|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 805 Registered: May-05 | Jan, Nuck and PF, Thanks for the ongoing education, some learned and some over the windshield. It's enjoyable to follow along and learn. Also Jan, just received your recommended Elvis CD and so far, it's great. Unfortunately, I'm still listening on the Heritages for now. Nuck, I just got back in town and don't know if the AL is repaired yet or if I'm buying two new driver coils for these speakers. BUT, when I know, I'll let you know. Dave |
|
Bronze Member Username: WhatzzzupppMontreal, Quebec Canada Post Number: 28 Registered: Nov-05 | hi if u please i need help in downloading my reciver anybody could help. here is my e-mail adamzoz@hotmail.com |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 7525 Registered: May-04 | "Does not the convenience of function negate the beauty of form sometimes?" "Should'nt the linearity of the function dictate the future of the form?" Even for an Italian those seem to be condradictory concepts. (http://www.ineedcoffee.com/03/mokaexpress/?page=2) The beauty of form is best perceived when it amplifies the convenience of use. At least during the last century that would be true. So, yes, the second statement is correct as of the moment the bourgeoisie of the Victorian era were effectively killed off by Stickley and Greene and Greene in America, Gropius in Germany, Meyerhold in Russia and Signore Bialetti in Italy. I would attribute the moment the world altered its course to the act of an insignificant Bosnian-Serb and the death of the Archduke but we now know the bomb was tossed underhand which is not good biomechanical form for an @ssassination. |
|
Silver Member Username: Two_centsPost Number: 698 Registered: Feb-04 | Even modernists of the 20th c. who espoused "form follows function" gave into the seduction of ornamentation. Take for example Mies van der Rohe, the perfecter of the modern glass and steel skyscraper. Many of his buildings had nonfunctioning I-beams tacked on to the exterior walls to emphasize the linearity of the design and it's utilitarian appearance. He was essentially usually I-beams as ornaments. I like John A's wife's description of the Primaluna amp as something that belongs in a museum of steam locomotives. |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 1295 Registered: Dec-04 | Where is Berny with a little animation of shovelling coal into 30 year old tube amp? Jan, I doubt Ferdinand noticed the form of the assassin...function certainly dictated form in that case, although, at the time, a flaming paper bag of dung would have achieved the same result, powder keg and all. |
|
Bronze Member Username: DarkmusicDover, Delaware Usa Post Number: 22 Registered: Apr-05 | Hello people! I've had the opportunity (via Christmas gifts) to try out some different (than stock) tubes on my Jolida 707 integrated amplifier [the 707 uses 4 6L6 outputs, 2 12ax7 preamp, and 2 12 at7 drivers (all the jolida's stock tubes are probably from China since most of the parts originate in that country)]. I've had the jolida since October and have put in approximately 4-5 hours a day listening (while reading and grading my students' projects). I have a musical fidelity xray cd player (and xbox) and a pair of 1978 tannoy ardens. I know the sound of the jolida with its stock tubes in my system. I switched out the stock 12 at7s first -- I used nos Mullard at7s and after the first 20 hours or so they began to sound warm (the sound seemed to flow out of the speakers and the sound stage, both width and depth, seemed to open up, too -- holographic may be a good way to describe it) with my Tannoy Ardens. Next, I switched the stock 12 ax7s for some EHs -- I'm not sure I noticed any change in sound. I then changed out the stock 6L6s (probably from China) for some "winged C" outputs. Again, I'm not sure I noticed a change in sound (perhaps more pronounced bass). After every tube set I changed, I listened to the new tubes for 20-25 hours (3-4 days or so) before changing out another set of tubes. Finally, I changed out the 12at7 mullards for 2 12at7 nos rca's (santa was very good to the "kid."). After 70 + hours (two weeks or so) of listening there was a noticeable lack of "warmth" in the sound (the warmth disappeared as soon as I changed to the rcas). Actually, with the rca 12at7 tubes, the Jolida reminds me of my MA6100's sound (especially in the treble and midrange). I have returned to the mallard 12at7s (but I am keeping the rcas -- sorry people). So...in the nos/ tube department, mullards sound warmer (to me in my system) than rcas. The sound might be different to another person listening to my system or to another person making the same tube changes in another system, right? I'm thinking that tube sound/ choices cannot be generalized for other systems because the sound experience is subjective (to the listener) and all systems are different. Is this correct? An interesting hobby... On another note (A#?): I am experiencing a static electricity problem in our sound room. I seeming to be throwing sparks on all metal I touch (does that mean that I'm too positive or too negative?). I have been trying to discharge current before I touch the jolida and the cd player, but it does not always work -- I sparked the cd player last night and it's digital read-out function shut down (I had to power down and up and it returned to proper readout). How do you all keep this problem under control? Thanks! |
|
Bronze Member Username: DarkmusicDover, Delaware Usa Post Number: 23 Registered: Apr-05 | One last bit of info regarding the static electricity: we have synthetic fiber (yuck) carpet in the sound room. This is probably the source of the problem and the carpet will not be changed out for quite some time... |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 7526 Registered: May-04 | You can buy a small floor pad to place in front of the equipment stand that breaks the current flow. Most office supply shops should have these in stock or available. You can also use an anti-static spray on the equipment to minimize any further charges. Several of the audio after market retailers still sell the ZeroStat gun which will remove the static charge from anything you aim it at. Finally, you can place something else in the location of the system that you can discharge to before touching the system. This is a fairly common problem during the winter months when the air in your home is somewhat lower in humidity than at other times. Some people prefer to keep a small humudifier running to take care of that part of the problem. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 7527 Registered: May-04 | Thanks for the information. Your example of tube swapping is unfortunately peculiar to your own system and the circuit in which the tubes are placed. I put some Svetlana Winged-C 6L6's into my Mac amplifiers last year and the improvement was obvious even when the amplifiers were cold. However, the Svetlanas were much more reminiscent of the Golden Dragon tubes (one of the best I've had in the Macs) I had used several years previous rather than being similar to the Sovteks I was replacing. In my MC240's the 12AX7's will usually make a shift in the system quality almost as great as replacing the outputs. Not so much in terms of colorations but, as you implied, in the manner in which the music is presented. Particularly with driver tubes the ease with which the music plays in altered perceptibly. Individual instruments will take on a more three dimensional character, large and small dynamics will improve and the ability to listen through the system is enhanced. Along with all that, and most likely accounting for much of the "effect", is a noise floor that changes in amount and character. The "rightness" of the sound is what separates a good tube combination from a poor mix. As with all other aspects of the system, finding tubes which compliment each other's prowess is the key; far more than just swapping out tubes. In a system other than yours, or with other tubes in the circuit, the RCA's might be the perfect choice. I will say I have seldom found what I consider to be the best combination when I mix and match various brands of tubes in one amplifier. I don't always run the same small complement of signal tubes as I do outputs but the best sound I've had through the 240's has come from similar tubes brands being in place in as many locations in the amplifiers as possible. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 7528 Registered: May-04 | 2c - Why don't you explain more why some music sounds better with a particular tube type. What is it about the sound of an EL34 that you think does or doesn't work well with some music? And do you think it's just the tube type or something else in the combination of system pieces that contributes to what you are hearing? |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 1314 Registered: Dec-04 | I keep a ground strap at the amp, wrist type for just that reason, RAC. Depending on the thickness or your soul, of course. Soal? |
|
Bronze Member Username: DarkmusicDover, Delaware Usa Post Number: 24 Registered: Apr-05 | Jan and Nuck: Thanks for the electro-static advice. I'll go to staples asp. I have another question regarding preamp and driver tubes: In my j707, the 12ax7 is designated preamp tube and the 12at7 is designated (power) driver. Are there preamps that use the ax7 as a driver tube and the at7 as a preamp tube (the opposite of the 707 design)? Or maybe the tube choice/ compliment is the designer's option? |
|
