I almost said wine and beer and plenty of good food
because it probably was at a diyFEST.Yes I need to bent all LM3886 contacts to mount it under the board. Unfortunatelly I do not have any photo. Also one must screw everything first and then solder LM3886 to the board as last.
HarmonicTHD - Brytt certainly got part of it right, but I did have some experience with the amp both before and after the event in my own home. My comments are based on the several combinations of rooms and upstream gear/source material and speaker systems, in the following sequence:
1) My home upstairs system. Room is open floor plan space with w-t-w carpets and much well padded upholstered furniture in the front room. Althogher the floor space they see must be well over 800sq ft, with no attempts to provide optimal acoustical treatment. It’s a living space, and we get what we get. Speakers are 1.5 way with CSS VWR126 mid-woofers and cheapie HiVi dome tweeter whose model number I can’t recall. Source is Marantz M-CR611 receiver and Mac Mini as file server. The Marantz’s DAC is no great shakes -certainly not the same caliber as either the Wolfsons in the Rotel RC1570, or whatever pixie dust sprinkled delights are in the Schiit Gungnir in Dave’s system - but it’s a more than up to the task of background music system, and except for the goofy iTunes remote iOS app, is drop dead easy to use.
2) The main system at Dave (Planet10)’s place at which the event was hosted is probably a larger volume of air overall, and was designed with acoustic considerations, it has very little absorptive surfaces or intentional acoustic treatment. Speakers played included - get ready for it- three models of full-range driver based enclosures in a rather loosely controlled short term subjective comparative listening test; Alpair 10.3, Alpair A11MS, and Jordan EikonaII. Also played later on Saturday evening for a completely free-balling enjoyment only listening session - lubricated by a full afternoon of wine and mostly junk food- was a pair of 2way MTM with 2xAlpair A12PW and a single A7.3 per side. As I built all of those mentioned, I’m probably a bit biased, but I think the MTMs are a particularly good speaker.
3) Back to my home system again, driving Alpair10.3 in front mains channels of 7.1 surround system.
All I can say about this amp is that in all of the systems I heard it, it effortlessly delivered more than all the power demanded of it, had extremely tight bass grip and articulation, was dead quiet and neutral/flavourless/transparent (pick your favorite buzz-word), and even after the several hours of heavier duty on the later evening was barely warm to the touch.
1) My home upstairs system. Room is open floor plan space with w-t-w carpets and much well padded upholstered furniture in the front room. Althogher the floor space they see must be well over 800sq ft, with no attempts to provide optimal acoustical treatment. It’s a living space, and we get what we get. Speakers are 1.5 way with CSS VWR126 mid-woofers and cheapie HiVi dome tweeter whose model number I can’t recall. Source is Marantz M-CR611 receiver and Mac Mini as file server. The Marantz’s DAC is no great shakes -certainly not the same caliber as either the Wolfsons in the Rotel RC1570, or whatever pixie dust sprinkled delights are in the Schiit Gungnir in Dave’s system - but it’s a more than up to the task of background music system, and except for the goofy iTunes remote iOS app, is drop dead easy to use.
2) The main system at Dave (Planet10)’s place at which the event was hosted is probably a larger volume of air overall, and was designed with acoustic considerations, it has very little absorptive surfaces or intentional acoustic treatment. Speakers played included - get ready for it
- three models of full-range driver based enclosures in a rather loosely controlled short term subjective comparative listening test; Alpair 10.3, Alpair A11MS, and Jordan EikonaII. Also played later on Saturday evening for a completely free-balling enjoyment only listening session - lubricated by a full afternoon of wine and mostly junk food- was a pair of 2way MTM with 2xAlpair A12PW and a single A7.3 per side. As I built all of those mentioned, I’m probably a bit biased, but I think the MTMs are a particularly good speaker.3) Back to my home system again, driving Alpair10.3 in front mains channels of 7.1 surround system.
All I can say about this amp is that in all of the systems I heard it, it effortlessly delivered more than all the power demanded of it, had extremely tight bass grip and articulation, was dead quiet and neutral/flavourless/transparent (pick your favorite buzz-word), and even after the several hours of heavier duty on the later evening was barely warm to the touch.
I got similar impressions. 686 delivers power effortlessly. It has very firm bass, quiet background, very precise and natural, ... I just love it. Best one I got so far!
