LLC-Purist Impression

Xi-Trum · « **on:** 22 Jun 2003, 01:01 pm »

Well, I finally had a chance to audition the LLC-P. I was able to compare the 0dB and 6dB setting. Here are my impressions of the two:

The 0dB setting was... umm... "purer" sounding. It affected the entire frequency spectrum. I'd say that everything sounded better with the 0dB setting. The sound was clearer, more balanced and transparent. It also had better separation of instruments. The soundstage opened up and the presentation was more laidback. The sound was not as aggressive as the 6dB setting.

With the 6dB setting, bass was a bit bloated. The midrange was not as smooth and was a bit overwhelming. The high was a bit edgy and bright. It added more "sizzle" to the sound. Interestingly, the tonality also changed.

Honestly, I was not at all impressed with the LLC-P at the 6dB setting. It sounded so-so (relatively). Fortunately, the 0dB setting is a different story. And thankfully, there is an easy way to mod the LLC-P to get the 0dB setting. I highly encourage those with the LLC-P to mod theirs and check out the 0dB setting.

I was also had an opportunity to compare the LLC-P (0dB setting) to Bent transformer preamp. In a lot of ways, the LLC-P was better than the Bent. (A shock for me) The most immediate areas were clarity, details, imaging, transients, dynamics, and low-bass control. I can't emphasize enough how good the imaging was on the LLC-P. Pin-point focus! Add to that the clarity and the blacker background made for a big difference between the two.

The Bent, on the other hand, sounded softer, smoother, and fuzzier. While it couldn't compete with the LLC-P in the other departments above, it had a much more natural tonality. The Bent was much more organic and musical sounding. The LLC-P was very sterile sounding. Analytical is a perfect word I would use to describe the LLC-P. The Bent sounded "slow" compared to the LLC-P. This perhaps added to a sense of ease when listening to the Bent.

Let's put it this way. Listening to the Bent, I miss the clarity, transient, dynamic, details, and imaging of the LLC-P. Listening to the LLC-P, I miss the tonality and musicality of the Bent. Oh well...

P.S. Special thanks to tkp for letting me audition the LLC-P in his system: Modded CD-1-> [preamp] -> Ampzilla 2K -> RM40 TRT.

Captain Humble · « **Reply #1 on:** 22 Jun 2003, 03:35 pm »

Thanks Xi-Trum. Nice job.

Quote

Let's put it this way. Listening to the Bent, I miss the clarity, transient, dynamic, details, and imaging of the LLC-P. Listening to the LLC-P, I miss the tonality and musicality of the Bent. Oh well...

A preamp is next on my list, so the referenced quote is most interesting and raises a question of synergy. Tyson has said that he is of the opinion that ribbons like tubes. Since you guys did the shoot out with ribbon speakers I'm not surprised that the two pres feeding an Ampzilla left you wanting. Maybe with the RM40s tube pres should be considered.

Purely selfish on my part, but since I don't have ribbon speakers it would be most interesting to hear impressions of the two preamps through traditional non ribbon speakers. In the perfect world these speakers would be either Odyssey Loreleis or Mable 9.0s since that's what I have.

My bet is that the LLC-Purist will sound smooooother and more musical in a non-ribbon environment.

tkp · « **Reply #2 on:** 22 Jun 2003, 05:51 pm »

CH,

I have a pair of marble 9.0 in active amping mode and I almost have time to check them out with the LLC-P. I had the same thought between LLC-P and non-ribbon speakers. Unfortunately the marble 9.0 are in the bedroom so for me to check them out with the LLC-P, I have to lug them downstair along with the marble pedestals. On top of that, my wife might not let me move them back into the bedroom once I move them out. I did not want to take the chance.

Xitrum,

After you left, I switched out the Svetlana and put in the Yugo/EI in the CD1. I compared the Yugo/EI with the Svetlana about two years ago and much prefer the Svetlana over the Yugo/EI. The Yugo/EI was very sterile to my ears back than. Well, I modded the CD1 power supply about a year ago and did not check the mod unit out with the Yugo/EI until last night.

Now the system with the CD1/Yugo/EI tubes and the Bent sounded right in between the CD1/Svetlana/Bent and CD1/Svetlana/LLC-P. I almost got the best of both world. There are more detail, more focus in the midrange (very similar to the midrange of the LLC-P) but with musical tonality. The bass is quite a bit tighter but not quite as good as the LLC-P.

I have not check out the CD1/Yugo/EI and LLC-P combo yet. First, I need to figure out the way to expose the tube of the CD1 so that they don't wear down due to trap heat inside the enclosed case of the CD1.

Captain Humble · « **Reply #3 on:** 22 Jun 2003, 06:26 pm »

tkp,
How's that for luck. You have Marble 9.0s.
Once my Loreleis arrive, I will use them as mains with a Marble 9.0 center and two 9.0s for surround duties.

