Hi Mike, it's fantastic for you to to invest in (rel.) cost no object hifi like the NVS and MM7s where over the top engineering refines current technology (series crossover multi driver spkrs) and optimises new approaches (direct drive tt speed control), but I disagree with you that innovative approaches may not be as well executed/attainable lower down the price range.
Hard as it is to believe, the Trans Fi Salvation designer has achieved what 99.9% of other tt designers have failed in creating a speed secure high torque rim drive with minimal rumble transmitted to the platter, AND an innovative linear tracking arm, leading (in my humble opinion) to a natural and neutral presentation well ahead of rigs 5-10 x the price (no comment on your NVS, but I've heard the SME 20, TW Acustic AC-3 Raven etc., and I wouldn't take them ahead of the Salvation).
Similarly, the Zu boys have really taken their full range driver, crossoverless concept to fantastic heights with the Dominance and Definitions Mk4, and again I feel that their optimised holistic rhythmic and tone dense presentation is hard to beat at their price level or well beyond.

spiritofmusic April 14, 2012 19:20

Mike, I did not realize the MMs utilized a series xover. After having experienced a series 1st order xover in my current speaker, there is nothing I like more.

agear April 13, 2012 09:52

wow!! double Wow!!

i'm listening to a Joe Chambers drum solo from 'Chief Crazy Horse' off the Wayne Shorter, Adam's Apple 45rpm reissue from Music Matters. disc 2, side 4. the whole side.

this is why you buy these 45 reissues. this record is alive. tonal density, explosive transients, immediacy and vivid detail. very dynamic and energetic. great foundation and rich ambience. lot's of life on top too!

it's a 1966 RVG recording and it's all there!

the NVS-Telos-Anna-darTZeel is really strutting it's stuff.

mikelavigne April 13, 2012 05:30

Mike, just one thought on your reasonable premise that careful execution counts for more than a unique engineering approach. I'd generally agree with you, but I don't think you feel this holds for the tt where the unique dd approach of NVS supersedes any careful execution of belt drive eg the Continuum tt, surely the best executed traditional belt drive out there. So in this case you do believe unique engineering is all, as I believe crossoverless is the way to go in spkr design.

yes; you are right. past a certain point of execution certain design approaches begin to assert themselves as clearly better. their inherent advantages result in greater performance. but exactly where that point is, is a matter of perspective and opinion. and very very over the top execution can upend otherwise reasonable expectations. regarding the Continuum Caliburn, i'd say that lots of science as well as very high levels of build quality resulted in a belt drive tt that sounded mostly not like a belt....or at least minimally like a belt. other even more expensive belt drive tt's, but without the similar levels of science, don't fare as well.....at least those i've heard.

i think when we look at modestly priced direct drive tt's from any era, you are simply offering trade-offs to belt driven tt's. at these lower price ranges bearings, motors, plinths, power supplies, and platters seem to be more the issues of ultimate performance than the drive systems. whereas at higher price points, they all can have those pieces done at high levels, and drive systems approach become the limitation.

to me arms are another place where up to a certain point any of the arm design approaches can be executed to be quite good. i'd even say that in the upper middle range of price, a linear tracker seems to be superior, but likely not so much in the lower range. this is due to the relationship between the challenge of cost of a very high quality bearing for the arm shaft, and the rigidity needed in the arm mechanism. at lower prices there are simply too many compromises in a linear tracker.

then when you go above a certain level of execution, my personal opinion is that a unipivot rises above all others as it (in my personal observations) continues to get better and better and better as you apply more and more refinement due to it's inherent freedom to track the goove.

as far as crossoverless speakers having a similar advantage as (how i view) dd tt's and unipivot tonearms, i have no opinion and would defer to whatever research you may have done. i simply have not paid attention to them as none have grabbed my attention. i do see the high efficiency as an advantage in terms of low power amplification, and certainly some speaker design challenges get minimized or solved with a crossoverless design, but overall do they get me closer to how i want to hear the music? not so far. i will try to look at this closer and give you an answer later once i have some experience.

mikelavigne April 13, 2012 05:08

above a few posts there was discussion about the MM7's and the crossover. i found an explanation on the Evolution Acoustics website which goes much further than i could to explain how Kevin Malmgren approaches crossover design. i knew it was first order and quite simple but rather than my viewpoint here it is from the designer himself. i hope this helps;

Question 9:



Evolution Acoustics speakers (with the exception of the subwoofers) employ a “Constant Voltage” crossover. Would you explain how such a crossover is constructed, how it differs from an ordinary passive crossover, and what its benefits are?