At the DIY Fest, I listened to the Modulus-686 versus the Nelson Pass Amp Camp Amp (ACA) and a DIY transconductance amp on the sets of speakers that Chris mentioned in Post 643.
Of the speakers, I preferred the Alpair 2xA12PW/A7.3 MTM and the Alpair A11MS.
Between the amps, both the ACA and the MOD686 left the (LM3876-based, I think) transconductance amp in the dust. The transconductance amp sounded muddy to me. It just did not have the precision or detail that the ACA or MOD686 offered. Granted, the amount of mud and fuzz could be tuned by turning the "niceness" knob on the front of the amp (which supposedly changes the output impedance), but I was not able to find a setting that provided a level of sound quality approaching the ACA or MOD686.
Between the ACA (monoblock, 15 W into 8 Ω) and the MOD686 (stereo, 2 x 130 W into 8 Ω), I found the MOD686 to be much more precise and revealing than the ACA. Some may prefer the more laid back or coloured presentation of the ACA (the same crowd would probably enjoy my DG300B as well), but I tend to prefer the precision that comes with the ultra-low THD (and high PSRR, low IMD, low multi-tone residual, etc.) the Modulus-686 provides.
By far the largest difference was in the sound stage. I perceived it as significantly larger in all dimensions with the MOD686 than any of the other amps, regardless of the speaker used. Of course, the better speakers sounded better, more revealing, more detailed, etc. but the relative change in the sound stage between amps was present on all the speaker pairs that I heard.
Before I left for the DIY Fest, I did get a chance to spend about a day listening to the Modulus-686 on my LXminis. I found the same change in the size of the sound stage and ease of localization of instruments. I had honestly not expected that as my previous amp was the Modulus-86, which is already pretty darn good. I would describe the difference as "definitely significant" maybe approaching "night and day", but I'm probably getting ahead of myself here.
Of course, I can easily be accused of bias, and as a human being, I'm affected by the various biases in human cognition and perception that plague other humans. That said, the Modulus-686 did end up getting a lion's share of the playing time at the DIY Fest, which is always a good sign.
I'm back in Cow Town and aside from a weekend trip to San Francisco for Burning Amp, I have no trips planned. Expect orders to ship on the usual schedule for the next 8-9 months. Due to the timing of mail pickup, I generally ship the day after the order trickles in. Often I ship the same day.
I should get more MOD686 boards on order. I'm down to my last box of 12 of the initial build. That's a good problem to have.
Tom
Of the speakers, I preferred the Alpair 2xA12PW/A7.3 MTM and the Alpair A11MS.
Between the amps, both the ACA and the MOD686 left the (LM3876-based, I think) transconductance amp in the dust. The transconductance amp sounded muddy to me. It just did not have the precision or detail that the ACA or MOD686 offered. Granted, the amount of mud and fuzz could be tuned by turning the "niceness" knob on the front of the amp (which supposedly changes the output impedance), but I was not able to find a setting that provided a level of sound quality approaching the ACA or MOD686.
Between the ACA (monoblock, 15 W into 8 Ω) and the MOD686 (stereo, 2 x 130 W into 8 Ω), I found the MOD686 to be much more precise and revealing than the ACA. Some may prefer the more laid back or coloured presentation of the ACA (the same crowd would probably enjoy my DG300B as well), but I tend to prefer the precision that comes with the ultra-low THD (and high PSRR, low IMD, low multi-tone residual, etc.) the Modulus-686 provides.
By far the largest difference was in the sound stage. I perceived it as significantly larger in all dimensions with the MOD686 than any of the other amps, regardless of the speaker used. Of course, the better speakers sounded better, more revealing, more detailed, etc. but the relative change in the sound stage between amps was present on all the speaker pairs that I heard.
Before I left for the DIY Fest, I did get a chance to spend about a day listening to the Modulus-686 on my LXminis. I found the same change in the size of the sound stage and ease of localization of instruments. I had honestly not expected that as my previous amp was the Modulus-86, which is already pretty darn good. I would describe the difference as "definitely significant" maybe approaching "night and day", but I'm probably getting ahead of myself here.
Of course, I can easily be accused of bias, and as a human being, I'm affected by the various biases in human cognition and perception that plague other humans. That said, the Modulus-686 did end up getting a lion's share of the playing time at the DIY Fest, which is always a good sign.
