the customer - and not one of them perfect.

* About 20 years ago a point was reached where all amplifier design concepts had been explored and those 'mainstream' designs which proved to be reliable were identified. No radically new approaches are possible with current technology unless the consumer is willing to tolerate random breakdowns and amp/speaker destruction. It's exactly the same situation with racehorses - highly strung champions burn themselves out but are thrilling on the day.

[A.S.]

Further thoughts about power amplifier design .....

Logically, if an amplifier is sold with a specification of (for example) 300W (a monstrous amount of power), and assuming that the company wanted to stay in business and not be swamped by customer returns due to failure, the designer would have to make some design choices ...

1) He would have to assume that if the amp was rated at 300W customers would actually try and draw 300W from it. They'd use the power. The same with sports cars .... if the engine is specified as 'max. rpm 7000' then you can be sure that someone will run it at 7000 rpm - and they would expect it to work reliably at that (for a while anyway)

2) It would then become very hot: hot enough to boil water.

3) Hot electronics = reliability problems = strain on components

4) He'd have to uprate all components to be sure that they could take the strain and the heat

5) This would surely define the number 1 design goal as coping with the extreme power and currents inside the amp ....

6) regardless of the sonic performance?

Conversely, designing a small amp that will not run (very) hot would allow the designer the freedom to consider other more subtle factors of design ... and sonic quality?

So, in my opinion, it is more likely that a smaller amp (say, 100W) would be a perfect balance between sonic resolution, heat dissipation, size, cost and long term reliability. For those reasons, 'studio amplifiers' rated at 500, 750, 1000W are not used in home hi-fi. They're designed to fulfil other priorities.

[steve]

I have compared the Plinius with Yamaha and Sony amps, and the Plinius totally blew these two amps away. The Plinius made both Yamaha and Sony sounded like garbage.

How did you compare - were you aware of which component you were listening to during the comparison and were the comparisons one after another?

[ryder]

Thanks for the insight Alan. Yet again I somehow agree with your thoughts in that the designer plays an important role in coming up with a quality product and that it is important for the public to be able to reach out to him and get more information about the aspirations and goals of the company concerned. Unfortunately not all designers are as approachable as yourself and participate in the forums to answer questions from the public. In this sense, I feel you are a role model to other designers in being part of service to the community and we appreciate your effort in setting up this Harbeth user forum. I have written a few times to Plinius asking them some technical questions pertaining to the amp, and since the designer himself personally attended to my queries, albeit a little slow, I believe the company cares for the owners(and make quality products). I didn't ask him about his challenges and how he balanced cost v.performance v. ease of manufacture v. size v. long term reliability v. retail price since I don't think I'll ever get a response out of it. I might give it a try sometime. :-)

Steve, yes I am aware of the components I am listening to and the comparisons were made one after another, although the listening tests performed were not carried out blindfolded. I own the Sony amp so it was easy for me, and the Yamaha integrated was loaned to me by a friend of mine. After a few listening sessions with the Yamaha that lasted for about 30 minutes, I unhooked the amp and chucked it aside at a corner. It stayed there for a week untouched until I returned it to the owner. It was that bad. Anyway I have owned some pretty decent integrateds which include Arcam, Classe, Krell and YBA Integre to name a few but sold them all away. The Plinius amp has remained the longest in my system so far as I am pretty satisfied with its sonic performance.

[steve]

I have come to the conclusion that sited tests are always suspect. They is a lot of stuff on the web about this and inspired by it I have tried one or two informal blind tests with some friends and on both occasions we heard clear differences sighted but on blind tests we could not reproduce those differences. This was using Super HL5 as the front end - a speaker I am sure we can all agree is an accurate one!

So I am not prepared to buy any component without a blind test from now on and am very sceptical about differences people here in amps and digital sources (the components we blind tested).

Here is a link to some people who have done this kind of thing much more seriously then I have;

A Spanish site;

http://66.163.168.225/babelfish/translate_url_content?lp=es_en&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.matrixhifi.com%2Fpruebasciega s.htm&.intl=us

A classic article from the stereo review;

http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf

And a recent article from a speaker designer

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/

Question to Alan - do you use or have you considered using blind tests when sounding your speakers to test small improvements?

[A.S.]

I've been harping on about the dangers of sighted (rather than blind, unsighted) listening test here for years. Nobody has taken me seriously, so it's good to have an ally! Just to restate the obvious: we are visual animals. Everyone knows that when a pretty girl enters the room, all heads turn towards her. That's how we are built - pretty things (people, houses, paintings, flowers, cars, jewellery, clothes, cameras, films...) appeal to us and the very same applies to the appraisal of hi-fi equipment. Once we've admired the beautiful milled aluminium panels, run our hands over the soft curves, been wowed by the gold connectors, our soul is as lost to the product as if that same girl had strolled across the room and whispered in our ear. It's all part of the human condition! But a Harbeth is really capital equipment, not throw away consumer goods. Different rules apply. The cosmetics are intentionally restrained, understated, conservative. We could easily repackage the products but that would move us out of our market niche and into unknown, dangerous and fiercely competitive territory.

To answer your question about comparing speakers and how I work ... again, this has been covered in detail. I don't need to blindfold myself because I have two tried and tested techniques that achieve the same effect but without the inconvenience ...

a) I don't look at the speakers when I listen - I look at a point on the floor half way between me and them*
b) I do comparative listening tests, operating a foot switch to instantaneously change-over from speaker pair AA to pair BB (video on this will be uploaded soon)

* If anyone has seen me cruising around hi-fi shows listening to speakers you will notice that I stand at the back of the room avoiding eye contact with the speakers (and the staff). Ideally, I enter the room without looking at the speakers and only when I have developed an opinion (after a minute or two) will I look-see. I really don't care how they look; nor do I want to reinforce any (inherent) preconception that I may have that a certain type, brand or model of speaker has a certain sound. You must eliminate the visuals when critically evaluating anything man made.

As all marketing people know, consumers buy with their eyes. For Harbeth to have taken a position on this and to offer products which appeal initially to the ears is a very interesting, counter-intuitive, product-placement marketing strategy. One that marks us as mavericks.

[Hu]

I totally agree with "we are visual animals", that are we! One reason that I insisted on Harbeth is their pretty appearance when I hate those modern fashion ones. I went to Plinius SA102 getting rid of Quad 909 because of its huge solid style, that make my eyes and heart comfortable thinking that such Heffalump must give my speakers plenteous food. I did not want to go to Electrocompaniet CDP is because its golden beard.

About hotness of amplification: my Plinius SA102 could boil an egg within 5 minutes when he is at his A class mode. Very small Sugden a21a could do that too, probably within 6 minutes.

[A.S.]

Here is a video on the main Harbeth website showing exactly how I listen. As I mentioned, I'm looking down at a point on the floor (http://www.harbeth.co.uk/uk/index.php?section=products&page=designersnotebookdetail&id=14): I rarely look at the speakers themselves. That means I can concentrate my total attention on the sound without diverting attention to the visuals. As your optic nerve feeds electrical stimulus to your brain, this invokes complex mental processes within the brain to interpret those nerve impulses. In part, this involves sifting through your internal library of known visual images acquired since birth to try and identify what you are seeing and intially, to decide if it is a threat or not. That's the hand of evolution at work.

So, as you look at a loudspeaker you just cannot avoid trawing through pleasant and unpleasant associations based upon your past experiences with the class of inanimate object* called loudspeaker which will greatly impinge upon your judgement. When politicians appear on TV its always a good idea to look away (or close your eyes) and concerntarte fully on their words, how they articulate themselves and then decide for yourself whether you believe them or not. Open you eyes, and you are subconsiously overwhelmed with your own latent preconceptions about the class of thing called politician - it's the same process evaluating loudspeakers.

* Imagine for a moment that an opera is playing on your speakers. Your brain correctly identifies two loudspeakers from your visual input as non-threatening inanimate objects. This is very quickly decided - within a tiny fraction of a second, fast enough for the fight or flight response to project you away from the sound if it was in fact an animate predator. This is where the mental stress we call listening fatigue has its origins. Your look-up table of animate objects (subgroup people) includes a comprehensive description of how they look, how they move and how they sound. Your brain can accept that there is only a weak correlation between the speaker cabinet and the human body so that's tolerated, but what if the sound of these loudspeakers reproducing that voice does not correlate well with your preconceptions of how real people actually sound? That's when the subconscious gnaws away at you and no amount of self-conviction can overcome the underlying tension in your brain whispering "that just doesn't sound natural".

P.S. Some 'hi-end' loudspeakers are styled to look like warriors. They are physically intimidating and in their height and proportions can look threatening. Again, this keeps the listener in state of some subconscious tension, which is not ideal for relaxing listening to music. A traditional box speaker like a Harbeth is self-evidently not threatening: it's proportions indicate that it is man made, it is no threat and the listener just gets on with enjoying what he hears - it's not going to bite him.

[Hu]

Alan, are they M40s? If I have a proper room, I shall save all of my money to go to M40s!

[Gan CK]

Here is a video on the main Harbeth website showing exactly how I listen. As I mentioned, I'm looking down at a point on the floor (http://www.harbeth.co.uk/uk/index.php?section=products&page=designersnotebookdetail&id=14): I rarely look at the speakers themselves. That means I can concentrate my total attention on the sound without diverting attention to the visuals. As your optic nerve feeds electrical stimulus to your brain, this invokes complex mental processes within the brain to interpret those nerve impulses. In part, this involves sifting through your internal library of known visual images acquired since birth to try and identify what you are seeing and intially, to decide if it is a threat or not. That's the hand of evolution at work.

