OP
- Thread Starter
- #81
It is very expensive for massdrop audience. Also not that good of a deal for b-stock.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Monoprice Liquid Platinum Headphone Amp Review
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
OP
- Thread Starter
- #83
Ah, the power of imagination.....
Just in case anyone may be interested, Amazon has this on a deal right now for $615.99
amzn.com/B07K7YSL41
amzn.com/B07K7YSL41
Veri
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2018
- Messages
- 9,598
- Likes
- 12,040
Well, it's a balanced tube design after all.The only reason to complain: expensive
I read this review-- actually two reviews -- one strictly of measurements on the bench and the other strictly of listening. The measurement reviewer (I'm guessing that's you?) found some problematic measurements. The listening reviewer loved how the amp sounded (particularly with well-matched speakers).
So, you would discourage someone from considering the LTA because of some measurement issues on a measurement device without mentioning that your listening review partner was delighted with the sound interacting with his ears/brain?
Measurements are of course useful and essential, particularly as a tool in the design phase, but to use them, in a vacuum, to pan an audio device (ie. meant for interaction with hearing) is pretty misleading and shallow.
If an amplifier performs poorly, that’s what I’m going to report. I have no interest in sugarcoating performance problems, nor the converse, making a big deal of irrelevant issues that happen to be measurable.
Neither Oliver nor I feel that we are obligated to agree with one another, irrespective of our mutual professional respect and friendship.
The point of my response is that when someone here asked about the LTA Mz3, you're response was dismissive-- based solely on bench testing and no listening. No mention made that the listening reviewer loved the way the amp sounded with speakers!
Of course you're not obligated to agree with the other reviewer, but leaving out his part of the review is misleading to anyone who has not gone to the trouble to find the review and read it for themselves (available only through a $9 download fee.)
Of course you're not obligated to agree with the other reviewer, but leaving out his part of the review is misleading to anyone who has not gone to the trouble to find the review and read it for themselves (available only through a $9 download fee.)
If one believes that an amplifier’s job is to make a small signal larger, and it’s no secret that this is my standard, the amp in question is a very poor performer. The results speak for themselves and excuses or rationalizations are the seller’s responsibility, not mine.
If your standard is wanting to use a very expensive effects box where the effects can’t be turned off, you’re free to do so, and the measurements are pretty clear about what that effect is likely to be.
If you want to see agreement between Oliver and me on a power amp, see this month’s review of the Cambridge Edge W, a superb performer.
Again, my main issue of your dismissal of the LTA (and now you're characterization as "a very expensive effect box") is that it is misleading and (irresponsible?) to publicize criticisms without divulging that you have not listened to the amp. If I had not ponied up the $9 to find the review, I would not have known this.
I have listened to a Berning amp, as well as the LTA Mz3, and I would describe them as the antithesis of an "effects box." They are extraordinarily transparent and natural sounding. This is based on sound waves interacting with the human auditory system-- not by a relatively primitive and limited electronic measuring device.
I have listened to a Berning amp, as well as the LTA Mz3, and I would describe them as the antithesis of an "effects box." They are extraordinarily transparent and natural sounding. This is based on sound waves interacting with the human auditory system-- not by a relatively primitive and limited electronic measuring device.
Last edited:
I can see the point I have been trying to make is being studiously ignored.
No one is asking you to "lie or cover things up." I love seeing measurements and pretty graphs. But isn't it interesting that I've not seen a single reviewer or listening report of the Ultralinear that cites distortion as an issue. The only reservations I've heard are that they could lean toward being too transparent and clean.
I'll close with inviting you to consider listening to the gear you bench test. Don't you want to hear confirmation of the "poor performance?" I would think simple scientific curiosity would compel one to listen to find associations between measurements and the sound hitting one's ears.
No one is asking you to "lie or cover things up." I love seeing measurements and pretty graphs. But isn't it interesting that I've not seen a single reviewer or listening report of the Ultralinear that cites distortion as an issue. The only reservations I've heard are that they could lean toward being too transparent and clean.
I'll close with inviting you to consider listening to the gear you bench test. Don't you want to hear confirmation of the "poor performance?" I would think simple scientific curiosity would compel one to listen to find associations between measurements and the sound hitting one's ears.
Last edited:
I can see the point I have been trying to make is being studiously ignored.
No one is asking you to "lie or cover things up." I love seeing measurements and pretty graphs. But isn't it interesting that I've not seen a single reviewer or listening report of the Ultralinear that cites distortion as an issue. The only reservations I've heard are that they could lean toward being too transparent and clean.
I'll close with inviting you to consider listening to the gear you bench test. Don't you want to hear confirmation of the "poor performance?" I would think simple scientific curiosity would compel one to listen to find associations between measurements and the sound hitting one's ears.
That says more about the inadequacy of sighted, uncontrolled “listening” for reviews than it does about the equipment under review. And I include my own reviews of loudspeakers where I cannot easily do double blind tests in that criticism.
Putting aside your unsupported assumptions about what I do and don’t do in the solitude of my lab, I’m quite aware of the effects of frequency response and high distortion on sound. There’s no new science there. Berning has a good story and some very creative design, which influences most reviewers far more than the actual no-peeking sound.
So, all the people who like the sound of Bernings designs are suffering from bias due to Berning's good reputation as an amp designer? I'm sorry, but that is just an amazing position to take...
I had never even heard of Berning before I heard one of his amps. It was sent to me as a temp replacement for my 300b set which was out for repair. I had no expectations regarding the clean, almost delicate, understated quality of the sound. Distortion would be the last descriptor for this amp.
I had never even heard of Berning before I heard one of his amps. It was sent to me as a temp replacement for my 300b set which was out for repair. I had no expectations regarding the clean, almost delicate, understated quality of the sound. Distortion would be the last descriptor for this amp.
People believe all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons. And clearly, some people are perfectly happy with terrible frequency response and distortion and are willing to pay a pile of money for it. I guess in a relative sense it might sound clean if you're replacing a 300B amp, especially if it's a single ended amp. Not so much if you're replacing an actual low distortion amp with flat frequency response.
Yes. It did a few things almost as well as amplifiers costing ten times less, but most things not as well. I referred to it in my review as performance art rather than performance. On the upside, the tubes are run very cool and should have a decent lifetime. But all in all, the tube amp I usually use runs circles around it, though admittedly hotter and bulkier.
For the cost of this, I could get three Cambridge Edge W amps, or several of @March Audio 's amps (not sure what they sell for but I think they're comparable to the Edge W), or a couple of Benchmark AHB2s or...
#metoo
To be fair, I have two other amps on hand for review that perform comparably. If only I could afford to keep them...
Was it this thing?
I'm amazed by the 1.6 ohm output impedance on a $6 800 amp. I'm further amazed by the fact that they dare call it "plays nicely with all speakers" (emphases theirs). If made to drive very low-impedance speakers, a large amount of power would be lost in the amp itself.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
