After finishing my  left 6-chennal Melquiades and putting amps and Macondo back as it was intended to be I was expecting that it should be “better” but I did not expect HOW MUCH better it might be. Many aspects of sound are more interesting now, with much defined improvements just across the entire range. However, I would like to do not concentrate on the specific advances that Macondo-Melquiades have in their current state but rather I would like to pay attention to the phenomenal opportunities that a DSET idea offers in context of a multi-way acoustic system.

It is truly phenomenal as active channels open so many creative and expressive opportunities. The balance and the minute satellites of the individual channels might be dialed- in very accurately and without affecting anything else. It changes the entire thinking about acoustic systems and let to view it from a slightly different angle.

Let presume that a center of you attention is MF Channel and you would like to increase not output but “weight” of the MF range’s presentation.  The output volume of MF is the MF Channel’s upper knee and the weight of MF Channel is the MF Channel’s lower knee. So, you have multiple options.

1)  To load the amp that drives MF Channel very slightly harder remapping the output transformer and EQ volume.

2)   To change the amount of current in the tube that driver the MF Channel, effectively changing the plate impedance and consequentially the load damping.

3)   Increase the output of Fundamentals Channel – the next channel toward to LF after MF

Interesting the all 3 ways to deal with the task create slightly different results and mixing them it is possible to shape very-very exact sound you in your mind. Moving across the enter range it possible to control and to structure the transients and harmonic characteristics of an acoustic system with very high degree of correctness. Also it is possible very accurately match the transients/harmonic balance of loudspeakers with the patterns of given acoustic environment of the listening room and with own listening preferences and priorities.  In the end the right questions are popping up and fully active audio installation from the adolescent inquiry ”how does it sound” become to question the right questions: ”who are you” and “what and why you want”.

What is also is very interesting that a change of the Channels’ volume has no impact to the perceived frequency response of the entire acoustic system. It is hard to explain and it should be heard. The change output of ONE channel has a “special” felling. It is in a way remanding the feeling with which the properly working Lamm L1 preamp was able changed volume. Very interesting effect indeed …

Anyhow, the fully active system is a wonderful tool, though a lot of pain in ass to maintain Still, I feel anyone who went DSET and multi-way acoustic system would hardly ever look back… 

With all hugely exuberant welcoming and DSET and multi-way acoustic system approach I have to admit that it is a enormous pain in ass to maintain the system.

Two weeks ago I begin detect that my left channel somewhere in upper MF began to throw some mechanically sounding misrepresentations. I figured that MF drivers picked the dirt and need to be cleaned. I opened it up and cleaned it. Three times, as the alien “sounds” did not go away. Keep chasing it as debugging it further I figure out that one of my… (believe me or not!!!) shock-absorbing tube adapter on 6E6P is responsible for the problem. I plugged the tube direct and the host socket and the problem is gone. Then I opened up the shock-absorbing adapter, looked in it and … closed it back. Then just for fun I decided to try to use the same adapter again – the problem was gone. How fun is sit if you have 12 of those adapters and perhaps the same idiotic behavior? Two weeks I was wondering where the hell THAT sounds was coming from!!!

The people who use a single driver speaker believe the while their driver move back and forth for it also radiates a problem-free MF and HF. Near the same people believe that if an amp has capacitors with precious metals foil then it not only do sound better but cure cancer and  heal consciousness after an abortion. Still amplifiers do not read stupid audio forum and they use own mind to operate.

One of much ugly moment in amps operation is handling complex LF ULF signal.  Even if the amp has no LF restricting magnetic in the signal path then inner modulation of the signal do a lot of damage to sound. While you amp is and it’s power supply play care a fine, fraction of dB flute tone the very same amp at the very moment might care some crash from bass sections. Did you note that most of playbacks, while handling some strong and powerful signals, do vandalize fine minor signals?

A month of so ago a local guy stopped by to hear Macondo and he commented: “for some reason Macondo does not collapse with stress”. Sure 14 channels and 14 amps, 12 of them in Class A1 – why would it be stressed?

Anyhow, of if the secret sin my view is compartmentalization of bass. Make an experiment. Mix at your preamp 50/50 signal from your CD and your TT. Stop the TT spinning, put an LP on platter, lover your tonearm to the stopped record, turn off the LF high-pass filter if you have it on your phonostage. Now let somebody to jump next to your TT. Pay attention to your woofers. You most likely will not hear the sound as it will be too low but you will have very good ULF in-rash. Now, crank up you playback, play a nice and soft music from CD and let your “jumper body” to rock your woofers by phonostage signal. Pay attention that sound of your   Mozart Flute Concerto from CD will be to a large degree depending from how your jumper jumps.

In the multi-amping situation your HF amp will see only the signal from your CD player and bass amp will see the signal from LP and no matter what kind stress the LP amp has it will not be passed to MF amps. I do not say anything new. It is known to anybody but for whatever reasons is not used by anybody in High-End audio. The Morons are accustom to build and to buy power amps that cost comparative to annual income but they do not organize playback with 2 or more cheap  multi-amping amps, dedicated to own respectful frequency range.  In my view it contradicts with the notion of High-Endnes. There is nothing wrong to use one amp but using cost-benefit analyses multi-amping way beats “better amp”.

Speaking for myself, I went big hoping to power my speakers FR with 1 amp per channel.  I did this partly because I wanted to keep it simple, and partly because I did not really think it through before I got that far.  At this point, while I am not clear about how I will balance gain throughout, I will definitely be adding amps, and I see no reason why they should be big and expensive, if they are matched and limited to specific ranges and loads in the first place.  In the end, there really is no single "best" amp, but only the amp best suited to its task.  Taken at face value, this is a case where "good enough" really is good enough.  Hell, maybe they don't even need to be SET...

Best regards,
Paul S

I would like to point out at one of many-many advantage of multiamping playback. If you read my ULF thread then you will see that with relative ease I was able to get deal with my lower bass and set it up in the way how I would like it to Sound.

http://www.GoodSoundClub.com/TreeItem.aspx?PostID=16288