So, as you look at a loudspeaker you just cannot avoid trawing through pleasant and unpleasant associations based upon your past experiences with the class of inanimate object* called loudspeaker which will greatly impinge upon your judgement. When politicians appear on TV its always a good idea to look away (or close your eyes) and concerntarte fully on their words, how they articulate themselves and then decide for yourself whether you believe them or not. Open you eyes, and you are subconsiously overwhelmed with your own latent preconceptions about the class of thing called politician - it's the same process evaluating loudspeakers.

* Imagine for a moment that an opera is playing on your speakers. Your brain correctly identifies two loudspeakers from your visual input as non-threatening inanimate objects. This is very quickly decided - within a tiny fraction of a second, fast enough for the fight or flight response to project you away from the sound if it was in fact an animate predator. This is where the mental stress we call listening fatigue has its origins. Your look-up table of animate objects (subgroup people) includes a comprehensive description of how they look, how they move and how they sound. Your brain can accept that there is only a weak correlation between the speaker cabinet and the human body so that's tolerated, but what if the sound of these loudspeakers reproducing that voice does not correlate well with your preconceptions of how real people actually sound? That's when the subconscious gnaws away at you and no amount of self-conviction can overcome the underlying tension in your brain whispering "that just doesn't sound natural".

P.S. Some 'hi-end' loudspeakers are styled to look like warriors. They are physically intimidating and in their height and proportions can look threatening. Again, this keeps the listener in state of some subconscious tension, which is not ideal for relaxing listening to music. A traditional box speaker like a Harbeth is self-evidently not threatening: it's proportions indicate that it is man made, it is no threat and the listener just gets on with enjoying what he hears - it's not going to bite him.

Wow, what a video...no matter what music was played, everything sounded so full yet transparent & lifelike. I was rather surprised that there was a segment where you actually played some chinese vocals by popular vocalist Cai Qin. :)

[keithwwk]

Great video Alan. I wonder what was the album tittle of that guitar/cello duet "Carmen" is? I like opera "Carmen".

[Kevin M]

So, as you look at a loudspeaker you just cannot avoid trawing through pleasant and unpleasant associations based upon your past experiences with the class of inanimate object* called loudspeaker which will greatly impinge upon your judgement. When politicians appear on TV its always a good idea to look away (or close your eyes) and concerntarte fully on their words, how they articulate themselves and then decide for yourself whether you believe them or not. Open you eyes, and you are subconsiously overwhelmed with your own latent preconceptions about the class of thing called politician - it's the same process evaluating loudspeakers.

This is a very good point but I think there is another, perhaps related element to the perception of hi-fi gear, and that's money. I remain amazed at some of the prices that some pieces of equipment command - never more so than in the realm of cables. It's sometimes very difficult to ignore the fact that product 'x' costs twice as much as product 'y' when evaluating their respective merits or otherwise. And this can become perilously difficult once something has been bought. You've read up an interconnect costing $200 - it got a great review in Audiophile Weekly, and costs a fair whack, so it's bound to improve your sound isn't it? You hook it up and sit back waiting to hear more/better sound.... and if you don't? Well, you sit there until you convince yourself that things have improved, because the alternative is to acknowledge that you've just wasted your money. I did this myself recently - went back and forth between a stock cable supplied with my cd player and one costing ?100, trying desperately to hear where my money had gone. After 2 hours I gave up - I just couldn't hear any discernible difference, and was fortunate to be able to take it back to the shop. But part of me had already 'bought into' the likelihood of hearing my system improved, and so it was by no means a straightforward decision. The same principle operates at the visual level, as these posts attest - if it looks like it should sound better, it probably will, right?

[A.S.]

... It's sometimes very difficult to ignore the fact that product 'x' costs twice as much as product 'y' when evaluating their respective merits or otherwise. ... I did this myself recently - went back and forth between a stock cable supplied with my cd player and one costing ?100, trying desperately to hear where my money had gone. After 2 hours I gave up - I just couldn't hear any discernible difference, and was fortunate to be able to take it back to the shop. This is absolutely how I see it. Again, we can refer to behavioural science which has shaped so much of the way we interact with the world. You meet two girls. One is wearing old fashioned clothes. She is the embodiment of conservative values; safe, solid, traditional. The other girl is dressed with modern bright colours, shiny sparkly jewellery in golds and silvers; exciting. Now human nature being as it is, which one would 95% of men find attractive?

Hi-fi acquisition follows exactly the same rules as any other purchase: what looks good must be good and what's new must be better than what's old ... surely?

[ryder]

It is inevitable that beautiful people or things in all aspects of life will appeal to majority of people, hifi included although sound quality is predominantly the factor when it comes to choosing the right amplifier or speaker. To tell the truth, I chose the Plinius amp mainly for its looks as I really fell for the rugged build quality especially on the sharks fins at the edges. The excellent sound quality comes as a bonus -lucky for me!

That aside, there is no issue with which is better sounding between the Plinius and Sony amp that I own, blindfolded or not. Recently I ran the Plinius amp in Class A and it totally blew the Sony out of the water. No blindfolding required.

[macraddy]

Choosing the wrong wife/husband/partner is all well and good, but we're talking about hi-fi here - this is actually serious! (And also 'for life' - with any luck!)

[A.S.]

I'm being deadly serious. The way folk select hi-fi trinkets is driven by basic human motivations. The better you understand these core motivations, the more effective you are at marketing. Marketing people use all these tricks to motivate buyers. I've studied this at length.

[macraddy]

Oh, I know you're being serious - I wasn't however!

One of the worst systems I've ever heard looked lovely (for example) and cost well in excess of ?50k. I auditioned it partly because the company had previously made kit I really liked, partly becuase the reviewers loved it, (I know - silly of me!) and partly because it looked stunning...

[T.W.]

Some weeks ago I had the chance to listen to the reference system of accuphase together
with B&W reference speakers. The look was impressing. About 10-15 components. Cables as thick as an arm. Selected "reference" recordings. Unfortunately I didn't like what I hear.

I went home and listend to my M40s for a while. That's all I need!

TW

[ryder]

Now I understand why Sam Tellig and current LFD owners have such high admiration for the LFD Zero MkIII. This unit is indeed very special, and I wouldn't have said this after listening to the unit in my system myself.

Upon first listening from cold, this LFD integrated totally blew both my NVA and Plinius/ARC separates into pieces. I was shocked and wasn't really prepared to hear what the LFD was capable of doing. The transparency and dynamics came alive in leaps and bounds and PRAT was top-notch –beats both NVA and Plinius flat to the ground. The midrange was clear as a bell and everything was very well defined with just the right amount of weight, not too thick or muddy like the Plinius or not too flat and lean like the NVA. Sound had attack and bite. Soundstaging, separation and imaging were first-rate as sizes and locations of the instruments across the soundstage were reproduced with aplomb. Highs were clean, smooth and extended without any glare or grain. Extension was superior to both NVA and Plinius. The bass was what impressed me the most -full, deep and taut with excellent speed and slam that made a whole lot of difference. The bass on the LFD made the NVA sounded like a broken record. All this while I had felt that the soft and plodding bass on the NVA was a problem and was worried the small LFD might exhibit the same. After listening to the LFD, the NVA is just not listenable anymore. The bass performance of the LFD already belied its dimensions as it even surpassed the artifical and bloated bass of the huge and heavy Plinius. It is amazing that the small and lightweight LFD can sound so convincing in the bass department. Vocals on the NVA were already superior to the Plinius with higher tonal accuracy but the LFD took this to even greater heights. Voices not only sounded more organic and real but possessed more energy and were fleshed out more prominently from the speakers. Music just came alive with the LFD.

There is nothing bad to say about the LFD. I am trying to find a weakness on the LFD but cannot seem to find any as everything just sounded very good right out of the box. I just enjoyed listening to everything that were thrown at it. Whether it's smooth jazz, instrumental, pop or rock the LFD takes all in its stride.

For anyone looking at a musical, transparent and dynamic amp with excellent PRAT, timbre and tonality, do give this LFD a serious consideration. I was very impressed with its performance. Highly recommended.

By the way, I have no affiliation with LFD or the dealer, just an enthusiastic end-user.

[tozen]

Thought I would post an amplifier recommendation for other Harbeth users. I have had SHL5s for 6 months now and have just loved their natural music making - they have an ease in the way they portray acoustic music especially which is really captivating...

I was using a Quad 909 when the SHL5s arrived. It was a very good combination, but I found it lacking in boogie factor with rock and pop, which I listen to from time to time. I then had a LFD Zero LE III in my system for about a month. In almost every respect I felt it made better music than the Quad 909 - it has a lower noise floor, letting in more of the ambience and atmosphere of a track, as well as having more PRAT and punchier bass. What it doesn't have, IMHO, is the seductive warmth and fulness of the Quad midrange. I then happened, by chance, on the Luxman 505U. At ?2500 it is not cheap, but not much more than the LFD with phono or a Quad pre + power combination. What I have found, which is why I am keeping the Luxman, is that it has a Quad-like presentation in the midrange, ie quite smooth and full, but with greater transparency and dynamics, and a much weightier bass. Having had both the LFD and the Luxman in my system, side-by-side, for a few weeks, the Luxman gets the nod. The 909, the LE III and the 505U are all great amps. The LE III and the 505U are a step above and excel with all types of music, but for me the 505U gets the nod, not by much, but still the definite choice for me. Voices in particular are simply sublime with the Luxman + Harbeth combo I now have. Many here have rightly sung the LFD's praises. Wanted you to know of another great alternative!

