[David222]

I remind myself of a song by Junior Brown: "What's Left Just Won't Go Right."

On a more thread-relevant note, tonight I'll compare the Milo to the V281. That should be interesting.

My money's on the Milo

 

[Lokust]

My money's on the Milo

Mine, too... I've only compared it to the Phonitor XE using the LCD-4. Milo was better in all regards, no contest.

 

[Pharmaboy]

A few nights ago I compared my Milo (stock volume pot; in-line 13 dB switchable attenuators [1 per channel] installed & switched into circuit) to my V281 with 12 dB attenuation set in the headphone output via dipswitches on the back.

1. DAC is the MHDT Labs Orchid, which has dual RCA output pairs, so both DACs got exactly the same signal from the DAC.
2. Headphone is the ZMF Caldera with lambskin thick pads (it's my highest resolution headphone and a planar, to boot)
3. Cable is the original Norne Audio Drausk (balanced)
4. I adjusted each volume pot to my desired volume and listened to ~30" each of music from a range of genres (funk, R&B, jazz, high-level rock, classical, American songbook singers

The V281 is my favorite SS amp for headphones; also my favorite desktop system preamp. But the Milo sounds terrific, too; it's one of the best SS amps I've ever heard. The V281 and Milo sound a LOT alike:

• Both amps sound quite musical and free of the peaky/bright/overly detailed sound some that SS amps have
• Tonally they're nearly twins. These amps are voiced just about the same: slightly warm, great bass, excellent soundstaging, and solid resolution (neither is a detail cannon, nor would I want that)
• The Milo has crazy power, twice that of the V281. But that's neither good nor bad--just a fact. In terms of usability, all that power actually makes the Milo somewhat harder to use than the V281 (see comments about attenuation)
• Both amps have wonderful bass, the kind only solid state amps with high damping seems capable of.
• Both have very good layering and placement of different instruments & voices (this + the slight warmth often earn both amps the adjective, "tube-like")
• The V281 may have slightly more resonance and "space around notes." It's hard to be sure because this quality is subtle and dependent on the recording & music genre
• Similarly, the V281 may have a slightly deeper soundstage...I'd have to do a lot more comparative listening to be sure

So far in brief comparisons using only the Caldera, these amps sound like brothers from another mother. Lovely sound from both. Another similarity: both amps have an upright, compact, and unconventional form factor that is very much to my liking: the Milo is an overtly vertical box design and the V281 is taller than any other amp with its footprint, giving plenty of space for that huge volume pot and all the bells & whistles on the front & back panels.

The big differences between the Milo and the V281 are operational: the Milo is a purist design, no gain stages, preamp output, or bells & whistles unless you pay extra. By contrast, the V281 is one of the most feature-rich, adjustable amp designs I've ever seen.

Attenuation: This is the big usability issue with the Milo. It has as much gain as many 2 channel speaker amps, more that most headphone amps. Jeff Wells says the Milo has 26 dB gain. What this means in practice is that even with aggressive gain attenuation (those 13 dB gain switches are significant), the Milo may still have too much gain, depending on the voltage output of your DAC and the sensitivity of your headphones). The Milo works best in my side system where the DAC has a transparent volume control which allows me to reduce gain before the signal even reaches the Milo. With that DAC @ -35% of total output voltage and with gain switches engaged on the Milo, I have decent range on the volume pot for my 3 planars. But when I start listening to my more sensitive dynamic headphones with the Milo, I'll probably have to knock down attenuation even more at the DAC.

By contrast, the MHDT DAC in my main system has no volume control and outputs a high 3 volts single-ended. In that setup, the Milo is usable only because of its switchable attenuators. With those switched into the circuit, my planar headphones don't have much volume adjustment range: it's workable but not optimal.

In summary, the Milo has truly excellent sound, but its high gain necessitates attenuation measures of some kind.

 

[Lokust]

A few nights ago I compared my Milo (stock volume pot; in-line 13 dB switchable attenuators [1 per channel] installed & switched into circuit) to my V281 with 12 dB attenuation set in the headphone output via dipswitches on the back.