Silver Member Username: Two_centsPost Number: 700 Registered: Feb-04 | Jan, It's hard to isolate each distinct sonic difference between the EL34 (Svetlana) and KT88 (Chinese made Genalex copies). The main difference I hear between the two is the EL34 seems to offer a little more harmonic richness to the midrange, particularly noticeable on vocals. The KT88 sounds slightly "flatter" in this range, not necessarily thin. Dynamics and bass resolution are slightly better with the KT88s. I prefer the El34s because I value a more believable presentation of the midrange at the expense of a slightly tubby sounding lower bass and reduced dynamics. On the PL2 the differences aren't huge. I wonder if it has anything to do with the autobiasing feature? I think RAC's post points out how the results of tube rolling really depends on the system. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 7535 Registered: May-04 | "Or maybe the tube choice/ compliment is the designer's option?" Yep! The 12AX7 is the classic pre amp tube. The entire 12 series tubes are based on similar design goals and vary in only a few specifications. Get out your RCA Tube Guide and compare the differences. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 7536 Registered: May-04 | 2c - That's a good basic description of the EL34 vs. a KT88. Of course, there are variations in each tube with the EL34 being the North American designation for a tube type while the KT88 is a European variant of a 6550 (American) tube. There are also military and heavy duty examples of both tubes along with some specialty variations of most tube types. A KT88 sounds somewhat different than a 6500 also, the KT designating a "kinkless" tube type. In between both pentodes is the 6L6GC/KT66 which, by many designer's estimation either captures the best of both the EL34 and the 6550 or does justice to neither and has a characteristic sound all its own. The EL34 and 6550 are typical examples of a pentode output tube. The 6L6GC is more frequently described as a Beam Power output tube or, more correctly, a tetrode. |
|
Silver Member Username: Two_centsPost Number: 702 Registered: Feb-04 | Jan, I've read that military grade 12 series tubes generally sound better than the commercial grade tubes. Do you find this to be true? Does it also apply to output tubes? |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 1338 Registered: Dec-04 | And are the mil spec tubes better due to standard 200% testing, or are they $800 toilet seat? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 7541 Registered: May-04 | Like most things military, the tubes designed for use while bombs are dropping is overbuilt for reliability and longevity. Most of the small signal tubes designed for military use will be considerably less microphonic. The latter attribute is, I think, what appeals to many consumers, particularly when using the tubes in a pre amp. Many of the small signal tubes rated LN (low noise) will come from military spec designs. As with all things tubes, it is difficult to generalize about military spec tubes but that should cover the benefits you're likely to find in those designs. |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 1344 Registered: Dec-04 | At least the common man can get something for all the tax dollars fed into the machine. Sorry if that's too personal or political, but glass half full, take what you get. Jan you are a proud Texan, but voted for the other guy, ja? Ya gotta come visit Canada, if you want to see a really screwy place. |
|
Bronze Member Username: DarkmusicDover, Delaware Usa Post Number: 25 Registered: Apr-05 | "The 12AX7 is the classic pre amp tube. The entire 12 series tubes are based on similar design goals and vary in only a few specifications. Get out your RCA Tube Guide and compare the differences." Unfortunately, Santa didn't drop that book into my stocking... Jan: Could/ would the 12aux, 12ax7 and 12at7 tube-types be safely interchanged/ swapped out in preamps (and/ or tuners or cd players)? I am not contemplating performing such an action with the j707; I'm just curious (and I do remember what happened to "the cat"). By the way, I've connected the Ling IIs back to the j707. Wow. Good vocal presentation and imaging. The soundstage seems to change depending upon the cd/ engineer... It seems a shame listeners are not given an opportunity to re-mix albums (I'd like to have a go at Exile on Main Street and Leon Russell and the Shelter People!) -- though I did here of a new cd release that gives the buyer the option to download software to remix the tracks. Have a good afternoon people! |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 7548 Registered: May-04 | More often than not, I've found the highest recommendations go to the military tubes from Russia and the smaller European nations. American military tubes were an almost extinct breed not long after WWII and TI was put on the map. By that time, Williamson, McIntosh, Marantz and Hafler had gone out of their way to get the most out of a lowly Sylvania 12AX7. Then came Pentodes!!!! Then came silicon!!!!!!!!!! A Texan? Not by any native Texan's accounting. I was born in (Southern, don't call me a Yankee) Illinois and spent the first 26 years of my life there. When I arrived in Dallas in 1978, I was shocked to find the politician who would be a conservative Illinois Republican would be considered a wild eyed Democratic Liberal in the Texas legislature. As to the "other guy", I've made my views known regarding "the guy". |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 1350 Registered: Dec-04 | I dig. No more politico. But you really should visit Canada. |
|
Bronze Member Username: PaulfolbrechtPost Number: 66 Registered: Dec-05 | Well. I have a used pair of Six Pacs on the way from Audiogon. I am really looking forward to trying triode sound! I also ordered an AES AH-3 DJH from Upscale: http://www.upscaleaudio.com/product.asp?itemid=28&catid=29 I will have an A/B/C/D comparison. What I don't prefer gets sold (or returned to Upscale). Jan, we touched on this before, but is the Six Pacs 80dB S/N ratio any cause for concern? I really cannot handle noise or hum. If they hum, right back on Audiogon they go. The PL stuff is dead quite and S/N is quoted at 101 - this seems like a simple spec but I don't know how closely those two facts are correlated. Dick Cheney should be allowed to shoot anyone he wants. Paul P.S. Jan, do you agree that amps that can switch triode/ultralinear are a bit gimmicky? I mean, it can really only do one or the other really well, right? |
|
Bronze Member Username: PaulfolbrechtPost Number: 67 Registered: Dec-05 | Well. I have a used pair of Six Pacs on the way from Audiogon. I am really looking forward to trying triode sound! I also ordered an AES AH-3 DJH from Upscale: http://www.upscaleaudio.com/product.asp?itemid=28&catid=29 I will have an A/B/C/D comparison. What I don't prefer gets sold (or returned to Upscale). Jan, we touched on this before, but is the Six Pacs 80dB S/N ratio any cause for concern? I really cannot handle noise or hum. If they hum, right back on Audiogon they go. The PL stuff is dead quite and S/N is quoted at 101 - this seems like a simple spec but I don't know how closely those two facts are correlated. Dick Cheney should be allowed to shoot anyone he wants. Paul P.S. Jan, do you agree that amps that can switch triode/ultralinear are a bit gimmicky? I mean, it can really only do one or the other really well, right? |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 1371 Registered: Dec-04 | Given the choice, Paul, I would rather be shot by Sela Ward or Joe Walsh. Unfortunately, being shot seldom includes the choice of inflictor. Let usknow about the six's. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 7557 Registered: May-04 | Anyone who wants should be able to take a shot (verbally or in print) at Dick Cheney. And anyone he tells to sign legislation. Yes, I think switching from pentode to triode operation is gimmicky. Ultralinear was adopted by Hafler to supposedly give the benefits of triode operation to pentode power. Mixing all the various configurations at the flip of a switch (not to mention adding or subtracting NFB) is, to me, simply an exercise in either marketing or audio nervosa. Why are you anxious to hear the "sound" of triodes? It is this idea that you should be looking forward to a sound colored by the operational techniques of your system that I find disturbing. And I'm usually one of those "anything goes, if it feels right" liberals. I understand I'm taking your words a bit too literally here, but this marketing of tubes has reached a ridiculous degree in my estimation. I'm not at all for analytical sounding systems and I can't tell you I have ever enjoyed a pre amp as much as a Conrad Johnson PV-5 with all its tube sound intact, but, please, are there no limits to what the audio manufacturers will do to sell product? Don't worry about the specs. The numbers you see don't even include the mechanical buzzing of transformers. If it makes noise, send it back. |
|
Bronze Member Username: PaulfolbrechtPost Number: 68 Registered: Dec-05 | Well, Jan, I think you're misunderstanding me. Why do you assume I'm talking about any sort of coloration when I speak of "triode sound"? Do you contend that there are no general differences between triode and pentode/ultralinear, or tube/transistor for that matter, outside of colorations? I know you don't think that! I'm not looking for "pleasant distortions". I'm not looking for the "classic" forward midrange of tubes which IS coloration. I'm looking for the ultra-magical midrange warmth and vast soundstaging that many speak of in regard to triode amps. My PL gear already gives me tons of that sort of magic. It is truly magical for me - qualities I have NEVER heard out of solid-state equipment. The lushness, the realism of the soundstage, etc. I NEVER tire of listening to music anymore! Many people claim that triode operation REALLY excells in these areas and, well, I want to see for myself, in my system. So, I bought some gear that I can sell for what I paid for it if I decide against it. I sought out and bought what I think is possibly the best example of a moderately-priced all-triode monoblock of reasonable power (>=40W). Hope that makes more sense. I do agree the neg. feedback switch also smacks of gimmicky-ness. Apparantly Mr. Had considers it educational - he strongly favors NO negative feedback and designed the amps to sound good that way. Paul P.S. If Cheney shot me in the face, I'd ask him to autograph the shell. Actually, I consider voting a matter of choosing between the lesser of two evils. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 7563 Registered: May-04 | I disagree with your asssessment of voting. You shouldn't have to pick the lesser of any or all evils. You should have your ideas and believes firmly in place when picking which direction you wish to take the country, state or city. Personally, I think it is regrettable that too many people vote against a particular candidate instead of voting for a direction in which to move forward. If you truly believe Cheney would bother to autograph anything presented by a middling citizen, I think you have misunderstood how Dick feels the party and the government works. I admitted I was probably taking your comments too literally. It is the marketing of colorations that I object to. People are set up to experience tube "magic" and are often disappointed when they either hear old school tube warmth or new school coolness in a tube product. Much of my disappointment, however, stems from the fact that people all too often pick the sound of their systems with no reference for real music. It goes back to using the stereo in your truck or Lexus as the reference for what music should sound like. It is a long standing problem I have and I sometimes let it interfere with my opinions of what other people might like. You, and everyone else, are free to own and listem to whatever floats your bladder. I certainly do! However, if it is tube coloration you are after, don't mess with all this middlin' crap; go directly to a CJ PV-5 or a Marantz 7C. I can promise you audio bliss and a positive return on your investment. Unless you prefer Mott the Hoople (sp.?) to Sinatra there is nothing I've heard, or know of, which will seduce you quite like these products. |