[tozen]

Thought I would post an amplifier recommendation for other Harbeth users. I have had SHL5s for 6 months now and have just loved their natural music making - they have an ease in the way they portray acoustic music especially which is really captivating...

I was using a Quad 909 when the SHL5s arrived. It was a very good combination, but I found it lacking in boogie factor with rock and pop, which I listen to from time to time. I then had a LFD Zero LE III in my system for about a month. In almost every respect I felt it made better music than the Quad 909 - it has a lower noise floor, letting in more of the ambience and atmosphere of a track, as well as having more PRAT and punchier bass. What it doesn't have, IMHO, is the seductive warmth and fulness of the Quad midrange. I then happened, by chance, on the Luxman 505U. At ?2500 it is not cheap, but not much more than the LFD with phono or a Quad pre + power combination. What I have found, which is why I am keeping the Luxman, is that it has a Quad-like presentation in the midrange, ie quite smooth and full, but with greater transparency and dynamics, and a much weightier bass. Having had both the LFD and the Luxman in my system, side-by-side, for a few weeks, the Luxman gets the nod. The 909, the LE III and the 505U are all great amps. The LE III and the 505U are a step above and excel with all types of music, but for me the 505U gets the nod, not by much, but still the definite choice for me. Voices in particular are simply sublime with the Luxman + Harbeth combo I now have. Many here have rightly sung the LFD's praises. Wanted you to know of another great alternative!

[ryder]

Hi Tozen,

There was report that the Luxman Class A got the nod when compared to both LFD and Rega. It wouldn't come as a surprise to me that you preferred the Luxman to both these pieces. Below are the responses I got from a forummer in Audiogon on the comparison between these three integrateds.

I got mine when they came out. I reviewed it on audioreview and there is also a site called Tone audio that reviews it, they preferred it to the supernait. I was also in contact with a guy who compared the latest LFD, the Elicit and the Luxman class A that came out awhile back. He got the Luxman but said the Rega was his second choice. The other integrated I own was the grand daddy of british intgrateds- the class A Sugden A21. The Rega is clearer, more detailed and bigger stage, better bass, the Rega could not quite match the sweetness of the Sugden on female vocals, saxophone and piano. The Rega was cleaner sounding too (not anticeptic, just without some extra distortion the Sugden had). The Elicit still has a subtle sweetness relative to other amps, but the Sugden is warmer still and very "tubelike". I use my Elicit with RS3 speakers and this is a very musical yet uncoloured sound. The Elicit is about as good as British class AB integrated amps get which is certainly not to say you can't do better. If you want an all in one that is'nt tubes or class A and also a phono stage on board, the Elicit should be a top consideration. I've used tubes and class A solid state and after awhile no longer wanted to deal with the heat, hassle and wasted electricity. I like the musical sweetness of tubes but this Rega system is pretty darn musical too and does a few things tube amps could'nt dream of.



When I asked him why the guy ended up with the Luxman his response is as follows:-

well the Luxman is $4000 and class A, so no surprises there. I have found Class A amplification distinguishes itself with a lack of any hash or grain in the upper mids and treble, I just no longer want to deal with the heat and energy waste of class A amps. He said the Rega came close to the Luxman. He said the LFD had a "detailed sheen" that over time fatigued him.

One thing I'm sure is you must be enjoying music with vocals a lot with the Luxman right now. At least now we know there are few good amps that can match very well with Harbeth speakers, not necessarily one ultimate amp alone.

Enjoy~

[Gan CK]

Thought I would post an amplifier recommendation for other Harbeth users. I have had SHL5s for 6 months now and have just loved their natural music making - they have an ease in the way they portray acoustic music especially which is really captivating...

I was using a Quad 909 when the SHL5s arrived. It was a very good combination, but I found it lacking in boogie factor with rock and pop, which I listen to from time to time. I then had a LFD Zero LE III in my system for about a month. In almost every respect I felt it made better music than the Quad 909 - it has a lower noise floor, letting in more of the ambience and atmosphere of a track, as well as having more PRAT and punchier bass. What it doesn't have, IMHO, is the seductive warmth and fulness of the Quad midrange. I then happened, by chance, on the Luxman 505U. At ?2500 it is not cheap, but not much more than the LFD with phono or a Quad pre + power combination. What I have found, which is why I am keeping the Luxman, is that it has a Quad-like presentation in the midrange, ie quite smooth and full, but with greater transparency and dynamics, and a much weightier bass. Having had both the LFD and the Luxman in my system, side-by-side, for a few weeks, the Luxman gets the nod. The 909, the LE III and the 505U are all great amps. The LE III and the 505U are a step above and excel with all types of music, but for me the 505U gets the nod, not by much, but still the definite choice for me. Voices in particular are simply sublime with the Luxman + Harbeth combo I now have. Many here have rightly sung the LFD's praises. Wanted you to know of another great alternative!

Hi Tozen, thks for sharing with us on your thoughts on the Quad vs LFD vs Luxman. Having had the 606/66 some years back, i fully concur with you on the Quad. They had a nice midband but lacked that boogie factor that made fast paced music sounded lacklustre. Well, the LFD LE III IMHO is more involving, faster & transparent. Having heard a Lux before, I reckon it sounds rather similar to Accuphase.Anyway, glad that you have found your ideal amp to go with the SHL-5.

[keithwwk]

I like to share my thought here. I think the ultimate amp is the best amp in its owner's heart. Do not lose sleep if some one comment or remark negatively on the amp you love. We all love Harbeth sound but I believe we still heard sound differently. After all, a setup is to please the owner but not other.

Cheers!

[denjo]

Having heard and owned so many amplifiers, I am beginning to understand that there is perhaps no "best" or "ultimate" Integrated, just that they do sound different and at the end of the day, its the one that we can listen to, live with and enjoy music that matters most! There will always be choices to make and with it, compromises that we will have to make in order to decide what is best for you and your system!

Carpe diem and enjoy your system!

Best Regards
Dennis

[tozen]

I concur with the various sentiments expressed in above posts. Clearly there is subjective choice involved in these things. I wanted fellow Harbethians to be aware of another great amplifier choice that I am not sure has had much of an airing on this site. Anyone who appreciates the qualities of the Quad 909 or the LFD Zero LE III should appreciate the Lux 505U and might even, like me, prefer it :) It also has great build and is certainly not short of facilities!

[denjo]

Anyone who appreciates the qualities of the Quad 909 or the LFD Zero LE III should appreciate the Lux 505U and might even, like me, prefer it :) It also has great build and is certainly not short of facilities!

Hi tozen

Your Lux 505U is rather similar to my Accuphase E-450. Given this similar background, I found it interesting that you preferred the Lux over the LFD LE III! As a matter of interest, do you use the Lux's tone controls to compensate for room variables? My Accuphase's bass needs a little help from the tone controls to sound more bass solid. What speaker cables are you using with the SHL5? Single or biwired?

Best Regards
Dennis

[tozen]

Hi Dennis,

Yes I have a clear preference for the 505U over the LE III. I have never heard an Accuphase, so wouldn't be able to give a helpful comparison there. In terms of the bass, the bass of both the LE III and the 505U is great. I don't really prefer the bass of one over the other. Both have deep, taught, powerful bass. The LE III's bass is just a bit tighter, the 505U's is just a bit weightier. Depending on the piece of music I would have a slight preference for the bass of one over the other. It is the midrange where the 505U really pulls ahead - more natural, refined and solid. I found the LE III truer to tone and timbre than the Quad 909, which itself is pretty good, so that will give you an idea of how special the 505U is - like Harbeth Luxman pride themselves on getting tonal purity right, and I can vouch for it!

For speaker cable I use the cheapest LFD copper cable, in single wire configuration. The tone controls are nice to have, but I only use them for 1 in 10 discs where the recording is a bit bright.

Happy to share anything else of interest. Happy listening!

[denjo]

Hi tozen

Thanks very much for your sharing of the differences between the 505U and the LFD LE III. Based on your observations, the Lux 505U must truly be a serious contender (and perhaps choice) for those out there looking for a good integrated to pair with the Harbeth SHL5. I do know that a Polish audio reviewer also waxes lyrical about the 505U and uses it as a reference to compare with other integrateds.

I have only recently tried to experiment with the tone controls on the Accuphase and discovered that its quite a nice extra to be able to use to correct my less than satisfactory listening room acoustics. But I seem to be using it 9 out of 10 times instead!

It would be interesting to hear views from others who have auditioned the Lux 505U with the Accuphase E-350 (also 100 watts into 8 ohms).

Indeed, the LFD Spiroflex speaker cables in single-wire configuration is excellent value and should bring out the sonic attributes of any good solid state amplifier and speakers.