1. DAC is the MHDT Labs Orchid, which has dual RCA output pairs, so both DACs got exactly the same signal from the DAC.
2. Headphone is the ZMF Caldera with lambskin thick pads (it's my highest resolution headphone and a planar, to boot)
3. Cable is the original Norne Audio Drausk (balanced)
4. I adjusted each volume pot to my desired volume and listened to ~30" each of music from a range of genres (funk, R&B, jazz, high-level rock, classical, American songbook singers

The V281 is my favorite SS amp for headphones; also my favorite desktop system preamp. But the Milo sounds terrific, too; it's one of the best SS amps I've ever heard. The V281 and Milo sound a LOT alike:

• Both amps sound quite musical and free of the peaky/bright/overly detailed sound some that SS amps have
• Tonally they're nearly twins. These amps are voiced just about the same: slightly warm, great bass, excellent soundstaging, and solid resolution (neither is a detail cannon, nor would I want that)
• The Milo has crazy power, twice that of the V281. But that's neither good nor bad--just a fact. In terms of usability, all that power actually makes the Milo somewhat harder to use than the V281 (see comments about attenuation)
• Both amps have wonderful bass, the kind only solid state amps with high damping seems capable of.
• Both have very good layering and placement of different instruments & voices (this + the slight warmth often earn both amps the adjective, "tube-like")
• The V281 may have slightly more resonance and "space around notes." It's hard to be sure because this quality is subtle and dependent on the recording & music genre
• Similarly, the V281 may have a slightly deeper soundstage...I'd have to do a lot more comparative listening to be sure

So far in brief comparisons using only the Caldera, these amps sound like brothers from another mother. Lovely sound from both. Another similarity: both amps have an upright, compact, and unconventional form factor that is very much to my liking: the Milo is an overtly vertical box design and the V281 is taller than any other amp with its footprint, giving plenty of space for that huge volume pot and all the bells & whistles on the front & back panels.

The big differences between the Milo and the V281 are operational: the Milo is a purist design, no gain stages, preamp output, or bells & whistles unless you pay extra. By contrast, the V281 is one of the most feature-rich, adjustable amp designs I've ever seen.

Attenuation: This is the big usability issue with the Milo. It has as much gain as many 2 channel speaker amps, more that most headphone amps. Jeff Wells says the Milo has 26 dB gain. What this means in practice is that even with aggressive gain attenuation (those 13 dB gain switches are significant), the Milo may still have too much gain, depending on the voltage output of your DAC and the sensitivity of your headphones). The Milo works best in my side system where the DAC has a transparent volume control which allows me to reduce gain before the signal even reaches the Milo. With that DAC @ -35% of total output voltage and with gain switches engaged on the Milo, I have decent range on the volume pot for my 3 planars. But when I start listening to my more sensitive dynamic headphones with the Milo, I'll probably have to knock down attenuation even more at the DAC.

By contrast, the MHDT DAC in my main system has no volume control and outputs a high 3 volts single-ended. In that setup, the Milo is usable only because of its switchable attenuators. With those switched into the circuit, my planar headphones don't have much volume adjustment range: it's workable but not optimal.

In summary, the Milo has truly excellent sound, but its high gain necessitates attenuation measures of some kind.

Well done, quite an interesting read.

 

[David222]

A few nights ago I compared my Milo (stock volume pot; in-line 13 dB switchable attenuators [1 per channel] installed & switched into circuit) to my V281 with 12 dB attenuation set in the headphone output via dipswitches on the back.

1. DAC is the MHDT Labs Orchid, which has dual RCA output pairs, so both DACs got exactly the same signal from the DAC.
2. Headphone is the ZMF Caldera with lambskin thick pads (it's my highest resolution headphone and a planar, to boot)
3. Cable is the original Norne Audio Drausk (balanced)
4. I adjusted each volume pot to my desired volume and listened to ~30" each of music from a range of genres (funk, R&B, jazz, high-level rock, classical, American songbook singers

The V281 is my favorite SS amp for headphones; also my favorite desktop system preamp. But the Milo sounds terrific, too; it's one of the best SS amps I've ever heard. The V281 and Milo sound a LOT alike:

• Both amps sound quite musical and free of the peaky/bright/overly detailed sound some that SS amps have
• Tonally they're nearly twins. These amps are voiced just about the same: slightly warm, great bass, excellent soundstaging, and solid resolution (neither is a detail cannon, nor would I want that)
• The Milo has crazy power, twice that of the V281. But that's neither good nor bad--just a fact. In terms of usability, all that power actually makes the Milo somewhat harder to use than the V281 (see comments about attenuation)
• Both amps have wonderful bass, the kind only solid state amps with high damping seems capable of.
• Both have very good layering and placement of different instruments & voices (this + the slight warmth often earn both amps the adjective, "tube-like")
• The V281 may have slightly more resonance and "space around notes." It's hard to be sure because this quality is subtle and dependent on the recording & music genre
• Similarly, the V281 may have a slightly deeper soundstage...I'd have to do a lot more comparative listening to be sure

So far in brief comparisons using only the Caldera, these amps sound like brothers from another mother. Lovely sound from both. Another similarity: both amps have an upright, compact, and unconventional form factor that is very much to my liking: the Milo is an overtly vertical box design and the V281 is taller than any other amp with its footprint, giving plenty of space for that huge volume pot and all the bells & whistles on the front & back panels.

