mnmmt
Active Member
I have owned and used an MX114 for several years, and think it performs very nicely. I've replaced all the electrolytics and the striped "lollipop" caps in it and it sounds good. I have been working on an MX110z, and recently finished replacing electrolytics, coupling, and ceramic caps in it. When I was done, I installed tubes (old and used--I didn't want to risk my good primo vintage tubes in it yet) in the MX110z to try it out. Both preamps are used with the same power amp (restored MC250) and same speakers in the same space in the same room.
I was blown away by the imaging of the MX110z! The MX114 gives clear sound and is dynamic, but when listening to say an orchestral recording, the instruments do not locate with any accuracy--I hear a general location of the instruments, but I can't really point to where they are in the stereo image. There is also little depth to the soundstage. In contrast the MX110z was incredibly accurate with the locations of instruments in terms of where they are laterally, vertically, and even depth-wise in the stereo image. I don't think I have ever heard such pinpoint imaging from stereo equipment, and certainly not in my system. I understand what the fuss over the MX110z is all about.
I had hoped that the performance of the MX114 would be closer to that of the MX110z, but it isn't. Is there anything I can do to the MX114 to improve the imaging of the MX114, or is this difference in imaging to be expected simply because of the difference between tubes and solid state? Will it make a difference to replace the small caps in the signal path (primarily the rectangular box kind) on the preamp boards of the MX114, or will this be a matter of diminishing returns?
Thanks all!
Matt
I was blown away by the imaging of the MX110z! The MX114 gives clear sound and is dynamic, but when listening to say an orchestral recording, the instruments do not locate with any accuracy--I hear a general location of the instruments, but I can't really point to where they are in the stereo image. There is also little depth to the soundstage. In contrast the MX110z was incredibly accurate with the locations of instruments in terms of where they are laterally, vertically, and even depth-wise in the stereo image. I don't think I have ever heard such pinpoint imaging from stereo equipment, and certainly not in my system. I understand what the fuss over the MX110z is all about.
I had hoped that the performance of the MX114 would be closer to that of the MX110z, but it isn't. Is there anything I can do to the MX114 to improve the imaging of the MX114, or is this difference in imaging to be expected simply because of the difference between tubes and solid state? Will it make a difference to replace the small caps in the signal path (primarily the rectangular box kind) on the preamp boards of the MX114, or will this be a matter of diminishing returns?
Thanks all!
Matt