Best Regards
Dennis

[Lorpuris]

Hi Guys,

Thought I would jump in as I have owned a LFD amp and SH-L5's for about 6 months. Actually I've had the amp for about a year. And before the Harbeths, I have been enjoying among many other speakers, B&W DM7 MKll's I think the amp does so many things right it is easy to look past the shortcomings it has. It was only after I purchased a set of P3ESR's that I felt the amp had a few deal breaking deficiencies. (ironic isn't it ?) Mainly being unable to drive the speaker without being compressed and no bass extension. After spinning "The Wheel of Amps", I settled on a Luxman L-590A ll. The bass is so remarkable all without disturbing the delicate fabric of the liquid midrange. I know a lot of listeners have LFD amps that patrol these forums. I have to wonder how many have been bitten by the bug to check out some reference quality equipment. All I can say is Just do it.

I have not yet hooked up the SH-L5's to this amp. It may well be the closest thing to a religious experience that I will ever have.

[hifi_dave]

Perhaps you need to get your LFD checked out !!! I sold a pair of P3ESR yesterday, using the LFD to drive them. The first comment from the customer was something like ' wow, where does that bass come from ? ' He was amazed at the amount and quality of bass plus the volume we could get from this tiny speaker.

[garmtz]

Perhaps you need to get your LFD checked out !!! I sold a pair of P3ESR yesterday, using the LFD to drive them. The first comment from the customer was something like ' wow, where does that bass come from ? ' He was amazed at the amount and quality of bass plus the volume we could get from this tiny speaker.

I think this is mainly due to the bass output of the P3ESR, not specifically due to the LFD?

[Gan CK]

Perhaps you need to get your LFD checked out !!! I sold a pair of P3ESR yesterday, using the LFD to drive them. The first comment from the customer was something like ' wow, where does that bass come from ? ' He was amazed at the amount and quality of bass plus the volume we could get from this tiny speaker.

I second that. I strongly believe that the LFD LE III is powerful enough to drive the P3ESR. After all, if the LE III can drive notoriously difficult speakers like ATC & Verity Parsifal, i don't see why it cannot drive a P3ESR.

[tozen]

Thanks for your thoughts Lorpuris... so I am not the only Lux user on here! If I had the money I would have been tempted to buy higher up the Luxman range as you have. I think everyone needs to find the 'sweet spot' where they have attained the price vs performance ratio that most satisfies them. I think it's different for different people. At the end of the day it's all about finding satisfaction in the music. I fully concur with Alan's philosophy that a half-decent amp is sufficient for Harbeth speakers. What I have found though is that by spending a bit more on the right amp the music is that much more addictive and involving. My guess is that Harbeth speakers are so good that the point of diminishing returns is actually quite high, as your experience with the Lux 590 II seems to testify!

The Luxmans are also very well built and specified and their amps are known for long-term reliability. Just as with Quad equipment, you see quite a few decades-old Lux units turning up on ebay.

[Hoople]

Thanks for your thoughts Lorpuris... so I am not the only Lux user on here! If I had the money I would have been tempted to buy higher up the Luxman range as you have. I think everyone needs to find the 'sweet spot' where they have attained the price vs performance ratio that most satisfies them. I think it's different for different people. At the end of the day it's all about finding satisfaction in the music. I fully concur with Alan's philosophy that a half-decent amp is sufficient for Harbeth speakers. What I have found though is that by spending a bit more on the right amp the music is that much more addictive and involving. My guess is that Harbeth speakers are so good that the point of diminishing returns is actually quite high, as your experience with the Lux 590 II seems to testify!

The Luxmans are also very well built and specified and their amps are known for long-term reliability. Just as with Quad equipment, you see quite a few decades-old Lux units turning up on ebay.

I use the Lux 550a II with SHL5. Oh, My God. Best thing I've ever heard.

[Lorpuris]

Hi Dave,

I debated a long time before posting my thoughts on the LFD. I could have predicted the reaction. As a 35 year veteran of the audio industry, you would think by this time I would have learned to keep my big mouth shut. Apparently not !

The LFD that I have is not the first I've owned, nor will it be the last. I said it last night and I'll say it again, it is one of the finest ,sweetest , musical amps ever period ! My opinion is that it really falls short in the bass department. My guess is that it has a smallish power supply. If it cost another 3 grand, Richard Bews could have put a crazy power supply in. Power supplies always cost a fortune.

My CAT JL1's Limited edition amps/Ultimate preamp combo has amazing bass. The amps are fitted with KT-99's. WOW ! That is my reference. The Luxman shocked me as to how good the whole sonic picture is. While not an inexpensive amp, it is a fraction of the cost of the Cat equipment. I think it is a stunning value.

Make no mistake, I love the LFD, but I would highly recommend comparing these two amps, specifically on the P3's. At that point, I think you will understand why I am making the statement that I am. Less tech speak: It will blow your mind !

Peace,
Lorpuris

[A.S.]

Just to make it clear again in case any new members get the wrong impression.....

Whilst I welcome discussions about amplifiers, even 'ultimate amplifiers' I myself as a mere speaker designer know where the real issues fall in the reproduction chain - with the speakers.

So, please be careful in promoting this amp or brand over that amp or brand. Any competent amplifier will make great music with Harbeth, if it is in-spec, serviced and working as intended. Even amps that are 30 years old will work just fine if properly serviced.

Enjoy whatever you have to hand. I do not use and never will use a exotic amplifier.

[hifi_dave]

Exactly so Alan, which is why I have been saying that you don't need an exotic or expensive amplifier to enjoy Harbeth speakers. Indeed, I have demonstrated Harbeth over the weekend using excellent amps way below ?2000, which is mid-priced nowadays.

-------------------------------------

Lorpuris,
I would agree that LFD doesn't have seismic bass but it does have other attributes. Having said that, I haven't noticed any shortcomings against similarly priced competition and I actually sold a pair of P3ESR the other day using the LFD when the customer remarked about the quality and quantity of bass. He was sufficiently impressed to part with his cash.

I know Luxman well, having owned and do still have some vintage Luxman. The main problem in GB is the horrendous prices. The problem being that it goes through the hands of a 'Worldwide distributor' who puts his markup on before passing it to the importer who does likewise and then on to the dealer. So what starts out life as good value product, ends up as high-end in GB. A great pity but this is the case with a lot of excellent Japanese equipment such as Accuphase and Koetsu.

[A.S.]

Although I'm not an audiophile (actually, I'm not any sort of 'phile) I'm well aware of the audiophiles need to tinker with amplifiers. As I take great care during the design to make sure that Harbeth speakers are an 'easy load' it opens up a vast panorama of potential amplifiers that audiophiles can experiment with.

That's a good thing, but we must take extreme care not to frighten would-be buyers into thinking that after investing their money in new speakers, that they are then on a never-ending upgrade path of amplifiers, stands, cables etc. etc.. For me, frankly, it's about the music not the equipment.

[tozen]

Hi Alan, just out of interest, what counts as an 'exotic amplifier' in your mind?

I want to take slight issue, if you don't mind Alan, with the idea that anyone might be 'promoting' one amplifier over another. I think there is real value in people just sharing their experiences, and that's one of the things I love about this forum. I am sure that most forum users here are like myself - music lovers who greatly appreciate our Harbeth speakers and what they can do, who have no vested interest at all in any particular amplifier brand. My experience has been that the Lux 505U with the Harbeth SHL5 has brought me a wonderful level of musical satisfaction, greater than the previous amps I have used. I enjoyed the SHL5s with the Quad 909. I now enjoy them even more. That's just my experience. I could be misguided... but I am enjoying my music :)

I think there is a positive spin to put on this, which is that Harbeth speakers sound GREAT with basic amplifiers and EVEN BETTER with some other amplifiers. That surely is music to any potential customers' ears, because it actually underlines that Harbeth speakers are a long term investment.

And just whilst I am being so bold as to take issue with something the designer has said (!), I would also question your view hifi_dave on current Lux pricing. Compared to another well-known Japanese brand on sale in the UK there is nothing like the same mark up!

[A.S.]

An exotic amplifier, to me, would be one with a lot of marketing buzz about it. Just standing back and watching and listening to the process that audiophiles use to evaluate amplifiers - in particular - really worries me a lot. Fact - if I allowed myself to be emotionally tugged this way and that, you wouldn't be enjoying the Harbeths you are today. Because of my concerns about the evaluation process I think that it is misleading to give members the firm impression that buying this or than amp with transform their system beyond logical expectations. Under the cold cruel light of day changing the amp may (or may not) make a minute difference. In a consumer democracy only you can decide if that is a goal worth striving for or not.

That's not my issue: my issue is giving the impression that a massive transformation can be achieved when, logically, the weakest link in the audio chain is the speakers. Most of our members are ordinary listeners not wealthy audiophiles with big budgets and Harbeth's 'value proposition' appeals to them, and to me. (Upgrading your speakers to Harbeths will make by far the biggest change in your set-up - beyond that point where to you go?)

Your are absolutely correct that if a Harbeth works with a basic amplifier it will work even better with an exotic one. But not for the reasons that audiophiles believe.

[yeecn]

Being somebody who is just venturing into hi-fi, I have been doing quite a bit of research on some phenomena in the audiophile world that I find incomprehensible, amplifiers being one of them.