I fully understand the wife situation. I shared your comment regarding your wife with my wife and she just rolled her eyes. I like to read her comments like that so she doesn't feel alone.

If you ever get the energy to carry those beasts down the stairs and the little lady is out of town, I'd love to hear your impressions of the LLC-P with those 9.0s.

Thanks,
Jeff

tkp · « **Reply #4 on:** 22 Jun 2003, 07:12 pm »

CH,

I will try to do it (no promise here). But keep in mind that there might be a few different between my setup and yours. My pair of 9.0 are in active amping with the MA and is hopefully wire in-phase between the tweeter and the woofer (JohnR indicated that the passive crossover of the marble 9.0 has the tweeter out-of-phase with the woofer). Initially, I had the marble 9.0 wired in active amping mode per nOrh instruction where the tweeter output at the MA is reversed (black wire of speaker to red of MA and vise versa). However, I wired it the normal way by accident and the sound gets better to my ears. The 9.0 in active amping is much better than the passive one so your result might be different.

Captain Humble · « **Reply #5 on:** 22 Jun 2003, 09:41 pm »

tkp,
Ok...you've lost me.
What does active amping mean?
What is MA? (WAG: Master Amp?)

When you've got time give me the Audiphile 101 version please.

Thanks,
Jeff

tkp · « **Reply #6 on:** 22 Jun 2003, 10:32 pm »

Quote from: Captain Humble

tkp,
Ok...you've lost me.
What does active amping mean?
What is MA? (WAG: Master Amp?)

When you've got time give me the Audiphile 101 version please.

Thanks,
Jeff

Jeff,

I forgot that you are relatively new to nOrh stuff compare to some old nOrhphile. So here it goes.

Active amping means active biamping where the internal passive crossover of the marble 9.0 is bypassed. The amp is connected directly to the tweeter and the woofer (one channel for the tweeter and one channel for the woofer). This require an active crossover before the amp so that the channel that drives the tweeter only contain the high frequency signal and the channel that drive the woofer only contains the low frequency signal. In the marble 9.0 case, all frequency above 3000Hz is for the channel that drive the tweeter and all frequency below 3000Hz is for the woofer.

MA stands for Multiamp. This is a two channels amp with built-in active crossover. It can be configure to be active amping where one channel drive the tweeter and one channel drive the woofer. You need two MAs to drive a pair of marble 9.0 in active amping mode. One MA for speaker.

The marble 9.0 improve quite a bit when move from passive amping to active amping mode.

Xi-Trum · « **Reply #7 on:** 24 Jun 2003, 08:06 pm »

Hi Jeff, I also have the Bent. You're welcome to drop by and audition it.

Tyson · « **Reply #8 on:** 24 Jun 2003, 08:33 pm »

When the Bent passed through here a while back, I would describe it exactly the way that Xi-Trium described the LLC. Looks like I'll be sticking w/the AVA T7 if the LLC is even more of an analytical sound than the Bent.

Captain Humble · « **Reply #9 on:** 25 Jun 2003, 01:36 am »

tkp,
Thanks for the explanation.
Always thought I understood biamping, but never considered active vs. passive. I understand what you said about active, would passive mean that you use a passive crossover upstream of the amp?

Xi-Trum,
Thanks for the invitation. How far are you from Dallas, TX?

Jeff

tkp · « **Reply #10 on:** 25 Jun 2003, 01:44 am »

Quote from: Captain Humble

tkp,
would passive mean that you use a passive crossover upstream of the amp?]

When I said passive amping I meant using the internal passive crossover of the marble 9.0.

Xi-Trum · « **Reply #11 on:** 26 Jun 2003, 03:39 pm »

Jeff, I'm in Frisco. Shoot me a PM whenever you'd like to drop by.

Curt · « **Reply #12 on:** 17 Jul 2003, 07:05 pm »

For those watching this thread, the Purist now sounds better that the previous 0dB setting at ALL settings. Thanks for the inputs after Mod #1 pointed out this issue.

Please read what happened here:
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=3700

This new revision Purist revision is now standard production and will be available early next week for delivery.

JoshK · « **Reply #13 on:** 17 Jul 2003, 07:14 pm »

Thanks for the update Curt. If you hadn't noticed yet I just put in my order.

Curt · « **Reply #14 on:** 17 Jul 2003, 08:01 pm »

Josh,

Received your order, thank you for your business

I will reply to you tomorrow, it's 3am here in Thailand.

Have a great day.

MaxCast · « **Reply #15 on:** 18 Jul 2003, 12:48 am »

I know you are busy, but when is the Sabai due out? Are you going to make me buy a Purist to tide me over?

Curt · « **Reply #16 on:** 18 Jul 2003, 07:10 pm »

Hi Max,

We are working on PT-2 and Audiophile now. Sabai is next.

Yes, we are very busy, I'm working 14+ hrs per day (my wife is not too happy with that) but I hope to get to Sabai soon.