|
New member Username: WafflesdosPost Number: 1 Registered: Feb-06 | Hi every body. I have a L5 solo baric running on a Rockford 700s. It work fine for a day until there was a burning smell comming out of the speaker. The coils are still intact, but I unistall the sub inmediatelly. I had the sub running at 4 ohms (two coils in series) and my amp bridged. The amp only pushes 350 continuos watts @ 4ohms, so, What's going on? help |
|
Bronze Member Username: PaulfolbrechtPost Number: 69 Registered: Dec-05 | What is the deal with the random, unrelated questions in this thread? Why always THIS thread? Raul, unless you are having a problem with a tube amp, or tubes, or perhaps a tube top (?), this isn't the place. Thanks. |
|
Bronze Member Username: PaulfolbrechtPost Number: 70 Registered: Dec-05 | Jan, I didn't offer an assessment of voting nor anything I was seeking an opinion on. :-} I was speaking of my view of the current two parties. I have deeply held convictions indeed but the problem, over which I have no control, is that neither party comes very close to realizing them. Thus, my choice IS between the one I dislike the least (and, unfortunately, that happens to be not the side you're on). Anyway, we should probably cease on this tangent before we run amok, eh? I'm not easily offended at all but I did read the entire archive of this thread including that instance of one of the sr. contributors leaving (temporarily, I think) over political arguments! You've confused me the 2nd part of your post because I am not after tube coloration, which I thought I'd stated. Although, I can't say I heard it and probably those amps in question do sound wonderful. But, I do hold that any colorations are antithetical to the audiophile spirit and should be avoided. I think you agree, no? I'd imagine most people feel this way (or at least most reviewers) and that is why "new school" tube gear doesn't have this sound? Paul |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 2770 Registered: Feb-05 | Politics lead us into trouble before perhaps we should save it for another thread at another forum. I for one have decided to not talk politics here as it leads to hard feelings between good people and it's not worth it to me. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 7578 Registered: May-04 | This thread gets the laziest "I don't want to read anything that doesn't relate to me" type of questions for that very reason. They see "Amps" and figure it must be car stereo since they don't have the common sense or ability to scroll down to "car stereo" on the forum. These are the people who share the road with you. "I'm not looking for the "classic" forward midrange of tubes which IS coloration." We will now begin splitting hairs. Old school tube sound. New school tube sound. I agree there is most often a distinct difference in those two approaches to designing, marketing and buying audio equipment. It is the present day marketing and how that marketing affects the design and selling of tube equipment which I most disagree with and the idea that too many listeners buy what they consider a "sound". (I certainly have raised objections to the inaccurate but basic concept promoted all too frequently on this forum that pairing a "warm" sounding amplifier with a "bright" sounding speaker will assuage the problems inherent in both designs.) Obviously, I'm not one who believes the overly simplistic concept that any well designed amplifier ... not driven into clipping ... double blind test ... yada, yada can't pick which is playing, etc. I made my living for twenty five years knowing there were people who could hear, appreciate and understand the auditory and perceptual differences between a Yamaha receiver and a McIntosh power amp. However, the more you listen through top notch amplification, the more you must come to the conclusion there are essentially only colorations which affect what you hear when you compare one excellent amplifier to another excellent amplifier. They are colorations we seldom can measure and colorations which can be pleasing to one listener and unpleasant to another; but they are colorations none the less. It might amount to nothing more than a similar preference for sitting in the first three rows at one performance hall or the middle dozen rows at the same venue, but we all choose the colorations which we find most pleasing to us. In my mind we should accept the fact that colorations are what we choose no matter how neutral we wish our systems to pretend to be. Unless we turn our listening room into an anechoic chamber we can hearing little but the various forms of coloration the room insists upon adding to even the most neutral component's sound. I find the marketing of "tube magic" to be excessive and misleading to the audiophile public as a group. Quite a lot of this stems from the concepts of defining and delineating what we hear only to put that experience into words we read and assimilate by way of our personal experiences. (A very long thread which drew many hostilities was not long ago devoted to this concept.) Words are used to create the desire for something different than what we presently own. I have no problem with marketing as such, it serves a common purpose, provides insights into the sometimes fanciful world which is the creative process, crosses the line into art when done well and, at a much lower level, I have spent some amount of time writing those very words to promote stores where I was employed and products I wished to sell. My problem starts when those words create an impression that there is something amiss with what we presently own and there is a solution at the end of your credit card statement. (No, I'm not making any judgements about debt in America, it was merely a figure of speech.) I've already made it known that most of the clients with whom I dealt while selling audio admitted to never hearing live music and cartainly never to any music that wasn't amplified. I have also made my preference for holding live music as a personal reference to be indispensible, in my opinion, when judging audio equipment. So, many of my opinions and biases relate to the dichotomy of those two facts. I don't expect anyone else to hold the same beliefs as I do, just to accept that these are well reasoned, or so I would like to believe, impressions I have spent time debating in my own sales career and in assembling my personal system over the last few decades. I make no pretense to not owning forty year old amplifiers which I've had in my possession for over twenty years. How that colors my thoughts, I will leave to the reader to judge. Without rehashing too much of what was said in the thread "Do You Listen" and trying to keep this relatively brief, I would suggest we consider what old school tube sound might be. Tubby, loose bass; rolled highs and foward midrange are good beginnings for any discussion of old school tube sound. For the most part, not what many listners would consider attractive when stated in those terms. But, old school it is because that covers the generic sound of most of what preceeded the revivification of vacuum tubes in the late 1970's. At that time old school tube sound was still very much in evidence in many of what are today considered the ruminations of new school tube sound. A CJ PV-5 is an excellent example of what old school tube sound offered in the late 1970's against the likes of a steely, impersonal solid state amplifier. Tubes would not have been revived had transistors not failed up to that point. in the same fashion as today, once tubes were back in the marketplace, reviewers were quick to point out solid state amplifiers which sounded more "tube like". Seldom was the reverse image to be conceived. Old school tube sound for the most part however ignores the many examples of excellent tube gear sold during that Golden Age of thermionic design from the late 1950's through the early 1970's. Irregardless of the fact that a Mac MC275, Marantz 8B or Citation II will fetch I've-got-more-than-you sums of money on the used market for whatever reason the buyer chooses, they were good sounding amplifiers in the first place. They all originally used what are now considered the Holy Grail for tubeophiles; NOS tubes. Except the tubes weren't new "old" stock at that point, they were new tubes. No one then sought out grey plates, black plates or flat plates with the same zeal or iconic value with which those very items are promoted today. Quickly, my point is the new old stock/school tubes which today we snatch up at fantastic prices are the very tubes that were part and parcel of old school tube design. (To be fair, I have NOS tubes in my pre amp at this very moment; though they were purcahsed when they were far closer to new stock than old stock. And an octet of NOS Gold Lion KT66's from the 1960's are still the best "sound" I've literally pulled out of my MC240's. Unfortunately, they were not mine and could only spend the weekend with