Response:



First of all we need to clarify that a Constant Voltage Crossover Network is not that mysterious. It is simply a passive network which exhibits constant voltage transfer, and is the only type of engineered design that will result in true time coincidence and phase coherence, otherwise known as first-order. Typically, most manufacturers will try to obtain this result through a common parallel network design, having one part in series with each driver. However, we employ what is known as a series design which is inherently advantageous.



Crossover components and transducers all have various tolerances in their values. These tolerance differences will always affect the total network voltage response in a typical parallel network, making it almost impossible to guarantee a true constant voltage design from speaker to speaker. In a series network, the drivers are connected in series across the amplifier output, and there are no crossover component tolerances in the direct signal path to contend with. In this type of design the sum of the voice coil voltages will always be equal to the driving voltage, thus a true constant voltage design.



The main benefit to this type of design is that there is no energy or driving voltage loss. This results in a much more dynamic presentation, because there is nothing between the amplifier and the drivers. Basically, transients are fully in tact and not suppressed by capacitors, inductors or resistors. So, when we rate a speaker at 93 dB sensitivity that is an extremely conservative estimate. You basically will experience greater dynamic contrast than with traditional parallel network speakers rated at higher sensitivities.



Another benefit to this type of design is extreme purity of signal. Because there are no capacitors or inductors directly in the signal path, there is nothing to color the integrity of the signal. Not even the most expensive capacitor in the world will sound better than a direct wire from the amplifier to the tweeter, and there is no arguing that. It is true that all of the shunt or parallel components can have some influence on the overall resulting sound of the speaker, so that is why we use all top shelf components in our crossover network, from hand made reference grade film and foil capacitors to heavy gauge pure copper flat ribbon air core inductors.



The final advantage of this type of crossover topology is the way it handles driver behavior above and below the crossover point. Without getting too technical, this type of design maintains a wide overlap of typical first order slopes around the crossover point and then sharply falls off after a few octaves in each direction. The result is true phase coherent performance with added protection on the bottom end of the tweeter and filtering of upper frequency break up in the midrange, which aids in providing better off axis response than typical first order parallel network engineering.



We must also point out that all of our crossover engineering is performed through the use of very sophisticated computer-aided design applications. However, we do not rely entirely on computer generated optimizations for final circuitry, as some manufacturers do. We perform real time measurements as well to verify all computer-based suggestions. We do use our ears to also verify results, but unlike some manufactures that design by ear, we always insist that the design must be as perfect as possible from a measurement standpoint, and will always double check through measurements that any changes made by ear are truly valid. We do this to ensure that we are not imparting our own coloration preferences on the design to ensure as natural a presentation as possible.

mikelavigne April 13, 2012 04:32

Hi Peterayer, no I haven't heard the NVS/Telos. It's not available in the UK and likely out of my price range anyhow. Also the SP10 Mk3, rare as hen's teeth, not likely to be heard by me. In the UK choice of non-belt drive comes down to the Grand Prix Monaco 1.5 ($23000), Brinkmann Bardo ($8000), the Technics SL 1200 derived Inspire Monarch ($6000) and the afore mentioned Trans Fi Salvation ($4000). It is the latter two I'm most interested in and am really sold on the high torque analog only non-feedback drive system, which will get some of the NVS magic for a tenth of it's price. I'm aiming to run it initially with the Zu modded Denon 103, and possibly upgrade to the Decca London Reference (designer's choice) or the Soundsmith Straingauge for a highly neutral and natural presentation.
Agear, we agree about more than we disagree. The Def4s I have on order have taken the holistic and involving presentation of the crossoverless full range driver and really married it with truly excellent sub bass and supertweeter units plus beefed up construction to hopefully produce a real world beater. I'd really love it if you, Mike or Albert amongst others, if ever in the UK, could hear it in an optimised listening enviroment-the invitation is open! Anyhow, done the special Zu way I'm sold on the concept and unlikely to be swayed back to splitting the main part of the musical signal between multiple tweeter, midrange, midbass and bass drivers.
Mike, just one thought on your reasonable premise that careful execution counts for more than a unique engineering approach. I'd generally agree with you, but I don't think you feel this holds for the tt where the unique dd approach of NVS supersedes any careful execution of belt drive eg the Continuum tt, surely the best executed traditional belt drive out there. So in this case you do believe unique engineering is all, as I believe crossoverless is the way to go in spkr design.