The big differences between the Milo and the V281 are operational: the Milo is a purist design, no gain stages, preamp output, or bells & whistles unless you pay extra. By contrast, the V281 is one of the most feature-rich, adjustable amp designs I've ever seen.

Attenuation: This is the big usability issue with the Milo. It has as much gain as many 2 channel speaker amps, more that most headphone amps. Jeff Wells says the Milo has 26 dB gain. What this means in practice is that even with aggressive gain attenuation (those 13 dB gain switches are significant), the Milo may still have too much gain, depending on the voltage output of your DAC and the sensitivity of your headphones). The Milo works best in my side system where the DAC has a transparent volume control which allows me to reduce gain before the signal even reaches the Milo. With that DAC @ -35% of total output voltage and with gain switches engaged on the Milo, I have decent range on the volume pot for my 3 planars. But when I start listening to my more sensitive dynamic headphones with the Milo, I'll probably have to knock down attenuation even more at the DAC.

By contrast, the MHDT DAC in my main system has no volume control and outputs a high 3 volts single-ended. In that setup, the Milo is usable only because of its switchable attenuators. With those switched into the circuit, my planar headphones don't have much volume adjustment range: it's workable but not optimal.

In summary, the Milo has truly excellent sound, but its high gain necessitates attenuation measures of some kind.

This is a fantastic write-up.

I'd add a couple trailing thoughts for consideration as a former Violectric v280 and Orchid DAC owner:

• Your Milo using "stock" attenuator --> The Milo with the Goldpoint v47 is a meaningful enhancement https://www.goldpt.com/compare.html
• Your note above about potential greater resonance / space around notes from the v281 --> I think this has more to do with your DAC (Orchid) vs. the AMPs
  • In my experience, I did not find the Orchid to deliver enormous separation / layering / note space (even with expensive tubes) this DAC is a timbre machine
    • Currently with the Rockna Wavelight paired with the Milo --> instrument separation, air/space and overall resolution are very strong, at no sacrifice to timbre/flow.

 

[ken6217]

Nice review. However since I have the V281 and the Milo incoming, and to you they sound pretty even, it seems to me the Milo would be redundant for me. Why buy what I already have?

 

[ken6217]

This is a fantastic write-up.

I'd add a couple trailing thoughts for consideration as a former Violectric v280 and Orchid DAC owner:

• Your Milo using "stock" attenuator --> The Milo with the Goldpoint v47 is a meaningful enhancement https://www.goldpt.com/compare.html
• Your note above about potential greater resonance / space around notes from the v281 --> I think this has more to do with your DAC (Orchid) vs. the AMPs
  • In my experience, I did not find the Orchid to deliver enormous separation / layering / note space (even with expensive tubes) this DAC is a timbre machine
    • Currently with the Rockna Wavelight paired with the Milo --> instrument separation, air/space and overall resolution are very strong, at no sacrifice to timbre/flow.

However it's apples to apples. Same DAC with two amps, and so it he hears a difference, it is the amp.

 

[David222]

However it's apples to apples. Same DAC with two amps, and so it he hears a difference, it is the amp.

I understand your point - but I am questioning if he indeed heard that difference (or not). The Milo has pretty significant air/space around notes (to my ear). Admittedly, I only owned the v280 (FE), but never noticed it to surpass the Milo in this particular department ....

I found the Milo to have much greater transients / overall character and flow vs. the v280 (FE) ... in my personal experience and keeping in mind my Milo has the outboard LPS and other modifications.

 

[Pharmaboy]

Why buy what I already have?

My head exploded when I read that. It made quite a mess in my home office.

OK, seriously: I rationalize having both the V281 and Milo amps in various ways, some more rational than others:

• Each amp resides in a different system (I have 2 systems located ~6 feet apart in this office)
• Each amp's dimensions are perfect for the system it's in, and not nearly as good for the system it's not currently in
• Probably the biggest reason I got the Milo was simple curiosity. After hearing it sound astounding when driving a Caldera at the ZMF booth at CanJam NYC, I had to hear one IMS with my own Caldera.

The "meta" reason for having these amps is I'm an amp hoarder. I have an amp for sale, but even without that one, I have 9 amps. Each one gives me a particular sonic flavor that I enjoy. Mixing and matching headphones to amps is fun.

 

[Pharmaboy]

I understand your point - but I am questioning if he indeed heard that difference (or not). The Milo has pretty significant air/space around notes (to my ear). Admittedly, I only owned the v280 (FE), but never noticed it to surpass the Milo in this particular department ....

I found the Milo to have much greater transients / overall character and flow vs. the v280 (FE) ... in my personal experience and keeping in mind my Milo has the outboard LPS and other modifications.