the Macs.) The very tubes we adoringly insert into our new school amplifiers to inject some old school "magic" seems, to me at least, to be at odds with what we say we want and what we own. We take from the old, which we reject out of hand, to use in the new, which we hold in solemn respect as separate and better than the old, in order to make the new seem more old. Some how. Further we take the very old school concept of single ended triodes and want them to be a new school design while using old school output tubes in the amplifiers. I hope you see where I'm going with this. It is not the tube nor the topology that creates "magic", it is the colorations, both physical and spiritual if you will, of the circuit as a whole. It is the "sound" and "magic" of a paper in oil capacitor or a choke regulated power supply which we want; and fortunately both are becoming in vogue once again. We rewire a pentode to sound as if it were a triode. But now we do it all at the flick of a switch. In. Out. In. Out. Listen again! I admit to taking all of this entirely too seriously. Much of it comes from when I was selling not to people who wanted a better stereo system but to those people who wanted magic at their fingertips. Not to people who wanted their systems to emulate what they had heard at the performance hall last night but to recreate in their room what they had read about in this month's audio rag. (I always enjoyed dealing with those people who wanted a modest system, had never heard of Stereophile or Absolute Sound and seldom were seen again once they were satisfied. It wasn't all that good for my wallet but it was satisfying to my way of thinking to have a few customers a month like that.) Unlike some people, I cannot look into your eyes and envision your soul. I have no idea whether your intentions for buying a new amplifier are for the sake of the music or the sake of a new toy. That really isn't for me to judge and, PF, if you feel that is what I am doing in your case, I suspect and hope you are incorrect. It is your money and you can do with it as you please. It is the manner in which the products are promoted to an often unsuspecting and uneducated public that I am objecting to. And I am objecting to the public's gullibility in accepting such ideas. To go further with this train wreck of a thought will require more space and effort than I think I can muster here. It comes down to a perpetual debate between anyone interested in music and/or audio. There will be no resolution. You must hear what "triode sound" is before you can understand and discuss triode sound. I perfectly understand that and I am as addicted to audio gear as the next person in line for that now discontinued (NOS) Black Gate capacitor being auctioned on eBay. To put it as simply as posible, I think most audiophiles put the cart before the pentode and too often miss the whole point of the issues at hand by focusing on what the magazines and web sites want us to buy into. Any more thought than that on the topic will have to wait. I'm working on several nights with too little sleep and my best discretion says go fire up the LaSignora espresso pot and read what a mess I've made of this reply at a later time in the day. 'Til then! |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3929 Registered: Dec-03 | That is a generous and wise reply, Jan. "Do you listen" was one of the most challenging and interesting threads, here, in my opinion. We saw there that very many HiFi owners think of a recording as the ultimate source of music, and do not consider live music as a reference for how their systems sound. I agree that this is not "right" or "wrong", but is very difficult to see how to evaluate what is good or bad if there is no reference at all on which people can agree; that is, if there is nothing outside the various audio systems, to which the sounds they produce can be compared. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 7583 Registered: May-04 | I would hope my previous reply would state the rather obvious case for many audiophiles being a curious but oft times schizophrenic lot. Nothing new there, really. |
|
Gold Member Username: Rick_bOrlando, Florida USA Post Number: 1298 Registered: Dec-03 | schizophrenic lot...... Ya think???????? LOL! |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3934 Registered: Dec-03 | I wonder who had the better HiFi, Dr Jekyll or Mr Hyde...? |
|
Bronze Member Username: PaulfolbrechtPost Number: 71 Registered: Dec-05 | I was auditioning at my fav local dealer last year and he introduced me to the other customer in the store - "Mr Hyde". And it turns out Mr. Hyde owns a pair of $30,000 Tannoy Kingdom speakers. No lie. Well, that was worth posting, right?! |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 819 Registered: May-05 | John A, They had very different listening tastes those two and I doubt that you could ever convince either one that their system was worse than the other's, even if it was the same system. However, I also suspect that you would likely reason more with the doctor than the mister, and live to talk about it, anyway!!! LOL |
|
Silver Member Username: My_rantzAustralia Post Number: 284 Registered: Nov-05 | "I wonder who had the better HiFi, Dr Jekyll or Mr Hyde...?" Okay, I'll add my 2cents worth to this frivolity. It is a well known fact that Mr Hyde was partial to 'Hi' while Dr Jeckyll was into 'Fi' It was only during the transition phase when they were as one was it really possible for them to appreciate "HiFi" but unfortunately they had a whole lot of other stuff happening during those phases. |
|
Bronze Member Username: PaulfolbrechtPost Number: 72 Registered: Dec-05 | Hi Jan, Finally got around to digesting your post. Had only a few minutes here and there over the weekend. 1st reaction was that I'm surprised to hear you stating that "it's all about colorations" (that's a paraphrase). I just thought there was more to it than that - more to the differences between various amps. Certainly soundstaging and the closely related concept of imaging can be affected by the amplification used, no? Perhaps you are suggesting that differences in coloration actually cause these differences. And perhaps that is true. I've no idea; I've never thought of it that way before. But, I don't think so. (Let's make one thing clear, if I haven't already - you have 1000x the experience with tubes that I do and I defer to your knowledge.) Regarding your lamentations regarding the industry and the attitude of the consumer - my first thought was that, even if some of us are experimenters and like to have new toys to play with, I think we're all 'audiophiles' in the true sense. REAL 'gadget freaks' - the ones I know - don't buy vacuum tube amplifiers! They don't know what quality reproduced music is. When it comes to stereo equipment, they buy the crap at Best Buy and they buy what has the most whiz-bang features, or perhaps the most "kick a** bass, yeah", and so on. (And it is crap. I listened to some $700 Klipsch speakers at a BB a few weeks ago that sounded like they had a wool blanket on top of them! My little DynAudio 42s, hardly more expensive, sound like MUSIC.) I'm buying stuff now, yes, cause I do want to experiment and having stuff in your system, in your home, is the only way to audition in a really meaningful fasion. As I said last time, I'm enjoying music, enjoying pure MUSIC, more than I have ever before in my life... most of this is due solely to the discovery of tubes. There IS tube magic (I'm sure you agree). Most of my listening is listening for enjoyment, *not* "critical listening*. I do the latter only to the extent necessary to enhance my pleasure from the former (auditioning). I spent Saturday evening listening to live Jazz - do so regularly. Love it. (What I don't love so much is the smokiness, the fact that it's too loud up front, and spending $100+ on dinner and drinks for two. That's why it's not more than a twice-monthly extravegance.) I think we're largely on the same page... I continue to absorb from your pool of knowledge and experience. Paul P.S. Rick, nice to see you back here. I've read the whole thread and see a bit of you in me re: discovering tubes. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 2781 Registered: Feb-05 | "When it comes to stereo equipment, they buy the crap at Best Buy and they buy what has the most whiz-bang features" Couldn't agree more. I've said for years that if company "A's" top of the line amp (speaker or whatever)which is supposed to represent "accurate" reproduction of "the real thing" and so too does company "B's" top of the line, and they don't sound anything alike then either one or both of them are wrong. The truth is that we are simply selecting the color that best suits us. All audio gear leaves it's mark on the source, that mark is coloration. My reference is live music and to my ears tubes do a better job of communicating that experience. That is my preference your mileage may vary. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3935 Registered: Dec-03 | Well said, Art and Paul. Thanks for getting back on track. I agree with you. And thanks for the frivolity, MR and DAK! |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 7591 Registered: May-04 | Let me unload a bit more of the detritus that causes those damned synaptic misfires. When I use the term coloration I assume a meaning that is similar to how someone else might employ the term noise or distortion. All are meant to cover a broad range of individual errors, rather than a specific fault, which occur within the system and merely represent a deviation from the input signal. I am not referring exclusively to tubes nor only to amplifiers and I am most certainly not ascribing pleasant even order harmonics to the idea of colorations. Often the "colorations" we perceive would be just as logically described as omissions or commissions as they would "distortion". These faults could simply be grouped as a deviation from neutrality. While most amplification devices will exhibit a frequency response which is relatively flat, we can imagine we are merely looking at the + or - 3dB variation in common loudspeaker measurements taken down to a more particular scale. Just as the 6db total variation allowed in that loudspeaker specification tells us little about how the speaker sounds, neither does the frequency response, or many other common measurements, of an amplifier. The proof is in the listening but too many listeners prefer to ascribe too much "magic" to the tubes themself. Look again at my simple assessment of the tube gear you inquired about. Capacitors, point to point wiring, choke regulated power supplies, etc. are all part of what determine the "magic" of an amplifier. The component parts and how they are assembled and implemented are what create magic, not any one part. As we look backward at the technologies which got us to this point in time, we should be able to see the wisdom of those who got us here. It was those people who performed magic. In my opinion, so much of what we label tube magic is a culmination of all those ideas which have audible, musical merit and not those which were merely the result of a desire to make the devices which reproduce music more convenient to manufacture and use. Printed circuit boards were not deviced with good sound in mind. Transformerless solid state amplifiers were not the result of seeking musical truth. Both were meant to make an amplifier cheaper to produce and ship. Arguments can be taken to the contrary, but the net effect remains the same. I agree with the basic idea vacuum tubes do things unlike transistors and go about what they do in a basically dissimilar manner. Beyond that, I find it difficult to buy into the marketing of "tube sound" or "tube magic". It should not be about the device used to reproduce the music. I would also have to disagree with what a "gadget freak" might own. Just as the term "tube sound" is too expansive, the concept of a gadget freak covers too much ground to be a useful term for a group of users. It smacks of "those people". If you check the DIY forums, you'll find tubes are the favored technology of the gadget freaks who populate many of those pages; and the wierder the tube type, the more likely they are to pounce on the schematic. I know of no "gadget freak" more dedicated throughout their life to the art and craft of "gadgetry" than the late Dr. Gizmo, Harvey Rosenberg, whose love of tubes and particularly oddball tube technology was virtually unequalled in the Western world. (http://www.meta-gizmo.com/) Yes, gadget freaks abound in the BB's and CC's of the American mall culture but they can hold no candle to someone who dreams of horizontal output tubes in OTL gain stages. Your general assessment of the cost of live entertainment I woud have to say is all too correct. Though I've found great pleasure in free concerts and can afford the cost of admission to venues such as Billy Bob's, the Granada and Poor David's here in DFW. Fortunately these spots invite entertainers who are still performing mainly out of the joy of performance. I cannot change my opinion that whoever listens to live music on a regular basis will have a better than average shot at assembling a decent system no matter how many times they go about it. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 7596 Registered: May-04 | If it seems I'm being too hard on anyone wishing to believe in tube magic, I apologize. It is not my intent to take away any pleasure or magic you've found in your amplifiers. Given the choice I will prefer tubes in my system also. When all this discussion began back on "Old Dogs", I made mention to Kegger, and I think I've repeated the statement on this thread, that I believe a major difference in how tubes and solid state amplifiers "sound" is the manner in which notes begin and end. To my ears, tubes just get those two points more correct than most solid state gear can manage. If that is what amounts to a bit of tube magic, then I wholeheartedly agree tubes are magical. (In reality, I would have to ascribe the ability to perform so well at the lowest and highest transient levels of the signal to the inherent linearity of vacuum tubes, but for now we can call this magic.) For all those who have recently discovered the sound of tubes, I have a question. There has been discussion on this thread and in the audio press regarding old school and new school tube design and sound. Yet with these new school amplifiers many listeners prefer the sound of (new) old stock tubes. And now several of you either have or will experience the decidedly old school topology of single ended triode amplification. Probably both with new and NOS tubes in the amplifier. Therefore the question would be; if you are using old school toplogy (either single ended or push-pull modelled after an amplifier from the 1960's) with new or NOS tubes and you are getting what you consider new school tube sound, what accounts for that sound that wasn't available to the old school sound of the originals? Surely it is not the old school tubes? So where does new school tube sound come from? |
|
Gold Member Username: Rick_bOrlando, Florida USA Post Number: 1302 Registered: Dec-03 | I think that would be a paradox Jan. I don't see how you could get new school sound from an old school topology design, regardless of the tubes used. As far as the tubes go, anyone who has spent any time doing serious tube rolling know NOS are just better tubes, period. The new stuff while some being better than others just can't compare with the NOS tubes. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 7611 Registered: May-04 | Well, I'd have to disagree for the most part because the amplifiers that are sold to day often refer to being based on "classic" amplifier circuits from the Golden Age of tubes. Many, if not most, of the circuits are still based on the simple UltraLinear operating techniques if they are a push-pull amplifier and, to my knowledge there haven't been any really new "topologies" for SET's in the past sixty years. Fixed or auto-bias is certainly nothing new, it along with tube rectification and choke regulation are in my McIntosh amps from the '60's. The PL amplifiers, correct me if I'm wrong, are based on the Unity Coupled designs from Mac during the same period. What you are implying, Rick, would appear to be old is old and any old tube amplifier will always sound like old school tube sound. Am I correct? Let's say the NOS tubes are "better". What are NOS tubes? Old school or new school sound? If they were from the time of old school tube sound, wouldn't that make them at least partially responsible for old school sound? What then keeps your new amplifier with old school tubes from sounding old school? What then is responsible for that new school sound from a Unity Coupled, fixed bias, tube rectified, push pull amplifier? Just the new tubes? What has been done to a single ended triode amplifier today that wasn't being done fifty to sixty years ago? Look inside such an amplifier, there are only a handful of parts; caps, resistors and diodes, and they are pretty much the same parts that were there in years past. Most anyone familiar with tube power amps will tell you the transformers are the key to an amplifier's sound. Yet, it is widely conceded there are not transformers today that technically surpass the hand wound units from companies such as McIntosh, Marantz, Dynaco or Citation. Transformers were as common as tubes fifty years ago and the ability to wind a good transformer was apparent. Dynaco began as a transformer manufacturer with excellent technical ability. How then do today's transformers become a part of new school sound? |
|
Gold Member Username: Rick_bOrlando, Florida USA Post Number: 1306 Registered: Dec-03 | Let me think about this. I'll reply this evening. Enjoy the day. |
|
Bronze Member Username: PaulfolbrechtPost Number: 73 Registered: Dec-05 | Very interesting thoughts, Jan (your last 2 posts). None that I would argue with. So most of the "old school" designs were ultralinear. Didn't know that. Were the only triodes SET? Is running a pentode in triode mode (as done in my 2nd hand Six Pacs which arrive today) a relatively new thing? (I may be wrong, but I thought the reason for this was just that triode tubes that put out the same power are rarer/more expensive these days.) I know little about transformers, but know that both Cary (AES) and PrimaLuna brag about their quite a bit. (I can't answer your question about PL design.) When *I* have said "tube magic" it is indeed the ATTACKS AND DECAYS I was talking about. That's where the difference is to me - that's everything. Well, that and probably soundstaging as well. It may very well be that I've just never heard good SS amplification, but I've never heard SS equipment that soundstages like my present PrimaLuna gear. I have no information for you on NOS tubes because I haven't done any tube rolling yet. I concluded it was prohibitively expensive for experimentation with my PL gear because of all the driver tubes - 12 total (4 pre, 4 each monoblock). The AES blocks have only one driver tube each and it is a NOS 12BX7 (yes 'B'). The AES preamp I also ordered (will return at 10% restock fee if I pass) has a pair of 6NS7s. So, it would be more realisctic to roll (driver tubes) with this gear. Cheers, Paul |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 7616 Registered: May-04 | I understand the 12"B"x7, my Macs use a 12BH7 as a driver tube. It offers good current delivery to the outputs with very high headroom. If you'll go back and read the link I provided for "A Taste of Tubes" (http://home.comcast.net/~enghenry/diy/taste.pdf#search=), you'll see the progression of tube amplifiers from single ended triode to push pull to Williamson, Quad, McIntosh and Hafler/Keroes. Quad and McIntosh were more established companies which preferred proprietary technology while Dyna was a company that made money by licensing their product. Most tube power amplifiers today operate in an UltraLinear wiring configuration as the Quad configuration has not found as many adherents and the Unity Coupled design from McIntosh is more expensive to construct. Remember a Dyna Stereo 70 sold for $79 while a McIntosh MC240 went for $299. Also remember $299 was probably more than half a month's pay for the average joe in 1964. McIntosh had already become Perry Mason/Dr. Kildare type products. Another worthwhile comparison would be the weight of the two amplifiers. A ST-70 weighs in at around 35 Lbs. while the MC240 tips the scales at approximately 