spiritofmusic April 12, 2012 20:36

Spiritofmusic,
Have you ever heard the NVS, the Telos or a heavily modded SP10 Mk3? What cartridge are you planning to use on the Salvation tt?

peterayer April 12, 2012 10:45

Spirit, agree 100% on the power issue. I also "hear" what you are saying about the Zus. A lot of audiophile speakers suffer from old man dynamics and cannot replicate live music faithfully IMO. The conversation about live jazz above initiated by Charlesdad is very apropo. I guess the question rattling around in my head pertains to the how and why. Being xoverless is obviously not the sole issue. I too briefly owned a xoverless design that used used a large single driver for the majority of the musical spectrum (Emerald Physics). Yes, they were dynamic and did some things well. I now own speaker based on a minimalist, mechanically grounded, series xover and transmission line, and the dynamics are excellent. I think one of the key issues people forget about is mechanical grounding. Energy or vibration management in speakers is an afterthought largely due to time and expense. I know that Starsound technology (sistrum) has experimented with mechanical grounding of the drivers, cabinet, etc and said the resulting dynamics are surprising. I also owned Dale Pitcher's Gamma Summits for several years, and they used mechanically grounded stands based around Stillpoints to very good effect. Reading about the MM7s, with their laminated birch construction and asymmetric internals, it is clear they are thinking along the same lines....

agear April 12, 2012 09:38

Hi Agear, I think we've both contributed to comments on the Zu Definitions Mk3/4 thread, both agreed that power rules, for me nowhere is this clearer than moving to balanced power which has transformed my system, esp. in the areas of improved dynamics and lowered noise floor. Even a cheap standard industrial non-audiophile unit has done wonders for my system, giving me that 'after midnight' sound all day long.
My thoughts on the Zu Audio full range driver concept is not that this is bound to be superior to all others, just having gone thru numerous high end crossovered speakers, the palpable experience of not artificially dividing the signal to separate transducers is really seductive and addictive, and I never got both the weight and dynamism of voices and instruments any where near as well with non Zu models.
It seems that with speakers in particular, there is so much choice in technology, price and sound presentation that going for a simpler more holistic approach of not subdividing the musical signal seems a logical way to go, borne out by (my admittedly subjective) positive experience.
Additionally, surely having pounds of copper/silver etc. that the musical signal goes thru in any crossover must lead to unwanted absorption and hence loss in the delicate electrical signals that finally get delivered to the drive units.
I mean, aren't we all trying to keep cable lengths to a minimum, we wouldn't run tens of metres of ics/spkr cables if we can help it?
In regards to the Trans Fi Salvation tt, according to the designer he has so designed the motor to drain vibrations away from the rim wheel and hence the platter/stylus interface. This he has acheived by way of isolation and engineering choices, and on audition I could detect no rumble over the course of a whole lp side of solo piano. There is more info on the evolution of engineering of this amazing tt on 'Lenco Heaven' website, go to 'other tts', then to 'from Lenco to Salvation'.
I have no affiliation with this product, just a deep admiration for what it achieves along with it's associated linear tracking tonearm, and I suspect it can get me a fair way towards what the NVS/Telos and SP10 Mk3 performance envelope provides.

spiritofmusic April 12, 2012 01:06

Marc,

i would tend to agree with Agear and Lew as far as absolutes about design approaches. sometimes i've also felt that there was only one approach that was best, or at least obviously better. but execution typically makes more difference than strict design dogma. when all other things are equal, the better fundamental design can be better, but very rarely are all other things equal.

specifically; one driver (no crossover) speakers have never grabbed my heart strings 'yet'.....but my mind is open to it happening. and as far as the original Grand Prix Monaco tt and why it was not more loved; i had one in my system for a year. it did nothing wrong. and i don't think it's lack of musical involvement related much to it's drive system....it was sitting right next to my Rockport at that time. i think it had more to do with the chassis design and Alvin's personal reference. it simply did not have enough weight and foundation. i preferred my Dobbins Garrard and Technics SP-10 Mk2 i also had then for their more robust musical feelings. if the Monaco had sold for $10k instead of over $20k it would have been just fine.

mikelavigne April 11, 2012 19:07

Spirit, Did Mr. Terminator tell you what DD turntables he has evaluated in order to reach his conclusion that they are (categorically) cold and sterile sounding? Rim-drive introduces its own set of issues, like the potential for transfer of motor noise or noise created at the motor/platter interface directly into the platter, the possible longterm negative effects of horizontal force on the platter bearing, and the issues associated with maintaining even, uninterrupted contact between the motor and platter. IMO, the reason Fremer may not have fallen in love with the GP Monaco may have more to do with its low mass and carbon fiber construction (which I merely assume might have a sonic signature) or with his own bias for the Caliburn than anything else.

lewm April 11, 2012 14:25

Spirit, single driver-based speakers have their strengths and weaknesses just like anything else. The idea that a traditional x-over is inherently parasitic is not necessarily true. Is there measurable data to substantiate that statement? Furthermore, there is an ocean of difference between "hearing" something and living with it. Our brains often make snap judgements particularly when innately subconscious, tribal, pride is at stake. Plop the MM3s or 7s in your house (if there is room) and then let us know.

agear April 11, 2012 09:54

Mike, my photos will go up on A'gon when I complete my current set of upgrades (Trans Fi Salvation tt and Zu Definitions Mk4 spkrs), and I finally get used to my digital camera/usb cable (I'm such a flat earther!).
The reason why I've suggested you investigate Zu (esp. the Dominance, which would just LOVE your room) is their elimination of the crossover, which no matter how well designed, soaks up so much musical energy. The Dominance prev. mentioned is so dynamic with the musical spectrum unadulterated between 25hz to 12kHz covered by 3 x 10" full range drivers (covering the range of the human voice) with simple low pass filters to twin supertweeters (extending the range to 20+kHz), and to powerhouse 15" subs (down to 14Hz). After hearing traditional crossovered speakers at the high end eg Wilson, Magico, the dynamic and tone dense Zu sound is now something I can't swap.
My funds however extend only to the Definitions Mk4 which gives me 90% of the Dominance magic.
I've been in close communication with the designer of the Trans Fi Salvation tt. Like you and all those who have moved away from belt drive, he hates the speed inaccuracy imparted by belt stretching and stylus drag. However he's also not a great fan of DD tts which continually hunt/adjust speed at the micro level which he believes imparts a cold clinical quality to the sound. It's my opinion that this is the reason why Mike Fremer found the Grand Prix Monaco to be impressive but uninvolving in his review from a few years back.
His solution is to provide v.high torque rim drive with purely analog speed control, and no digital feedback. This setup drives the platter hard enough to cope with all stylus drag effects, and dispenses with the need for feedback control.
I've heard it and it maintains unwavering stability esp. on piano notes and a v. stop-start bass quality which really opens up the mids and treble. The great thing about listening to such a neutral tt is that NONE of the attributes of good analog are negated, but actually enhanced.
His tt is certainly made even more exceptional by his Terminator T3Pro linear tracking arm, which might give you a shot of nostalgia Mike, thinking back to your Rockport setup.
The amazing thing is that this is all available for what is an audiophile entry level price, I really feel it outperforms tt/arm combinations 5-10 x the price (and I've heard a few!)

spiritofmusic April 11, 2012 00:49

Great Sam, see you in June!

mikelavigne April 10, 2012 23:50

David,

thanks. i do recall that you were among the ones suggesting that i needed the MM7's. i guess i'm somewhat predictable. :-)

just like the MM3's, the crossover of the MM7's is internal and it outputs a signal directly to the subwoofer (on the MM3's, that same driver is a woofer). on the MM3's there is an umbilical that goes from crossover in the middle mid-tweeter section to the bottom woofer section with the bass amp; then from the bass amp in the bottom section to another umbilical in the top section.

