Musical fidelity M3i vs Leema Pulse.

Now this is an interesting one.

I haven't compared the two directly but I would expect the Pulse to be a touch livelier and the M3i to be a touch smoother.

SPECS

Pulse 111 -  Power: 80W @ 8 Ohms and 130W @ 4 Ohms;  Current: > +/- 12 Amps;  Weight: 11 kg

MF M3i -                    76W @ 8 Ohms and 137W @ 4 Ohms;    peak to peak 25 Amps;               9.2 kg          

So "on paper" power is similar,  with the MF possibly having more current available, but where looks come into it, there's no contest! Where flexibility comes into it, it has to be the Leema.

I havn't heard the leema pulse but I listened to the leema tucana at the same time as the m6i and I thought that the m6i was more musicaly involving made me tap my foot  if you know what I mean + it seemed to have a better grip of the speakers

Read a review on the M3i and it stated that speaker matching is essential, as it could have slightly bright top-end. Pretty much mirroring WHFI's review of my MKII Pulse.

Here's the review:  http://www.techradar.com/reviews/audio-visual/hi-fi-and-audio/amplifiers/musical-fidelity-m3i-710226/review

Are you thinking of getting one PP?

Here is a slightly different slant, where they describe it as a little darker and sweeter:
http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/musical-fidelity-m3i-integrated...

and it's listed in Stereophiles "Recommended Components" (Catagory B) where they say, "though it lacked the bass control of the Nad 375BEE, it exhibited greater refinement in the mid-range and treble".

Saying all that, they are both certainly in the same league.

Doubtful, but never say never...

In the light of my recent thread about 'Smoother' sounding kits, just thought it'd be interesting to canvass opinion, given both amps have very similar specs and price...

So it all boils down the type of qualities one is looking for. Based on what I've read about the M3i, I would suggest the Pulse has better imaging and overall dynamics, one area where I've not heard bettered below £2k. On the other hand, for a slightly richer tone, or amp that majors in vocals, the M3 would be the choice, is that a fair assumption?

Yes, that is pretty much how I see it..... as good as it gets (for a SS amp) for the money, with the Pulse being a little leaner, bolder and drier; and the MF a little richer; ie. semi skimmed vs Full Fat, from a Jersey Cow.

I know this sounds a crass question... what is the MF like at reproducing 'live' or unplugged music, regardless of format, including DVDs?

It's not a crass question, but one that is better answered by someone who owns the amp (or possibly the M6i).

My gut feeling is that it will sound great. Any amp trying to cope with live music, will struggle to match the original performance. I'm never worried about replicating "exactly" what's on the CD, as only the original mastering engineer knows that; I'm far more interested (especially for live/unplugged music) to replicate "reality" as closely as possible. This (imo) means retaining the emotion in the music, which is done by getting the mid-range correct.

IMO I think the mid-range in the MF will get you (a little) closer to this, but personal preference and system synergy make it impossible to make any definitive statements about it. Good as these amps are, they are (naturally) both a compromise, and something has to give.....so it's about making sure that this isn't something that's crucial for your enjoyment of the music.

Hi,

I heard both when I was looking for a new amp, my observations was that I found the MF although had a bit more bass the overall impression was very smooth, creamy if you like, but lacking a bit of dynamic fun, a bit too pipe and slipper's for my tastes.

I prefered the pulse but felt it was still lacking a little punch but still sounded classy, nice breathy feel to music, I didn't feel as though it had the depth of bass of the MF though.

I also thought the MF was a nicer bit of kit but that wasn't what I was looking for or I would have bought something else .The Pulse is also better looking than the Caspian.

I think the pulse is a very good amp, I would stick with it and change the speakers to hopefully get more out the amp.

Not looking at an amp change in the foreseeable... thought it would an interesting comparison.

Looking at either Totem (Arros or Signatures), PMC (DB1i, TB2i or GB1i) or ProAc (Response D1 or D2) speakers with maybe Rega Saturn or streamer equiv...

Watch this space.

it sounds very good to my old ears

Have you heard the CA 851A? I remember you said in one of my threads that you're not very fond of Cambridge stuff, and I used to feel the same way until I heard this one. When the Azur series first came out I thought they where pretty dull and unengaging despite all the glowing reviews (ended up with a NAD instead), but the 851A is really quite superb imo. Sounds powerful and tight. Great solid bass!

Just a thought, since it's about the same price as the MF and Leema...

No, heard the 850, courtesy of one of our long-standing forumites. Although beautifully clean sounding I found the experience a little too...erm... sanitised. Very powerful amp, couldn't live with one on a week-to-week basis.