I'm back in Cow Town and aside from a weekend trip to San Francisco for Burning Amp, I have no trips planned. Expect orders to ship on the usual schedule for the next 8-9 months. Due to the timing of mail pickup, I generally ship the day after the order trickles in. Often I ship the same day.
I should get more MOD686 boards on order. I'm down to my last box of 12 of the initial build. That's a good problem to have.
Tom
A few more words
For a change, I’ll eschew arcane verbiage in attempting to describe the “nuances” of sonic differences to the amps Tom mentioned above. What I will say is that the ACA kit is a delightful musical sounding and very easy to build kit, that all things considered is still a bargoon - try build chassis like the custom one offered for close its price.
Dave has had the mono bridged pair on his system for a while now - up to this weekend’s event I think it was the only amp used on the Eikonas? They have a much higher output impedance/ lower damping factor than any of the three Modulus amps (Moduli?) I’ve heard so far- the entry level “done right”, original Modulus 86, and this latest piece.
Accordingly, it’d be no surprise that even trying to ignore the over 10fold increase in power available, the difference between the sonic signatures (or virtual lack thereof) would be apparent on speaker systems with any degree of resolution. There’s no doubt that the combination of lower damping factor and single wide band driver systems in well damped enclosures can deliver a warmth and sense of fullness that the Modulus will not. OTOH, on all of the 3 single driver systems I heard both amps playing on, as well as the passive multi-ways - to which I not recall hearing the ACAs connected in this session- the cleaner, deeper extension and more precisely detailed articulation of bass guitars, synths drums, etc, even at the sacrifice of visceral impact/weight - as well as effortless dynamic peaks - was for me the deciding factor.
Horses for courses, I guess?
For a change, I’ll eschew arcane verbiage in attempting to describe the “nuances” of sonic differences to the amps Tom mentioned above. What I will say is that the ACA kit is a delightful musical sounding and very easy to build kit, that all things considered is still a bargoon - try build chassis like the custom one offered for close its price
. Dave has had the mono bridged pair on his system for a while now - up to this weekend’s event I think it was the only amp used on the Eikonas? They have a much higher output impedance/ lower damping factor than any of the three Modulus amps (Moduli?) I’ve heard so far- the entry level “done right”, original Modulus 86, and this latest piece.
Accordingly, it’d be no surprise that even trying to ignore the over 10fold increase in power available, the difference between the sonic signatures (or virtual lack thereof) would be apparent on speaker systems with any degree of resolution. There’s no doubt that the combination of lower damping factor and single wide band driver systems in well damped enclosures can deliver a warmth and sense of fullness that the Modulus will not. OTOH, on all of the 3 single driver systems I heard both amps playing on, as well as the passive multi-ways - to which I not recall hearing the ACAs connected in this session- the cleaner, deeper extension and more precisely detailed articulation of bass guitars, synths drums, etc, even at the sacrifice of visceral impact/weight - as well as effortless dynamic peaks - was for me the deciding factor.
Horses for courses, I guess?
To all,
I would be very interested in any sonic comparisons you fine gentlemen can make between the Mod686 and Mod286 (which I own).
To be clear the input design topology of the thru hole Modulus 86 and Parallel 86 both use the THAT1200 which is different from the SMD based Modulus 286 and Modulus 686 which use an original design of Tom’s (OPA1612+LME49720 and OPA1642). The error correction circuit on the 686 is also the LME49724, which I am guessing is comparable to the LME49720 used in the 286. Of course, the measurements of the Modulus 286 and 686 are also superior to their thru hole brethren. However, in some ways I feel like weare talking about the nth degree! And of note, my main speakers are 96dB efficient with an impedance nadir of 4.8 ohms, so not a hard load imho.
Thanks,
Anand.
I would be very interested in any sonic comparisons you fine gentlemen can make between the Mod686 and Mod286 (which I own).
To be clear the input design topology of the thru hole Modulus 86 and Parallel 86 both use the THAT1200 which is different from the SMD based Modulus 286 and Modulus 686 which use an original design of Tom’s (OPA1612+LME49720 and OPA1642). The error correction circuit on the 686 is also the LME49724, which I am guessing is comparable to the LME49720 used in the 286. Of course, the measurements of the Modulus 286 and 686 are also superior to their thru hole brethren. However, in some ways I feel like weare talking about the nth degree! And of note, my main speakers are 96dB efficient with an impedance nadir of 4.8 ohms, so not a hard load imho.