in the MM7's the umbilical travels from the middle section of the main towers to the bass towers. at Kevins i did not study the rear of the MM7 bass towers to say exactly how it's all connected. but each bass tower containing -4- 15" subwoofers is actually 2 pairs of subwoofers each pair with independant adjustments. you have 4 adjustments (2 per tower); crossover frequency, bass gain, bass quality ('Q') and bass extention. also there is a rumble filter on and off.

then there is a tweeter gain adjustment on each main tower.

i think the amp in each of the -4- 2 driver subwoofer sections is the large version (1000 watt) of the B&O ICE Module; which is the same as in my MM3's. it is fantastic for this purpose.

i hope i have been clear enough.

mikelavigne April 10, 2012 23:50

Marc,

no doubt that there are other more cost effective ways to sonic nirvana than my choices. many times i wish that i had taken a more modest path.....then i think....naaaahhh. :-)

anyway; i have heard of other cheaper power grid solutions than my Equi=tech; and a 66 pound, 4Kva transformer that is sufficiently quiet and does not restrict dynamics ought to be fine for many systems....particulary with highly efficient speakers like the Zu. i have no idea what a Black Hole anti-wave generator does, but the bottom line is your ears. glad it worked in your room. is that maybe like an Acoustic Revive RR-77 that deals with the Schumann reasonance? i did have one of those in my room but could not hear it make any difference.

i did look up the Trans Fi Salvation with the linear tracking arm. very cool! i've not heard one of those.

i do enjoy the Zu speakers at shows when i hear them. but i've never spent any extended listening time to them. i do like their efficiency. reading about the Zu Dominance i'd say it should be compared more to the MM3's than the MM7's on paper. but we don't listen on paper, do we?

so many paths to glory, i agree.

you ought to list your system on Audiogon; it sound very interesting. and pictures, we need pictures!

mikelavigne April 10, 2012 23:31

CooL, Mike,

We'll see you in O.C. in a few!
Yeah, it'd be GREAT to hear your new stuff :-)

Best,
Sam

c1ferrari April 10, 2012 03:49

Mike congrats on your new speakers, ironic because I recall mentioning them prior to be your next move a while back. Will be interesting indeed, next will be comparisons in what actually drives them and the differences such offers.

Being even more efficient than your MM3's and the separate woofer towers being powered time will only tell.

What amp are they using in the towers? Is the cross over external?

Spirtofmusic, those are for sure some interesting horns that I would like to hear.

dev April 10, 2012 00:12

My system is undergoing a bit of a transformation, trying to get some of the "closer to reality" quality that takes us a step nearer to the musicians and what they are trying to say. However I'm trying to acheive this at a (cost) level a little below yours.
My first change was to install balanced power in my room, a simple 4kV industrial unit, $600, which after a month of burn in (30kg of copper) tightened up the soundstage, and expanded dynamics beyond the slightly constricted version my previous $6000 audiophile conditioner acheived. Second change was to address room acoustics, this I have achieved not by passive traps etc. but by installation of SpatialComputer Black Hole bass anti-wave generator, $1300, which has dealt with standing waves/bass nodes in my room (one esp. tricky one at 27.1Hz), reducing bass congestion and improving detail retrieval.
My component changes are mainly to the turntable front end and the loudspeakers. I'm dispensing with my belt drive Michell Orbe/SME V, and heading down the rim drive Trans Fi Salvation tt route using Terminator T3Pro linear tracking arm, $5000 the pair, which will get me some way towards what your NVS/Telos combination is presenting, and upgrading my Zu Audio Definitions, from Mk3 to Mk4 status, $15625. I particularly love the Zu full range driver, high efficency route, which dispenses completely with the need of a crossover, bringing real excitement and involvment to musical reproduction.
Had you not gone down the MM7 route, I would love to know how you would have rated Zu's flagship Dominance speaker (3 x 10" full range drivers 30Hz-12kHz, 2 x supertweetwers 12Hz+, 1 x 15" downfiring sub from 14Hz, per speaker) and NO crossover to absorb musical energy, 103+dB efficient allowing use of intimate SET amps no problem. I suggest the Zu Dominance would give the MM7s a run for their money. I've not heard a top end speaker yet that has the musical density and verve of Zu.
So many ways to get to musical nirvana.