65 Lbs. The ST-70 uses El34's to produce a usable, more or less, 35 watts X 2. The Mac uses 6L6's to get a very dependable 40 watts from 20Hz to 100KHz from both channels. (Mine both still meet spec at 49 watts X 2.) A Marantz 8B is similar to the McIntosh except it uses the EL34 tube for 35 watts per channel, weighs just under 60 Lbs and sold for $249. (http://www.classic-audio.com/marantz/0008b.html) During the period after the war, there were all sorts of technologies that pushed tubes toward higher power and lower distortion. There were plenty of small signal triode based amplifiers which paralleled tubes and/or used them in a push pull/parallel configuration to achieve the desired results. The consoles which were produced for the masses often used what we now consider pre amp or driver tubes (small signal tubes) as the output stages of a two to three watt amplifier. (http://www.ultraelectronicactive.com/StarGarTubeAmps.html) The construction of a pentode offered more power but even then some people thought it lacked the "magic" of a triode. Simpler is better has long been a motto for audiophiles. So there were tetrodes, beam powers and pentodes wired as triodes in the Golden Age. Most of those companies are long forgotten as power was the password to sales in the 1950-70's. Tubes such as the beam power and configurations like UltraLinear and Unity Coupled tried to make the best of both triode and pentode sound. "I may be wrong, but I thought the reason for this was just that triode tubes that put out the same power are rarer/more expensive these days." No, read again how a tube operates and what goes into making a triode, tetrode, pentode and beam power tube. Each additon to the basic triode tube was primarily meant to allow more power at lower distortion. (http://www.vacuumtubes.net/How_Vacuum_Tubes_Work.htm) Just as with pentodes, triodes of different types will produce more or less power. A 6550 pentode is used for higher power applications than an EL34. A 300B triode produces massive power (8-10 watts) when compared to a 2A3 (2-3 watts). The lower the output voltage from a tube, it is safe to say, the simpler the tube's structure and the circuit that precedes it. Therefore many people think the 2A3 is one of the ultimate output tubes for fidelity if for no other reason than there is less between input to output. Many DIY people find other, even more obscure, tubes that are claimed to wipe the dance floor with a 2A3 or 845. Some people use tubes which were never intended for audio purposes to get 100 watts, or more, of triode amplification. http://www.worldtubeaudio.com/ |
|
Gold Member Username: Rick_bOrlando, Florida USA Post Number: 1307 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan, It appears I may not really be familiar with what you call "new school" tube sound. I have never heard a PL amp. Do you consider it as having new school sound? When I got into tube amps, I wanted one with "old school" sound. I think I have that with the Jolida. It is basically the same design as the old Dynaco and Heath kit amps. The point I was trying to make was: If a new tube amp is of the same basic design as an "old school" amp it should sound old school. No? As far as NOS tubes go, I will stand by my previous statements. They are better sounding because they were and are better made. I find the Chinese tubes bad to horrible, and most Russian tubes not much better. |
|
Silver Member Username: Two_centsPost Number: 717 Registered: Feb-04 | I don't consider the Jolida amps or the PL amps having "old school" sound, if I understand the term correctly. I'm leaving work right now so will explain later. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 7619 Registered: May-04 | From the mid 1930's, this is a classic tube manual and should be given more than a passing reference. Scroll down to "super controlling tube" type and see if you recognize what they are referring to compared to what you read in "How Vacuum Tubes Work". http://www.the-planet.org/pdf/rc10.pdf Additional information that might be interesting. http://www.the-planet.org/data.html |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 7620 Registered: May-04 | "The point I was trying to make was: If a new tube amp is of the same basic design as an "old school" amp it should sound old school. No?" No fair, Rick. I asked that question first. Possibly we should discuss "new" and "old" school tube sound. I'll open the floor to discussion. Rick, first of all, what did you expect when you went looking for a tube amplifier with "old school" sound? Why did you think there was such a sound if you were unsure of what "new school" sound was? I am not an expert on NOS tubes, most having been priced out of my buying power long ago. But I once again would have to disagree to a generalization that NOS tubes are always better in any given amplifier. There was a point in the late 1970's through 1980's where NOS was more important to me because the tube manufacturing facilities across the world were in such a sorry state of disrepair, lack of quality control and falling sales. Many of the tube manufacturing plants which originally produced what we now call NOS tubes were either out of business or running out of gas. Finding a very good quality tube at that point meant culling through substantial throw aways to get a matched pair. Those were the days when RAM tubes, Gold Aero and Groove Tubes came into being to do that work for you and charge you accordingly. The use of tubes was obviously more wide spread when most NOS tubes were manufactured and quality control was important for many applications where transistors or IC's have now taken over. I've had several NOS tubes through my system and, as I said, the Gold Lions from the '60's were the best I can remember. However, the Chinese tubes from Golden Dragon are second on my list of best sound. Both were KT66's instead of 6L6's. Another pair of I-can't-remember-the-brand Chinese KT66's rank as the worst sounding tubes I've ever auditioned. I find some of the claims for NOS tubes to be rather specious when the tubes being built today are manufactured on the same original equipment used by Slyvania, RCA and Richardson and are built to the same design specs. I don't dismiss NOS tubes, I just find the claims for some tube types to be rather inflated. |
|
Bronze Member Username: PaulfolbrechtPost Number: 74 Registered: Dec-05 | I got my used Six Pacs last night. Maybe my listening skills really stink, but I find it difficult to detect any real difference between these and the PL 7 monoblocks. They both sound great and very similar in almost all areas -- tonality, soundstaging, etc. Actually, I do detect some subtle differences, but cannot pick a favorite. I think the mids are maybe a bit warmer or lusher through the Pacs. "Loose bass" in any sense the Pacs do not have -- acoustic bass, drum solos, all sound really great. As through the PLs. So, "triode" vs. "ultralinear", for me, it seems, is not a whole lot of difference. I think I may have to conclude at this point that the preamp stage generally has much more influence on the sound, as experimenting with preamps for me has given much greater differences. Or maybe it's just that the PL7 and Six Pac are very close - but that can't be, given their completely different topologies and tube compliments. A/B/A auditioning is not exactly easy with monoblocks -- all the cable switch and moving of the units. Takes a couple minutes, and then the new ones are cold. And... my level matching is by ear only. Not the best method, to be sure. So, if I could do really quick switching, I've little doubt I'd hear more difference. But, then again, if it's that little, who cares? Now, the Pacs sound like crap with the feedback switched on, but I think that's a given (REALLY no need for that switch). So, I don't know which I'll keep yet. Paul |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 7631 Registered: May-04 | The difference between triode and UltraLinear operation with essentially the same circuit might not be very obvious. How much apparent difefrence would depend on several factors, including the overall quality of the transformers and how much work has gone into optimizing the transformers for one type of operation. With triode operation the power should decrease slightly but the sound should have a more "transparent" quality. The scope and scale of the presentation often changes between triode and pentode operation with pentode offering a deeper, wider stage while triode offers a more "palpable" presence and the ability to locate perfomers with a sense of space surrounding them. Pentode should be a touch more dynamic, particularly in the macro sense and should give a feel of the amplifier being in control of the speaker while triode should feel more as if the music just exists in your room. The drawback to many of these switchable amplifiers is the circuit is still run push-pull (therefore class AB for most of the power band) and not as single ended triode operation (which is inherently class A operation). Some people might disagree, but the tube is still a pentode and switching off several sections of the tube to create "triode operation" is different than starting with a dedicated triode tube. Those are very general characteristics of triode and pentode operation and your amplifier might, upon closer listening, offer all, some or none of the above differences. I'm surprised at the differences people report with NFB switched in or out of the circuit in these amplifiers. Most tube power amps have little to no global feedback (SET's usually have none, and NFB is difficult to manage in such a ciruit configuration) and what FB is there in a push-pull tubed power amp is often localized within the circuits to add some stability, lower the output impedance between gain stages without adding another tube and/or affect the gain of a circuit. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 7632 Registered: May-04 | http://www.webace.com.au/~electron/tubes/ul.html |
|
Gold Member Username: Rick_bOrlando, Fl Post Number: 1312 Registered: Dec-03 | Thanks for another informative link Jan. OK, I am missing something here. What is "new school" sound? Can you give me an example of a product that has it? I need to clear up this subject, before I ask you my next question. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 7633 Registered: May-04 | I would prefer other people join in with their ideas of old and new school sound, but I think we can easily place items such as the last decade of Audio Research gear in the new school camp. Jadis used to belong primarily to new school, I don't know about their current gear. Most pre amps which use a tube type other than the ubiquitous 12AX7 are striving for a new school sound. Conrad Johnson and VTL/Manley seem to recognize a touch of old school does no harm to a new school approach. Having heard the current McIntosh MC275, I would say they have the same approach. The amplifier serves the music. The most I want to say at this point regarding "what is" old school sound, is it is not what your father might have heard from the last tubed amplifier he owned. While a Dyna ST70 sits on the cusp of what would be considered new school thinking, it is decidely old school sound in its stock format. The highs are not "extended" and the bass doesn't plumb any great depth. Loose and woolly, somewhat dark with a midrange that is very appealing is not an unfair description of old school sound, though loose and wooly easily describes plenty of solid state amplifiers from the late 1950's through the early 1980's. Many solid state designers suggest transistor technology stopped growing and learning after less than thirty years in the field because digital pushed it aside. On the other hand, valve afficianados feel vacuum tubes have continued to grow over the last 90 years and hence we got the shift from old to new school sound. Does anyone else have a description they feel is appropriate for the two types of sound we classify as old and new school? |
|
Silver Member Username: Two_centsPost Number: 718 Registered: Feb-04 | Jan, I would agree with your description and add the following observation: "Old School" tube amps of yore had a noticeably lusher, warmer sonic character than their solid state brethren. There was no mistaking the sonic differences between old school tube amps and old school solid state amps. I think one of the most significant trends in the past few decades is the bridging of the gap between tube sound and solid state sound. The "new school" tube amps might be described as less lush (or some might say more neutral) than the "old school" tube amps. I remember ARC as the purveyors of this new kind of tube sound. Even Conrad Johnson who really did epitomize the lush, warm "old school" has shifted their house sound to be more "neutral". Their new amps sound more detailed, with less rounded notes especially at the frequency extremes than I remember their old amps sounding (comparing the PV14/MV60 with a PV8/MV50). Last year when I was upgrading my system I had a chance to audition a lot of amps. I was amazed how some ss gear sounded more tube-like and how some tube amps sounded more like ss gear (mainly for the better). The ASL Hurricanes produce the full-bodied, 3D sound characteristic of a tube amp but gives nothing away in the control of low bass and high treble notes. EDGE ss amps have the warm, non-etched sound of tube gear. It seems like both tube and ss amp designers are trying to get to some ideal middle ground from opposite directions. That's "new school" in my book. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 7634 Registered: May-04 | "There was no mistaking the sonic differences between old school tube amps and old school solid state amps." For the most part, I would agree with that statement. Certainly the sound of a mid '70's -'80's ss amp, like a P.S.Audio, S.A.E. or, in particular, a Threshold or Krell (but not including Jeff Rowland Research) exemplified what you listened for if you preferred transistor sound. One disctinction I seem to always make is with companies which began life as tube based designers. While not perfect amplifiers, the first and second generation McIntosh and Citation, among others, solid state amplifiers never exhibited the teeth grinding flaws of many of their transistorized competitors. The difference in sound, however, between a Stewart Hegman designed Citation 12 and a Matti Ottala designed Citation 16A are obvious and you could sense the pendulum beginning to sway. It was interesting that CJ's solid state line, Sonographe, and Audio Research's transistors never achieved the same amount of the respect the tube gear from both companies enjoyed. The reviews were good but audiophiles expected a different sound if they were buying into those two companies. Despite that, overall I would agree with what 2c posted. Not to take the discussion off topic but, if tubes and solid state are coming closer together in neutrality, what's the "magic" of new school tube sound? Other than a shift toward a more neutral sound, what are you buying in new school tube sound that you can't get in solid state without the hassle of replacing tubes? Are there other characteristics which still would suggest tube vs. solid state sound in the current crop of amplifiers? And, still, the question remains, how did tubes make this shift from old to new school? What is responsible for making a contemporary tube amplifier more "neutral", if that is what we decide is "new school", than a tube amp from earlier days. Parts is parts! |
|
Gold Member Username: Rick_bOrlando, Fl Post Number: 1313 Registered: Dec-03 | Yes Jan, I like dark as one of the definitive descriptions of "old school" sound. Dark, lush, liquid, and airy would most do it for me. What I'm trying to get a handle on is how I can describe the difference in sound going from a push-pull ultralinear to a SET. What is it about that sound that says,"this is it for me". And I don't want to hear the nay-sayers with the second order harmonic distortion stuff....... |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 7637 Registered: May-04 | Let's start with "dark" and "airy" not ususally going together. Even in SET's. And the main advantage of push-pull, other than higher output power, is its tendency to cancel out most of the second order harmonic distortion products that predominate in SET. (Not to mention the higher IM distortion characteristics of SET's.) This is where we start mixing the marketability of SET, triode, push-pull, UltraLinear and Unity Coupled designs. Each topology has an advantage which is not usualy obvious to the "audiophile" buying the equipment. I don't know about you, Rick, but when trying to figure out what works for me, I often begin with a realization of what I'm going to give up to get to that point. Single driver, full range speakers strike me immediately as more correct in many areas of reproduction. Soon, however, I realize I'm going to give up some dynamic power in the macro scale to gain nuance in the micro scale. I'm going to sacrifice frequency extension for timbral correctness. I'm going to give up the ability to be broad scoped in what sounds good and in power handling through these speakers to get what sounds entrancing through these speakers (on the music I will restrict my listening to). SET is very much the same; is it not? Everything in audio is a trade off. I know I've told you my most oft repeated line to a client was, if I give you one thing, I'm going to take away two. We make our decisions based on what is important to us individually and only we can decide what, for us individually, is going to be worth retaining and what is worth discarding. Still the question of the day is what makes a 1945 SET (the predominant technology of the time before Williamson) different than a 2006 SET? Parts is parts; are they not? |
|
Bronze Member Username: PaulfolbrechtPost Number: 75 Registered: Dec-05 | Rick & Jan, Interesting discussion. I have yet to hear a SET amp, those I've read *much* about them. Ah, the holy SET; perfect sound despite 88%+ THD at .2W, etc. :-} No, I'm just kidding; I know they can sound incredible at what they excel at (the midrange, it seems). You outlined the tradeoffs very nicely, Jan. I've now made the switch to triode. I am going to keep the Cary Six Pacs and sell the PL 7s. It is *close* - it is REAL CLOSE - but there is a little more bloom in the mids on up with the Pacs. AND, I *love the bass* out of these things!! I was told if triode has a weakness, it's the bass control - well, these things are tight & fast as heck and it just sounds right. Again, the PL 7s are very very close but there's just a wee bit something extra there - a bit nicer *bite* on the attacks. (Is it so close it's in my head? It took me 10+ hours of listening, but now I'm nearly certain it's not. For one thing, I think if I had a bias it'd be towards the PL7s, as I paid mcre for them and they're MUCH prettier cosmetically. But you can't hear 5 coats of hand-rubbed paint, eh?) However, my PrimaLuna 3 pre has shot down another pre and I think it is about settled it's here to stay, though there's one more contender. I'm beginning to see what value this peice is, too - show me another tube pre that's dual mono with rectification with build & parts quality like this.. there isn't one. (You can get everything but the dual mono at this price, but not that.) Cheers, Paul |
|
Gold Member Username: Rick_bOrlando, Fl Post Number: 1315 Registered: Dec-03 | I am im total agreement Jan. I have learned just going from SS to tubes meant giving up some things. There will always be as you say trade offs. I have resigned myself to giving up hi-fi for musicality. I think once a lover of music gets past that hurdle, he/she will be on the path to musical enlightenment. That path brought me to tubes, and I feel the final destination to be a SET and single driver speaker system. You keep coming back to a single question. Can you further enlighten this tubeophile "grasshopper"? Parts is parts; are they not? Well, parts are not all the same. Are the transformers of the same quality today? Is anyone using oil in paper caps today? Surely this must have an effect on the final sound. Not to mention once again NOS tubes. The difference in my amps is like day and night, compared to the new stuff. The new stuff sounds glassy and shrill. No air! Until someone puts the right NOS tubes in their amp, they'll never know just how good it really sounds. Again, just my opinion. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 7642 Registered: May-04 | That's fine, but the old stock tubes are part of old stock amplifiers. PIO caps are old stuff too! I took a bunch of those out of my Macs when I replaced most of the original capacitors. Where do we get the sound? What accounts for it? |