Thanks,
Anand.
Anand - as much as I’d like to flatter myself, unlike some forum members I don’t consider my listening sensibilities and technical acumen sufficiently developed to opining on the sound of gear I’ve not heard i.e. your 286. Of course, now that I’ve got spare time on my hands, I’d be happy volunteer some time for extended appraisal of loaner unit of both models.
i.e. your 286. Of course, now that I’ve got spare time on my hands, I’d be happy volunteer some time for extended appraisal of loaner unit of both models.
Now, had I used banana plugs, that would be an easy experiment to conduct. But I used SpeakON connectors. They're very plug-n-play. Not so much plug-tweak-unplug-tweak-play-tweak...
I also need to up the gain of my MOD86 to match that of the '686 (or change the DSP to add 6 dB on the tweeters).I'm definitely curious to hear the MOD686/86 combo on the LXmini. I need to get two chassis designed and ordered before I can entertain that. Stay tuned.
One could entertain the thought of a 4U Dissipante with a pair of Modulus-86, a pair of Modulus-686, and a Power-686+transformer driving a pair of LXmini speakers. That'd be pretty epic.
I fully expect that the MOD86 will be fine on the tweeters with the '686 on the woofers.
Tom
I’d be happy volunteer some time for extended appraisal of loaner unit of both models.
Now that would be awesome!
Tom
This was my first experience with the speakons, and I hafta say that aside from the lack of ability to stack or extend that dual banana Pomona plugs offer, I found them just as easy to plug in an out - pull the release button and a quick twist and yer dun. The tester that I have from Tom is wired with both channel outputs on one of the connectors, which could certainly come in handy for custom setups - active bi-amp comes immediately to mind.
Well Tom, you better get cracking on the MOD286 redesign to rectify that.
Regarding the speakons, on each of my stereo builds for my MOD86's I was planning to use 2 speakon connectors: 1 for the Left speaker, and 1 for both the Left and Right speaker. Gives me the most flexibility since I don't know which of my amps will end up powering which of my speakers (have ACAs, have parts for an M2X, TPA3255, 2xMod86's, and a TDA7297). Some will be biamped, some are fullrange speakers.
Regarding the speakons, on each of my stereo builds for my MOD86's I was planning to use 2 speakon connectors: 1 for the Left speaker, and 1 for both the Left and Right speaker. Gives me the most flexibility since I don't know which of my amps will end up powering which of my speakers (have ACAs, have parts for an M2X, TPA3255, 2xMod86's, and a TDA7297). Some will be biamped, some are fullrange speakers.
Thanks Chris and Tom for sharing your impressions.
To add my subjective impressions (yes I know, we all love our babies) of my two Mod286 monos, I can only confirm the impressive soundstaging, the very firm bass and the incredible detail.
I am looking forward to on how they compare to my new project the Mod686 monos. For anyone in the area and providing some food and drink a listing comparison might be arranged.
However I have to manage expectations ;-) , given that the Modshop guys need about 8-10days after their summer break to deliver the two 4U Dissipante cases and my busy workschedule from mid Sept. onwards, I do not expect to finish the 686s before mid Oct. / Nov.
To add my subjective impressions (yes I know, we all love our babies) of my two Mod286 monos, I can only confirm the impressive soundstaging, the very firm bass and the incredible detail.
I am looking forward to on how they compare to my new project the Mod686 monos. For anyone in the area and providing some food and drink a listing comparison might be arranged.
However I have to manage expectations ;-) , given that the Modshop guys need about 8-10days after their summer break to deliver the two 4U Dissipante cases and my busy workschedule from mid Sept. onwards, I do not expect to finish the 686s before mid Oct. / Nov.
Last edited:
Tom, on another note... a while back you mentioned to be careful about hooking up measuring equipment especially an oscilloscope to the Mod686 outputs as they run in a bridged configuration.
Do I need an "expensive" differential probe to hook up an oscilloscope? The cheapest one I could find was from Micsig for about a 150 bucks. Or are there other means to hook up an oscilloscope?
(If this is too off-topic please let me know or refer me to another thread).
Thx.
Do I need an "expensive" differential probe to hook up an oscilloscope? The cheapest one I could find was from Micsig for about a 150 bucks. Or are there other means to hook up an oscilloscope?
(If this is too off-topic please let me know or refer me to another thread).
Thx.
Last edited: