I beg to defer re "Tubey" since for me it is always associated with rounding and smoothing the sound, usually at the expense of detail retrieval and speed.
I find the LA-100 Mk III rich sounding as opposed to plain "Tubey".
It is like adding a little bit of cream to a clear broth. Not too much to make it thick but enough to make it beefy and rich.
I would not call it romantic sounding:
It is more like comparing an anorexic girl to a voluptuous girl (as opposed to fat).
Here are some of my impressions:
The LA-100 Mk III attack is second to non and so is its mid range fullness and bass. Its clarity is excellent as long as good 5751 tube is being used. It is slightly mid-range forward compared to the LA-150 MK II and slightly less ambient and airy (it feels more like seating in the first or second row as opposed to the 15th row) but than a little more "beefy" than the LA-150 Mk II to my ears.
All these impressions are in my system and my room.
So to summarize: Rich - yes. Tubey - depending on your definition of tubey.
Have not heard the Modwright so cannot comment.
I find the LA-100 Mk III rich sounding as opposed to plain "Tubey".
It is like adding a little bit of cream to a clear broth. Not too much to make it thick but enough to make it beefy and rich.
I would not call it romantic sounding:
It is more like comparing an anorexic girl to a voluptuous girl (as opposed to fat).
Here are some of my impressions:
The LA-100 Mk III attack is second to non and so is its mid range fullness and bass. Its clarity is excellent as long as good 5751 tube is being used. It is slightly mid-range forward compared to the LA-150 MK II and slightly less ambient and airy (it feels more like seating in the first or second row as opposed to the 15th row) but than a little more "beefy" than the LA-150 Mk II to my ears.
All these impressions are in my system and my room.
So to summarize: Rich - yes. Tubey - depending on your definition of tubey.
Have not heard the Modwright so cannot comment.