I tried hard to hear differences between these amps, but heard more similarities than differences. I thought I was hearing a couple rather subtle differences mentioned in my post, but this was hardly "in your face" stuff.

The fact that your Milo has an external LPS and other mods makes it a rather different amp than mine. Your Milo may well have better sound than my simpler one. I would hope that's true, for the sake of those who spend good money to upgrade their Milos. But I can only compare my own Milo to the V281, not anyone else's.

Now that I'm thinking of it, I should note that my V281 has the TOTL (for the time) 256-stepped volume pot with remote control. This pot is said to sound somewhat/slightly better than the simple non-stepped Alps model that came with the base V281.

That brings up your point in a previous post about the optional Goldpoint 47-step pot sounding better than the stock volume pot that's in my Milo. I'm familiar with that 47-stepped Goldpoint pot (owned a different device that used it at one time), and I can believe that pot would sound better than the stock pot in my Milo. But again, I can only evaluated the Milo I have.

FWIW, one of my reasons to not want a stepped pot (whether the Goldpoint or one of the Khozmo pots formerly used in the Milo) was connected to the very high gain of the Milo. To make a long story short, high gain means one is likely to spend lots of time in the lower range of the volume pot (at or near its counterclockwise rotational limit). Given that, I'd rather the pot in question be non-stepped, allowing more fractional adjustment of volume, vs stepped, where the useful range of the stopped pot might only be 4 or 5 steps total.

 

[David222]

Yes, great points - and as noted above - I found your review to be really spot on ... they are really similar AMPs overall.

Given the meaningful improvements the Goldpoint v47 delivers - I'd suggest folks avoid diving into the historical Khozmo pot (just my $0.02). The Outboard LPS is not cheap, but does bring the Milo to another performance level as well.

 

[ken6217]

I understand your point - but I am questioning if he indeed heard that difference (or not). The Milo has pretty significant air/space around notes (to my ear). Admittedly, I only owned the v280 (FE), but never noticed it to surpass the Milo in this particular department ....

I found the Milo to have much greater transients / overall character and flow vs. the v280 (FE) ... in my personal experience and keeping in mind my Milo has the outboard LPS and other modifications.

The V281 does sound different than the V280.

There is a review on Youtube comparing a half dozen amps or so and his top two were the V280 and the Milo. He said the Milo was the best sounding however.

 

[ken6217]

I tried hard to hear differences between these amps, but heard more similarities than differences. I thought I was hearing a couple rather subtle differences mentioned in my post, but this was hardly "in your face" stuff.

The fact that your Milo has an external LPS and other mods makes it a rather different amp than mine. Your Milo may well have better sound than my simpler one. I would hope that's true, for the sake of those who spend good money to upgrade their Milos. But I can only compare my own Milo to the V281, not anyone else's.

Now that I'm thinking of it, I should note that my V281 has the TOTL (for the time) 256-stepped volume pot with remote control. This pot is said to sound somewhat/slightly better than the simple non-stepped Alps model that came with the base V281.

That brings up your point in a previous post about the optional Goldpoint 47-step pot sounding better than the stock volume pot that's in my Milo. I'm familiar with that 47-stepped Goldpoint pot (owned a different device that used it at one time), and I can believe that pot would sound better than the stock pot in my Milo. But again, I can only evaluated the Milo I have.

FWIW, one of my reasons to not want a stepped pot (whether the Goldpoint or one of the Khozmo pots formerly used in the Milo) was connected to the very high gain of the Milo. To make a long story short, high gain means one is likely to spend lots of time in the lower range of the volume pot (at or near its counterclockwise rotational limit). Given that, I'd rather the pot in question be non-stepped, allowing more fractional adjustment of volume, vs stepped, where the useful range of the stopped pot might only be 4 or 5 steps total.

My incoming amp does have the external LPS and the Goldpoint. So I assume it should sound "different". I don't want to use the term "better" as better is different for different people. Too much resolution is better for some. For me it seems that often comes at a cost of thinning out the sound.

I love my V281. I keep coming back to it. Hopefully the Milo will sound great. I've spent enough money in this hobby trying to fix problems that aren't there.

 

[Lokust]

Hi to everyone!

Been having fun listening to the Gruve Lvl2 in combination with the Milo. Anyone else here have experience with the Gruve? Anyone have time and opportunity to compare it to the Chord Qutest? Quite curious how they would compare. So far, I'm happy with the Gruve. With quality input, it really shines.

 

[spw1880]

Hi guys, just got a used wells dragon L3. Just sharing i seem to prefer the 6dj8 tubes. Btw has anyone ever went all out and bought some of those holy grail level tubes, like from siemens or russian reflektors? or what tubes have used that anyone can recommend just want to play around with tubes, out of curiosity. Thanks in advance.