spiritofmusic April 09, 2012 17:24

Spirtofmusic,

one more thing; i've not heard the Oswald Mills Imperia or Monarch Concrete horns. if i get a chance to hear them, i'll do it and report. all Jonathan Weiss's gear looks fantastic, and what i've heard sound great too.

mikelavigne April 09, 2012 17:18

i cannot edit my above post; so let me say what i should have said is "i have not heard horns have true full frequency range and top to bottom coherence". i can only speak to things i have heard my own self.

mikelavigne April 09, 2012 16:33

Spritofmusic,

thanks for the kind comments, and i'm glad you have enjoyed my journey. i have tried to only change gear when it's better, not just different.....and with hopefully synergy of pieces in mind. and no doubt there are other valid choices i might have made diffferent that those i did make. i was fortunate to be able to actually hear the MM7 and MM3 side by side with the same electronics......so i have peace to go forward with that big decision. i did not visit Kevin's with a pre-concieved notion of what i might do. the MM7's sold themselves.

the MM7's are 96db efficient and 6 ohm load; so they are more low power friendly than the MM3. whether the 3 watt Found Music 2a3's will work or not we will have to see. whichever low power tubes i might try should work better on the MM7's than the MM3's. sure; i would love to have the NHB-458 monoblocks. but that will be more a 'lifestyle' choice than an 'audio performance' one....as the dollars become prohibitive after this speaker aquisition. really; the NHB-108 is such a magnificent amplifier that i feel no great push to get a different amp. i don't see it as a system limitation in any way. this truth has been made more clear than ever before by switching back and forth with the 2a3 monoblocks. the 108 holds it's own, if not quite is equal, even at those things the 2a3's excell at.

as far as horns and such; i don't see it at this time. something profound would need to happen that pulled me in that direction. this is a funny hobby, and who knows. i can tell you i enjoy a number of different types of speakers for what they do well; the MBL 101e always entertains, big Maggies, or big Appogies are wonderful, the Genesis 1.2 is fantastic. i've not yet heard horns take me where those speakers can and have; and i am happy with the overall performance (and amplifier friendly designs) of the MM3 and obviously the MM7 to those great speakers.

i do value true full frequency capability with seamless top to bottom coherence. Horns just cannot really do that. but maybe someday my priorities might change.

mikelavigne April 09, 2012 16:28

Hi Mike, I've always enjoyed reading about the evolution of your continually improving system. The feeling I am getting is that you're pretty close to the summit now: the NVS approximates v. closely to reel to reel in achieving the holy grail of neutrality in analog, the Playback Designs cd player in your opinion gets as close as possible to analog in character, and your new speakers will narrow the gap to the realism of live music esp. in the area of lifelike dynamics and limitless headroom. Alongside this you've upgraded to balanced power which has eliminated the constraints to the foundation of the whole system.
My guess of where you have to go finally is whether you upgrade to the Dartzeel monoblocks, or you move sideways to investigate further your low powered SET option. Will the MM7s accommodate the use of these lower powered amps more successfully than your current MM3s ie are they more efficient? Or is SS higher power still most indicated ie move towards the monoblocks?
My main question is that once this summit is reached, are you likely to be happy there, or will your restless curiosity maybe take you down a different path esp. in the area of speakers/amps. My thought is that you may re-investigate high efficiency horn loudspeakers/low powered SET amps. The Oswalds Mill Imperia and Musique Concrete horns look fantastic, and with well chosen SET amps I'm sure will rival the MM7/Dartzeel combination at what they do well, and do other things better eg intimacy, presence etc.

spiritofmusic April 09, 2012 10:57

hi Sam,

thanks.

and yes, i'm coming down for T.H.E. Show in Newport Beach. i have my airplane ticket and room. i'm looking forward to it.

it will be great to see you and Sonny up here this summer. hopefully i'll be in town when you are here. let me know when you know the exact dates. maybe the MM7's will arrive in time for your visit.

best regards,

mikelavigne April 08, 2012 17:30

Spirtofmusic,

the MM7's are $200,000.

mikelavigne April 08, 2012 17:26