The first puzzle is valve amplifier vs solid state amplifier. An expensive valve amplifier has a typical total harmonic distortion of over 1%, while even an entry level sold state amplifier has a THD of 0.05%. Now - how can something with 200 times more distortion sounds better - that is simply beyond me. I gathers that the high 2nd harmonics distortion of valve amplifiers does gives its a unique sound that some may find appealing, that is OK with me. A very expensive amplifier may boast a THD of 0.001%. But are we able to hear the differences between 0.001% vs 0.05% distortion through a very imperfect medium of speakers + room acoustics with a distortion of at least 100 times bigger? I seriously doubt so.

I was introduced a voltage regulator for my Denon AV receiver recently. The AVR is spec for 220V - 240V, and I knew for certain that the power supply at my house can go up to 245V. So I thought the voltage regulator, which is set to 230V would at least make some differences. But after spending 1.5 hours switching back and forth, I concluded that if it made any differences at all, it is beyond my hearing capacity to detect.

Anyway I was just reading with great interest the following article which someone posted in this forum: http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf. I find the article quite illuminating. I wouldn't mind participating in experiments of such nature myself.

I concur with Alan that the speakers is the weakest link in the whole chain of sound reproduction. I had the chance to do a AB comparison between my new Harbeth C7ES3 with the old speakers 3 weeks ago, and the differences was quite dramatic. I was seriously thinking of upgrading to a 'proper' amplifier setup a while back, but after 3 weeks of enjoying good music and good sounds with my humble Denon 1909AVR, the urge is fading fast. If anything at all the room acoustics can do with a lot of improvements, but that is not a simple matter for a family living room.

Most music that I enjoyed are not audiophile recordings anyway, and some were recorded in the 1960's. The less than perfect sound system and recording does not impede my enjoyment of great musics and performances in anyway whatsoever.

[A.S.]

... Anyway I was just reading with great interest the following article which someone posted in this forum: http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf. I find the article quite illuminating. I wouldn't mind participating in experiments of such nature myself... Now, that is a fascinating report and the comments on page 5 are exactly what I would expect.

Again, what worries me when I read rave 'reviews' of amplifiers is the emotional hyperbole that the observer dresses his comments in. There is a great need in human relationships and language to express not only that we prefer X over Y but that we deeply prefer A,or we adore B, or C blew my mind or D was stunning, or E was a huge improvement etc. etc. etc.. Does that sort of language sit comfortably with a more rational line which is that, at best, the differences between dumb amplifiers which have a very simple role to play in the reproduction chain (read the report above) are extremely small under controlled conditions.

I liken this to SLR cameras. I'm just a happy-snapper who wants a natural looking image. I know well that the most important part of the photographic game is illumination, lighting. And that's the one I have the least control over. So, whilst theoretically a Canon lens may under lab conditions be fractionally sharper than a Nikon (or vice versa) in my hands, it wouldn't make a scrap of difference which one I had: I'd be limited by other factors such as lighting, composition, subject matter.

So, if 1950s jazz was my thing, recorded on analogue equipment that was dumped in land-fill thirty years ago, then I too find it incredible that spending out money on exotic electronics would be a worthwhile pursuit. I'd be totally limited by the resolution of the recordings, the way the performers were sonically illuminated. Of course, as I've said before, it's a buyers democracy - if you have the money and want to a little flutter that's fine, but please let's be realistic about that the investment will yield in additional musicality for the rest of us mere mortals.

We promote the excellent value proposition of Harbeth speakers, and exercise constant efforts to minimise the selling prices by cost control. I believe that the lower the prices, the more we sell and the happier you are. The consumer must not be led to believe that any money he has saved on buying Harbeths must then be spent on upgrading his electronics. That's called a false aspiration gap between what performance he's got and what system performance he's told he could experience by spending more on equipment. I'm strongly opposed to planting that idea in the buyer's mind. It's my job to design these speakers with the highest possible performance, regardless of how difficult that is or how long it takes. It's not a realistic expectation that an electronics engineer who knows nothing about the (ghastly) world of speaker design could take my work and then, magically and mystically, extract performance that I couldn't. Speakers and microphones are the dominant component in the sound of the system and they are both mechanical devices which is why there are so many variations and alternative design strategies.

Whatever amp you've got will work just fine, providing it was competently designed and is in spec.. If it's some years old, then we recommend that it is competently serviced and old capacitors are replaced. Old caps. dry out, their capacity declines and this changes the bass quality of the amp: a real physical phenomena with an entirely predictable sonic consequence.

[Vlado]

The first puzzle is valve amplifier vs solid state amplifier. An expensive valve amplifier has a typical total harmonic distortion of over 1%, while even an entry level sold state amplifier has a THD of 0.05%. Now - how can something with 200 times more distortion sounds better - that is simply beyond me. I gathers that the high 2nd harmonics distortion of valve amplifiers does gives its a unique sound that some may find appealing, that is OK with me. A very expensive amplifier may boast a THD of 0.001%. But are we able to hear the differences between 0.001% vs 0.05% distortion through a very imperfect medium of speakers + room acoustics with a distortion of at least 100 times bigger? I seriously doubt so.



Hi Yeecn,
try to figure out also the TIM figures of a solid state amplifier, its influencing considerably the sound of solid state amps.

Best regards

[A.S.]

...try to figure out also the TIM figures of a solid state amplifier...Do you mean Transient InterModulation Distortion within the amplifier? How many percent do you suppose this could be for a typical amplifier?

[Vlado]

Do you mean Transient InterModulation Distortion within the amplifier? How many percent do you suppose this could be for a typical amplifier?


Hi Alan, I mean exactly this. I don't find any free scientific explanation on the net, even Wikipedia is short on this. Anyway, the TIM was initially described by Matti Otala in early 70' and the first amplifier based on TIM measurement was build by Per Abrahamsen and ? Lohstro under the name Otala - Lohstro amplifier. There are some white papers describing the TIM measurement and listening test on Audio Engineering Society net, but only on payment access; the latest is a simplified measurement method of Otala standard:

A New Approach to Transient Intermodulation (TIM) Distortion Measurements
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=12003

I think I understand your question. The TIM figures lies far below the distortion of a loudspeaker, but independently on speaker distortion figures, the TIM figures of an amplifier are changing the character of the sound. Higher TIM figures, the sound is edger and harsher.

Kindly

V.

P.S. Yeecn:
...I gathers that the high 2nd harmonics distortion of valve amplifiers does gives its a unique sound....

It is the total spectrum of harmonics which is making sound so specific and those harmonics are odd at valve amplifiers, not even.

[A.S.]

Yes, you read my mind - I was curious about how TIM distortion could be identified by ear.

In my opinion, Transient InterModulation Distortion (which has been know about for around fifty years) is just another in a depressingly long line of measurement observations desperate to find a correlation with what we hear. That would allow the folks who write these erudite papers to claim that they had, finally, discovered what subtle, difficult to measure characteristic of audio equipment resulted in a certain type of sound quality - for example - "grittiness".

Fifty + years on and I can assure you that TIM is just one of a whole array of measurements that individually tell you little or nothing about subjective quality. For that reason, the audio magazines, rightly or wrongly, moved away from objective (measurements) to subjective (listening only) appraisal. The objectivist magazines were producing more or less the same graphs month after month yet still claiming significant audible differences between equipment, even equipment (amplifiers) with basically identical measurements.

We must take extreme care not to create mental associations between negligible and difficult to measure distortions and perceived sonic differences. It really isn't that simple.

As a matter of interest, what level of distortion do you think a trained listener under optimum conditions could detect? 10%, 1%, 0.1%, 0.001% ? I'm interested to know what you think. Remember: you can only hear amplifier distortion when you listen to the amp driving a loudspeaker. You can never hear the amp itself: you need a loudspeaker to generate the sound waves.

[Vlado]

Yes, you read my mind - I was curious about how TIM distortion could be identified by ear.


Hello Alan,
I fully agree on what you state above. Regarding your question, I have no clue! By my opinion it?s not possible to discern types of distortions. Also I think that does not exist a threshold from where is possible to hear the distortions. The distortions could be remarked at vocals and speech more easily as on instrumental music.
On some kind of music is even impossible to observe distortions. Think Jimmy Hendrix guitar! ..............

As we previously discus some other items which influence the sound, eg. damping factor , I think that there are so many variables and the measurements with test signals do not comply (exactly - more ore less - what correlation is there? ) with music.

Kindly
Vlado

[A.S.]

... Regarding your question, I have no clue! By my opinion it?s not possible to discern types of distortions. Also I think that does not exist a threshold from where is possible to hear the distortions...Actually, much research has been done on the audibility of distortion and there are very clear, unambiguous conclusions about human ability to detect distortion.

The first research was carried out in the early days of broadcasting. Broadcasters needed to know how much distortion was allowable in the complex distribution network from microphone, studio equipment, distribution cables to transmitters, transmitters, home receivers and finally home loudspeakers. That's a tremendously long "signal processing" chain involving literally hundreds of miles of unshielded cables, hundreds of tubes (then), countless connections, switches etc.. So the perfectly reasonable assumption was made by the broadcasters that every 'component' had a potential influence on distortion and/or frequency response and/or noise. They were not aiming for high fidelity, their target was to define a threshold for distortion which was not detectable by trained ear, and spending any more money to drive down distortion below that just-perceptible level would be a waste of money.

Actually, that's good engineering practice. It is a waste of money, time and natural resources to engineer a product which is needlessly complex, uses more parts than necessary, is heavier than necessary, consumes more power than necessary, is bigger than necessary, is laden with unwanted features and strives for a needlessly high specification far beyond its practical application.

So, back to my question: what did they find was a 'just detectable' distortion contribution superimposed on music or speech? 10% or 0.001% perhaps? And do you agree that whatever that threshold is, there is no logical, practical or even moral justification for chasing a standard that is, say, ten times better than need be? That specmanship takes a product from pure engineering functionality into the world of emotional self-congratulation. The 0-60mph in sub 3 seconds mind-set.

[Vlado]

....emotional self-congratulation.



Alan,
I have to note this term!

As I understand you use amplifiers designed by J.F.
Beside the correct design and non puffed prices, are those amplifiers closest to the accuracy? Referred to price or absolutely?

Regards

Vlado

[A.S.]

I'm sorry but I don't know who "J.F." is. And I certainly don't use "J.F's" amplifiers!

About 'amplifier accuracy' etc. - the amp that you have at home right now may well be as 'accurate' as it needs to be.

However, there is a standard below which one definitely shouldn't go. I bought a 5.1 channel AV amp from a British brand of well respected middle-audiophile electronics - amp made in the Far East. Looks nice. Lot's of features. Rows of connectors. Good handset. BUT, there is so much digital processing crammed into the full-rack case that it produces a roar of digital hash over the speakers if the volume is turned up just above normal. At a normal setting I can't hear the hash, but I know that it's there and that's psychologically biased me against the amp, and even the brand.

Compared to designing a simple basic stereo amplifier, it must require electronic design skills of the very highest order (as you'd expect to find in the Japanese corporations) to design really good AV amps where the digital and analogue circuitry are adjacent to each other without RF or PSU break-through. Ditto mobile phone design where radio signals and audio signals are millimetres apart on the same PCB. Incredible. Those guys have have really moved the frontiers of audio electronics forward as they've honed their cutting-edge skills whilst the rest of us in the audio industry remain trapped in our dark ages, going round in circles like the Bismarck chasing inaudible non-issues! And we wonder why young, A1 grade electronic engineers (like my eldest son) don't find the audio industry an attractive career path?!

[ryder]

Interesting discussion. Somehow I agree that sonic differences between top grade amplifiers can be small to the point of indistinguishable under controlled listening environments and blind tests as shown in the test results of the report. However, the fact that remains is there are still minor sound differences between these amps. My only grouch is the Pioneer AV amp was said to be strikingly close to the Mark Levinson amp in sound quality. Maybe those batch of listeners have been having a few drinks.....just kidding.

Anyway I am confident that I would have little difficulty in picking out my Sony AV amps being the inferior ones compared to the current crop of "good" amps that I have now, blindfolded or not.

[A.S.]

Don't underestimate the design skills that go into those AV amps - the good ones from the big brands are designed by engineers at the very top end of the audio ladder. Those engineers understand amplifiers so well that they can specify the custom made IC's (chips) down to the finest details. The poor relation - the audiophile hi-fi industry - doesn't have the resources, the purchasing power, perhaps even the engineering design expertise to contemplate custom-designed chips for our amps.The best we can do is scour conventional parts catalogues for yesterday's technology and try and find yet more technically interesting ways of combining those boring old off-the-shelf components, and spin up another uninspiring marketing story fixated on some weirdness of the circuit design, the case, the size, shape or colour. It's all so desperately uninspiring.

If we want to build better amps, we as an industry have to break away from bog-standard parts-list components available to every TV repair man (http://uk.farnell.com/) in ones and twos and actually design innovative new components. At fundamental chip level as we did in my previous industry. But that won't happen in 'audiphile' audio for the reasons I've explained.

[yeecn]

So, back to my question: what did they find was a 'just detectable' distortion contribution superimposed on music or speech? 10% or 0.001% perhaps?

Well, here is an article by Professor Edward M Cherry quoting that human detectable distortion can be as high as 10% http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1300&dat=19841108&id=IfsQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=8JQDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3909,4708574

Professor Cherry patented the Monash Cherry amplifier in 1983, which was the most accurate amplifier design at that time, and sold the design for some 2 million AUD. I was doing 2nd year Electrical Engineering at Monash University at that time, and was very impressed by his achievements. I would have chosen to do a project under him if I had continued my study in Electrical Engineering. I was meant to be doing a double degree in Computer Science and EE, but I was captivated by Computer Science so I opted not to continue with EE and continued on to do postgraduate study in Computer Science instead.

I remembered reading an article mentioning that TIM was not measurable by the measuring instrument used, which has a threshold of 0.1%. Anyway TIM brought up an interesting question for me - which is temporal distortion. I remembered seeing a graph posted by Alan that there is a small phase lag on the base region as compared to the treble region. I understand that this is inevitable because of the inertial of the cone material.

My question is - how much can the human ear tolerate such phase incoherence across the spectrum?

Cheers,
Yee

[hifi_dave]

Alan,
Was it 0.1 or 'point one' per cent as proposed by H.J.Leak ?

[A.S.]

Good memory! I'll dig out the papers tonight.

[A.S.]

I take my hat off to you ... it's you that should be sitting here not me! Can I re-phrase your comment "that human detectable distortion can be as high as 10%" in a more dramatic way thus .... Distortion can be as high as 10% and may not be detectable to the human ear.

Only 10%? I think that it can probably be much higher than that in the bass frequencies and not be detectable, and just as well. Does one seriously think that a 5" or 8", even 12" cone can produce perfectly clean LF at medium/high volumes? And the port?

The phase thing: you've reminded me that once again, this was researched by Harwood and colleagues at the BBC decades ago. Why? Because in broadcasting, there are very long signal lines from studios to transmitters up and down the country via telephone exchanges. Even at the speed of light, there are small but detectable time delays sending signals along those long lines, and that means there are small phase differences.

The BBC needed to put some numbers to what was acceptable. The reason was that when stereo was in its infancy (long before digital distribution systems) the left channel and right channel were not necessarily sent on adjacent pairs of wires from London north to say, Glasgow in Scotland 400 miles away. Although one stereo channel may pass directly along the shortest direct route, the other channel just might leave London, pass along a Post Office trunk phone wire bundle to, say, Bristol in the east, then across to Belfast in Ireland then back to Manchester and finally arrive in Glasgow. The BBC had no control (and no need to control) how the PO distributed the signal providing that it arrived.

Imagine then when these two signal are brought together at the Glasgow studio, one with a tremendous delay due to it's extra long routing how that would cause a big phase problem. So the BBC set about quantifying the effect on stereo and concluded that the ear was remarkably tolerant of phase shift and that providing the phase was not too far out of step the ear was not able to detect the slip.

Sorry to say (or rather, please to report) that it's another non-issue. I'll dig out the papers.

[A.S.]

I've found one of the papers, written by our Dudley Harwood and his then boss, D.E.L. Shorter when they led the BBC Research Department's audio work.

They concentrated their efforts on verifying work carried out by the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) at around 1960, and improving the understanding of the subject (with stereo radio planned to start service). Their work was then submitted to the EBU and finally adopted (in the form of Fig 5) as CCIR1963 across Europe.

What this shows is that human perception of inter-channel phase is somewhat frequency dependent. The red curve (Fig 4g) dips around 200-400Hz (the midrange) and this means that the ear is a little more sensitive to phase shift (in the midrange) than at other frequencies above and below. But from about 1kHz upwards, typically a whopping 55 degrees of phase shift ( that's about a seventh of a complete cycle at 1kHz) is inaudible to the trained listener and in the low frequencies, an incredible 90 degrees is inaudible* under perfect conditions. So, one again, the facts illustrate the point that the ear is incredibly easily deceived. Unless real care and attention to construct proper, controlled critical listening comparisons (just like these at the BBC) the subjective results are, in engineering terms, meaningless. But when care is applied, it always reveals that the organic, flesh and blood ear, is far less reliable an instrument than many (but not I) wish to believe.

I would imagine an audiophile would find it incredible that the ear could be so astonishingly deaf to phase, but these are the facts.

* Common sense tells you that the ears must be extremely poor at resolving phase at low frequencies. If they were more sensitive it would be impossible to position two or more loudspeakers for satisfying stereo in the normal, untreated, asymmetrical, reflective listening room. The listener's head would be swimming as the notes seemed to shift from left to right through the musical spectrum: a nauseous experience.

>

[yeecn]

You are very right Alan, our ears are much more imperfect that we thought!

http://www.axiomaudio.com/distortion.html

Put another way, our ability to hear the test frequency ?noise? tones at frequencies of 40 Hz and below is extremely crude. Indeed, the results show we are virtually deaf to these distortions at those frequencies. Even in the mid-bass at 280 Hz and lower, the ?noise? can be around -14 dB (20% distortion), about half as loud as the music itself, before we hear it.

The amount of hocus pocus in the audiophile industry is truly amazing. I am glad that you created this forum for us mere mortals to have a glimpse of reality.

Cheers,
Yee

[Yakamozan]

I have the M30 at home right now but i?m about to change them with the SHL5 as i had them here at home for two weeks, and it was simply breathtaking how they sounded with my set up. The M30 where allready what i called the best sound i had at home until i had the chance to try the SHL5.

I?m running my Harbeth with Lavardin IT, Tom Evans The Groove and a DPS 3 Turntable with Immedia RPM II arm and a Lyra Cartridge, all connected with Stereovox cabling.
Sound is amazing to me


Yakamozan

[Vlado]

I'm sorry but I don't know who "J.F." is. And I certainly don't use "J.F's" amplifiers!


John Farlowe of Exposure!

[Gan CK]

I have the M30 at home right now but i?m about to change them with the SHL5 as i had them here at home for two weeks, and it was simply breathtaking how they sounded with my set up. The M30 where allready what i called the best sound i had at home until i had the chance to try the SHL5.

I?m running my Harbeth with Lavardin IT, Tom Evans The Groove and a DPS 3 Turntable with Immedia RPM II arm and a Lyra Cartridge, all connected with Stereovox cabling.
Sound is amazing to me


Yakamozan

Not much mentioned here but Lavardin is also a very good match with Harbeth IMHO. You have a very good analogue setup there.

[kittykat]

Agree that price only reflects quality to an extent and the relationship is far from linear. While on this topic im looking for an extremely affordable solid state amplifier (something below USD 900) to run a pair of SHL?5?s to tie me over the summer months. the tube amp I have just runs unacceptably hot and switching on the aircon only adds background noise. ive shortlisted the marantz 6003?s, a creek evolution (on sale here) as well as a rotel ra 04. Any suggestions are most welcome. I know the decision making process gets only harder when there are constraints. Thanks.

[Thanos]

Agree that price only reflects quality to an extent and the relationship is far from linear. While on this topic im looking for an extremely affordable solid state amplifier (something below USD 900) to run a pair of SHL?5?s to tie me over the summer months. the tube amp I have just runs unacceptably hot and switching on the aircon only adds background noise. ive shortlisted the marantz 6003?s, a creek evolution (on sale here) as well as a rotel ra 04. Any suggestions are most welcome. I know the decision making process gets only harder when there are constraints. Thanks.

Hi,
science is a good thing, but don't forget to land on earth, on real world when spending money. McIntosh (that I own) has poor or not at all service & support here in Greece. Numerous other exotic or non-exotic brands, have the same problem. Technicians (after guarantee has expired) are a tricky and doubtful choice to do. One dealer closed and the next one proved of very low credibility in servicing some exotic tube amps from Italy, though the latter is next door.

So, I'm not worried about my SHL5s, concerning that Alan is very aware of spare parts, support & service for his customers worldwide for the past 20 and the next 20 years, as we have seen to happen... I'm aware of other brands and merchants that usually disappear in the short future, when needed...

The matter is that you'd better choose something that would be credible, well supported, easily repaired or serviced/changed if needed at your area. I've posted a comment about what happened with one of my VU meters, earlier in this discussion. So, don't underestimate my humble advice. Get a Volkswagen and trip around Europe. If you get a Ferrari, you should have waiting a helicopter from Maranello to check what went wrong on that mountain road across the Alps... And pay accordingly...

Most things (like new cars, electronics, etc.) are made to last short nowadays. For this, I wouldn't pay a fortune. If you buy some really good stuff, make sure that it has something like an "Alan Shaw" behind it!

Cheers from Athens,
Thanos

[hifi_dave]

Agree that price only reflects quality to an extent and the relationship is far from linear. While on this topic im looking for an extremely affordable solid state amplifier (something below USD 900) to run a pair of SHL?5?s to tie me over the summer months. the tube amp I have just runs unacceptably hot and switching on the aircon only adds background noise. ive shortlisted the marantz 6003?s, a creek evolution (on sale here) as well as a rotel ra 04. Any suggestions are most welcome. I know the decision making process gets only harder when there are constraints. Thanks.

Not wishing to offend but I wouldn't give house room to any of those three. If I really, really had to choose it would be the Creek but only as the best of a bad bunch. Is there any chance of you hearing a Rega Brio or Mira ? Well within your budget and streets ahead in terms of sound. IMO

[Will]

Not wishing to offend but I wouldn't give house room to any of those three. If I really, really had to choose it would be the Creek but only as the best of a bad bunch. Is there any chance of you hearing a Rega Brio or Mira ? Well within your budget and streets ahead in terms of sound. IMO

The Harbeth Cdn distributor recommends Creek with Harbeth, and it sounds very fine indeed to my ears!

[ryder]

To each his own. Tried the Rega Elicit with the P3ESR briefly and sounded okay. However, the Rega didn't sound too good with the SHL5. The house sound of the Rega is to the warmer side of neutral, and the Harbeth is also that. I find the Elicit/SHL5 combination to lack transparency and high-end extension in the mids with slightly muddled bass lines compared to the LFD and Leben CS600. A fairly neutral amp is required to get the best out of the Harbeth.

On a separate note, if I don't compare amps I would probably be happy with the Rega. After comparing not anymore.

[Gan CK]

i reckon Creek Destiny shouldn't be too bad, though probably still not in the same league as LFD LE III. Now i wondering if anyone here has heard LFD NCSE with SHL-5....I am sure it's a very serious contender in the arena of best integrated amps.....

[Lorpuris]

While I usually listen to a Lux 590 with my SHL 5's, I dug out my Jolida 502 for a listen. It is so sweat ! Tubes are such a pain though.

[musicquest]

Agreed, Lavardin not mentioned too much.....would love to hear one with the Harbeths....

I've been following these amp/integrated threads for Harbeths for a while, seems like one of the most contested threads, both here and on audiogon and pink fish.

Those with LFD think they're the perfect match because Gene Rubin and Sam Tellig has said so. Then there's the Leben camp due to Jeff Day's glorious reviews. And then the Luxmans are coming on strong, everyone trying to figure out the right model to use.

Obviously those that buy whichever brand come out shooting, touting their choice to be the best.
And then the detractors come, LFD only so so, Leben showing less bass control, Luxman only a glorified Sony. And lately Lavardin also not having complete bass control.

So what's a person to do or think? :)

[kittykat]

The Brio is the only one which fits the budget. ill try and get a listen with one of them. i might even take a shot with some of the chinese made amps, the 2 ive shortlisted being the dussun T6 or the G&W 2006x.

[garmtz]

I do not see much reference to this brand, but Linn also makes a very good match with Harbeth I think. The new Majik DS-I in really incredible for the money, with built-in DAC and streaming.

[Thanos]

The Brio is the only one which fits the budget. ill try and get a listen with one of them. i might even take a shot with some of the chinese made amps, the 2 ive shortlisted being the dussun T6 or the G&W 2006x.

Well,

If you're thinking of Chinese products, check if you've got around a dealer for that French company that builds in China under French supervising, the Advance Acoustic. Take a look into their site, When we heard them here driving various speakers, cheap or expensive, our eyes popped out. And they have really very low prices, one can't believe... They are constantly receiving excellent reviews worldwide. Costs vary from 350euros to 800euros, the latter concerns a 100watter/8ohms that goes 200wrms/4ohms, weighs about 19kgrs(!) and has tremendous built with anlogue VUmeters. Heard it myself with Quad 22 floorstanders and was really impressed. A very little bright, transparent and very detailed, I think it would finely match with the smooth & warm character of the SHL5s.

Cheers from Athens,
Thanos

[Lorpuris]

"Luxman only a glorified Sony"

WOW ! That actually made me laugh out loud !

[kittykat]

Thanks Thanos. Advance Acoustics has a basic integrated (MAP 101) which is half my budget of USD1000, which makes it most interesting. There is a dealer in town and ill try to get a listen. Looks like really good value.

Stumbled on a write up of the Abacus Ampino which looks really interesting, They seem to have a very similar philosophy as Harbeth, practical, grounded on science, no fluff.

[musicquest]

I know, but that was what one dealer has said, and he has some of the best gear.....made me laugh, too.....I hope to hear a newer Luxman piece someday to decide for myself, if it keeps selling and gets better distribution maybe I can. I heard some of the cheaper lines of Luxman back in the 80's, the receivers and some integrateds, and they were about like Yamaha then.

[Lorpuris]

Ah Yes. Those electronics were mostly made by Alps Motorola, Some was actually quite good, and some was well, terrible (Servoface). Since I was in the center of mid-fi at the time, I can say that Luxman was vastly superior to Yamaha. I would say that NAD was much more of a peer than Yamaha or Denon. The really nasty stuff was Sony, JVC,and Technics. My absolute favorite in the late 1970's early 1980's was Tandberg. The small receivers were great (TR-2025, TR-2040).

[musicquest]

I remember those tandbergs quite well.....they had a look about them that once you saw them you never forgot, kind of like a big beogram from b & o....

I do believe the particular dealer mentioned earlier was comparing the current Luxman to the Sony ES line, which I've never heard. I remember I did whince a little when I heard the comparison comment, thinking from all the threads that the new Luxman must be quite good.

I very much value his opinion, he coming from quite a history of gear. That being said, the only way audiophiles ever agree on anything is if they own it. Why would one believe him or any other poster on these threads? You don't know their gear, setup, room, listening tastes. All one can do is audition or buy with assumptions and hope for the best. :)

I'm presently using Crimson gear, the 710 preamp and 640 monos. I would assume they're far ahead any of the integrateds mentioned, but just a hunch......

[Gan CK]

I remember those tandbergs quite well.....they had a look about them that once you saw them you never forgot, kind of like a big beogram from b & o....

I do believe the particular dealer mentioned earlier was comparing the current Luxman to the Sony ES line, which I've never heard. I remember I did whince a little when I heard the comparison comment, thinking from all the threads that the new Luxman must be quite good.

I very much value his opinion, he coming from quite a history of gear. That being said, the only way audiophiles ever agree on anything is if they own it. Why would one believe him or any other poster on these threads? You don't know their gear, setup, room, listening tastes. All one can do is audition or buy with assumptions and hope for the best. :)

I'm presently using Crimson gear, the 710 preamp and 640 monos. I would assume they're far ahead any of the integrateds mentioned, but just a hunch......

The best way to judge if an amplifier is of any good is to listen to it in your own setup. Good as many amplifers are, but there's no amp that is all things to all people. And then, there's also an element of bias. Nobody is totally 'neutral'. I am definitely not. I have always preferred Brit stuff over those outrageously expensive, overbuilt & flashy non UK made gear.

Having said that, i've also heard many good integrateds trouncing more elaborate & expensive pre/power or monoblock counterparts by quite a long shot.

[Thanos]

Thanks Thanos. Advance Acoustics has a basic integrated (MAP 101) which is half my budget of USD1000, which makes it most interesting. There is a dealer in town and ill try to get a listen. Looks like really good value.

Stumbled on a write up of the Abacus Ampino which looks really interesting, They seem to have a very similar philosophy as Harbeth, practical, grounded on science, no fluff.

Hi Kittykat,

Try to ask info/listen the MAP 105, same sound with MAP 101, it has all the inputs you'll ever need and almost twice the power of its smaller brother. We heard it in the same shop with the small Quads, DALI and Dynaudio floorstanders. It flattened down with ease a Denon PM1500AE which had 1,5 times its price, and which -strangely- received here in Europe the EISA award for best integrated of the year 2007. The MAP 105 sells here for about 500euros, which still is well below your margin. Therefore you can save money for cables and anything extra needed for setting up. I do have a feeling that it will do pretty much OK with your SHL5s. If the Advance Acoustic MAP305 was in Greece when I paid a hell of money for my McIntosh MA6500, I would have bought it and I would have saved a whole of 4.000 euros out of my pocket... That means I would now have got all my other devices (except the Meridian 507) for free (and they are CDR, Tuner, Turntable and cassette deck). Money doesn't fall from the skies nowadays, it's earned harder than ever before.

Regards,
Thanos

[kittykat]

Thank you for the tip Thanos. much appreciated . The 105 however doesn't seem to be available here in Aust. But ill definitely check out the 101 after the holidays.

Yes, i agree with you that money is harder to earn nowadays and what confuses me most about amplfiers is that if you look internally, at the parts and design, they're basically very similar in design, with off the shelf parts. How price differences are justified really amazes me, and based on this logic alone, cannot justify price differences. im sure manufacturing and marketing costs make up the big difference and thats where i believe most of the money i pay for a pricey amp goes to.

think comparing amplifiers is a bit like comparing a lexus and toyota 6 cylinder motor. im sure one is "better" than the other, but at what price? fuel injectors are basically similar, the operating concept is similar etc. Differences can be gained through material improvements but more marked differences are evident in radical technology eg. higher compression combustion etc. but how radical has an amplfier come away from compared to say 20 years ago? We have in fact gone back to tubes which almost become archaic. So when manufacturers make claims on their amplifiers based on current technology eg. mosfets etc. im extremely sceptical, . it wont be a leaps and bounds improvement.

[Yakamozan]

Never had the chance to listen to LFD or Leben Amp?s, and i believe this is the biggest problem with comparing. Who has the chance to get all of this amps at home to compare them and decide which is the best. I personally owned some big Audionet Monoblocks, E.A.R 861?s and 509 Mono?s and Almarro 318B, what i can say is that musically non of them can compete with the Lavardin IT. Not with my old Audio Physic Caldera?s, nor with my M30 or the SHL5 i had at home. I am a drummer myself and what i can say about the Lavardin amp compared to my other amps is that it sounds real, as strange as this might sound, it?s the best way for me to describe it. But again, maybe it just fit?s better in my set up and will not do so in others .......

[ryder]

Never had the chance to listen to LFD or Leben Amp?s, and i believe this is the biggest problem with comparing. Who has the chance to get all of this amps at home to compare them and decide which is the best. I personally owned some big Audionet Monoblocks, E.A.R 861?s and 509 Mono?s and Almarro 318B, what i can say is that musically non of them can compete with the Lavardin IT. Not with my old Audio Physic Caldera?s, nor with my M30 or the SHL5 i had at home. I am a drummer myself and what i can say about the Lavardin amp compared to my other amps is that it sounds real, as strange as this might sound, it?s the best way for me to describe it. But again, maybe it just fit?s better in my set up and will not do so in others .......
Jeff Day has compared the Lavardin IT to the Leben CS600 with his Harbeth. The review is as below.

http://positive-feedback.com/Issue46/lavardin_integrated.htm

[Yakamozan]

To Ryder : Thanks for the Link, nice review. What is surprising for me is that he is running the M40.1 with the IT and that it seems to be a good match. I thought that the overall output of the amp just won?t be enough for the 40.1?s.

One thing i would like to communicate to all Lavardin IT owners. There is one issue you should be aware of. If you use the Lavardin Mains CMR150 or CMR250 ( that?s the mains with the little box in the middle ), the phase is as showed on the back of the Amp. The red dot is where the hot wire suposed to be. Somehow this changes once you use a normal mains. I use the Standard Naim Mains for my Lavardin, Tom Evans and DPS 3 PS, i have the CMR at home as well, but prefer the Naim standard. The distributor for Lavardin in Germany told me to put the Hot Wire of the Mains opposite the red dot, and it really showed that this is the only right position for this amp. The difference is HUGE. Don?t give anything what some detectors say and what Lavardin says in this case, just trust your ears, it is that obvious. I don?t know if Lavardin wants the customer to use their CMR Mains or if they have other listening preferences, but to me as well as to the Distributor and some Lavardin Dealers it is without a doubt the right way to go. Try it and you will see :)

[ryder]

Hi Yakamozan,
I guess most people who are not familiar with the 40.1's will have the impression that the huge speakers would need some power to come alive. Initially I too thought the 40.1's would need a reasonably powerful amp due to the additional 12" bass driver. However, after listening to the speakers driven by the Leben CS600 the 40.1 has proven to be an efficient speaker that is able to work well with most modestly-powered integrateds at sensible listening conditions. Unless the listener listens in a big room at fairly high volume levels I reckon moderately-powered integrateds in the range of 50W-100W would be more than sufficient. The older M40 is the one that would require massive power to come alive as a friend uses a Mcintosh MC402 with 400W brute power on the speakers. The power supply of the Lavardin IT must be of high quality to be able to drive the 40.1's and control the bass driver better than the Leben. I believe you now own one of the best matching amps from the fine high-end French manufacturer for your Harbeth and can get off the merry-go-round once and for all.

Enjoy~

[Thanos]

Thank you for the tip Thanos. much appreciated . The 105 however doesn't seem to be available here in Aust. But ill definitely check out the 101 after the holidays.

Yes, i agree with you that money is harder to earn nowadays and what confuses me most about amplfiers is that if you look internally, at the parts and design, they're basically very similar in design, with off the shelf parts. How price differences are justified really amazes me, and based on this logic alone, cannot justify price differences. im sure manufacturing and marketing costs make up the big difference and thats where i believe most of the money i pay for a pricey amp goes to.

think comparing amplifiers is a bit like comparing a lexus and toyota 6 cylinder motor. im sure one is "better" than the other, but at what price? fuel injectors are basically similar, the operating concept is similar etc. Differences can be gained through material improvements but more marked differences are evident in radical technology eg. higher compression combustion etc. but how radical has an amplfier come away from compared to say 20 years ago? We have in fact gone back to tubes which almost become archaic. So when manufacturers make claims on their amplifiers based on current technology eg. mosfets etc. im extremely sceptical, . it wont be a leaps and bounds improvement.

I dare not publish a tech-talk I had a month ago with an excellent technician, with studies, who has made amps for himself and a couple of friends.
He showed me, analyzed and calculated the cost of a monster Mark Levinson power vs an old mediun size Yamaha int. He went through other comparisons as well, with evidence. From the cheapest construction cost to the most expensive we hardly have a double or triple price.
I was embarassed. I realised that different design & topology make the different sound and driving efficiency. But when paid, you might go up the ladder not 2 or 3, but 10 or 20, or even more times so. He told me he would appreciate something really good if he would look at the materials and labour and calculate the cost from the inside. Which is not just glancing...
At my comment of how much the technology has gone up in the last 30 years, which would make older amps sound so "poor", he started loughing loudly. For a million reasons.
Alan has put it right by declaring that a genius and long lasting design at a comparatively modest & well controlled cost, plus a very reasonable profit, would be the average man's delight and excellent choice. This is precisely what he does, and this is why I strongly declare my admiration & loyalty to the Harbeth House. No cheapos, No Patek Philippes. You can live all your life with a Seiko, without loosing a minute. The rest is marketing and "paying for the senses". Everybody can disagree with these, yet allow me to continue living in the land of modest living.
Can you concentrate on music? Do so, and if you'll ever regret, then when my old millionnaire uncle -living in the U.S.A.- remembers me in his testament, I'll send you a superamp for a gift!

Best Regards,
Thanos