|
Gold Member Username: Rick_bOrlando, Fl Post Number: 1318 Registered: Dec-03 | I don't have the answer. Can you enlighten me? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 7643 Registered: May-04 | How about some more input from others first. Rick, have the folks at Response Audio talked to you about their various modifications and how each affects the sound of the equipment? |
|
Gold Member Username: Rick_bOrlando, Fl Post Number: 1319 Registered: Dec-03 | I spoke to Bill @ Response Audio. A really super guy BTW. I would recommend Bill to anyone. We talked about his mods such as upgrade caps in the coupling stages, signal stage, and power supply filter and bypass. Also rewiring with upgrade copper or silver, and 100k volume pots. I have at least a basic grasp on how these affect the overall sound. Anymore than that I remain a novice at best. |
|
Bronze Member Username: PaulfolbrechtPost Number: 77 Registered: Dec-05 | >Where do we get the sound? What accounts for it? I'm assuming you're teasing us here and you know the answer quite well, but I'll take a stab. It's the paint. The paint on the amp. The color, type, number of coats, and gloss can all affect the sound. If that's not right :-}, I'll say it's just in the specific parts & wiring used - specific transformers, caps, resistors, and wire type (silver/copper) can all impart their characteristics to the sound, both singly and in how they're combined. I read all of the time of this or that cap or something sounding "dark" or "open" or some other audio adjective. And, of course, the size & quality of the transformers is a huge thing. And then, the tubes - though amps with the same tube complements can sound different, which takes us back to #1. Am I right? (I think I must be, because, as you note, their ain't nuthin' else.) Paul |
|
Silver Member Username: Two_centsPost Number: 719 Registered: Feb-04 | I think Paul is on the right track. The design and parts of amps today may be essentially the same as an amp from the 60's, but there are tweaks and refinements that can and have made a difference. I can't speak on a technical level with the knowledge of an EE. How I view amp design is similar to auto design (having spent many years in Motown). A 2006 car is essentially the same as a 1966 car. It's got a chassis, body, engine with pistons, carburetor, ignition, etc. But there have been design changes in the basic parts that have improved performance, gas mileage, safety and so on. Of course, there are classic car enthusiasts who would rather drive a vintage Mustang rather than any modern car, just like there are audio enthusiasts who would rather listen to a vintage amp. I think their choice is largely an emotional one (I'm not saying it's any less valid than a rational choice.) Speaking of parts, I've ordered an aftermarket powercord to try on the PL2 to see if this part makes any sonic difference. It's got a 30-day moneyback guarantee, so I figure it's worth a shot. Will report back with results. |
|
Gold Member Username: Rick_bOrlando, Fl Post Number: 1321 Registered: Dec-03 | 2C, I have been using a PS Audio power cord with my Jolida and Sophia Electric. I will very much like to hear your impressions. |
|
Bronze Member Username: PaulfolbrechtPost Number: 78 Registered: Dec-05 | I have a set of the PS audio cords. For the $60, the build quality is amazing. I figured this was a good way to get ones' feet wet in the aftermarket powercord biz. The short review is that I could tell a difference on my CDP (somehow lower noise floor, or something), but using them on the preamp and monoblocks did not result in any other discernable difference. But YMMV as power conditioning depends heavily on the quality of one's power chain (house wiring). |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 7667 Registered: May-04 | http://www.enter.net/~cae/Audibility_of_PwrSupply.htm |
|
Bronze Member Username: PaulfolbrechtPost Number: 89 Registered: Dec-05 | My Cary (AES) DJH AE-3 preamp arrived today. Will compare it with the PrimaLuna 3 and post in-depth observations. If it loses it goes back at 10% hit to me ($120). |
|
Bronze Member Username: PaulfolbrechtPost Number: 92 Registered: Dec-05 | Jan (or anyone else), any general comments on 12?A7 vs 6SN7 as preamps tubes? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 7715 Registered: May-04 | White or red. Take your pick. |
|
Bronze Member Username: PaulfolbrechtPost Number: 95 Registered: Dec-05 | No, that's wine, dude. |
|
Bronze Member Username: PaulfolbrechtPost Number: 96 Registered: Dec-05 | Since Jan's taken his ball and gone home, I'll post my preceptions of my PrimaLuna 3 preamp vs. the AES AE-3 DJH pre that just arrived. They are very different but both sound great. In a nutshell, the PL sounds a bit more "lush" and "sweet" while the AE-3 is somehow faster, or more dynamic. Transients have a bit more urgency. I find this pre to be more involving but a bit more fatiguing as well. I don't know if this has more to do with the tubes or the designs of the two amps. The PL is more complex, is dual-mono, and uses 2 tubes per channel. The AES is half the weight, uses a single transformer, but NO caps and one (different) tube per channel (the aforementioned 6SN7). I'll leave it to those moreknowledgable than I to perhaps comment on the relationship between the design and build of the two units and what I'm hearing. Paul |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 7716 Registered: May-04 | The 12AX7 and its variants are classic pre amp tubes and will always impart a smidgen, if not an outright dollop, of sweetness to the midrange. To many people this is classic dual triode sound. Without that degree of euphonic coloration, the sound can tend to the dry, analytical side of accuracy in their opinion. The 6SN7 is a tube which has come back into favor in the last decade to replace the 12 series tubes, which had originally been designed as replacements for the 6 series triodes. It runs at lower voltages and most often has a slightly more "delicate" construction. Some people consider the 6SN7 to be more "faithful" to the original signal. The tube can, however, suffer from problems of microphonics, as can all tubes, and if this problem afflicts your equipment, you will always have some amount of "glare" in the reproduction. Break out the tennis balls, Sorbothane feet, TipToes or what have you to solve this problem. I have some exquisite 6DJ8's that I would have loved to keep in my pre amp, but the only way they worked was when the pre amp was placed in a different room than the speakers. Between the two tubes, it is red or white. They should be basically similar in sound (as opposed to choosing beer) with some music preferring the partnership of the 12 series tubes and some music benefiting from the nature of the 6 series. Depending upon the skill of the designer, either tube can be made a bit more sweet or dry. Microphonics are a problem when you use vaccum tubes so I would caution you to make comparisons based on the best operating conditions for both pre amps and not with one at any disadvantage. However, one reason for the 12 series tubes to exist is to minimize this problem over the older 6 series tubes. The issue of the transformer is of little consequence in a pre amp. It is how the signal is handled after it enters the pre amp that matters most. Maintaining signal integrity from that point will determine many of the attributes audiophiles seek. Consider that pre amps just don't deal with the level of current which would typically cause problems with crosstalk or one channel suffering from a depleted power supply. Dual transformers are a selling feature in a pre amp more than a necessity. Two transformers will add to the weight of the unit most assuredly. It can be seen optimistically as a designer who is paying extra attention and willing to go to the extra expense of the second transformer. Or, it can be viewed cynically as a ploy to enable the designer to use lower quality transformers and spilt the load between the two. To me, I would see it mostly as marketing. As I stated earlier, I would rather have one high quality, dual wound toroidal transformer or, better yet, an outboard power supply; and that is most especially true when dealing with the small signal voltages and the typical amount of gain in a phono section that you will find in a pre amp. Speaking of gain stages, I would recommend to anyone that you try running your CD/DVD player into the "Tape" inputs of your pre amp rather than the dedicated "CD" inputs. Some pre amps have a small amount of gain applied to the digital/aux inputs while they might only apply the final buffering stages (or not even that, in some cases) to the "tape" inputs. If this is the case with your pre amp, you will probably notice a slightly different sound quality between the two inputs. I don't know the AES pre amp so I can't comment about its construction. I assume there are some capacitors in the input stages of the unit to block any DC which might be coming from the sources. Some designers dislike caps in the signal path and eschew their use in virtually any location in a pre or power amp other than as the necessary power supply storage/smoothing devices. If there is any small amount of DC leaking from the source equipment, which there probably is, having no caps in the signal path can cause some amplifiers, and ultimately all speakers, to be unhappy with the arrangement. With well designed and properly operating equipment this shouldn't be a problem, but it is wise to keep in mind. All things equal, I generally recommend buying the unit that weighs the most. In this case, the weight is probably largely attributable to the second transformer however. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 7717 Registered: May-04 | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6SN7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12AX7 |
|
Bronze Member Username: PaulfolbrechtPost Number: 97 Registered: Dec-05 | Hello again Jan, Thanks for the insights again. I do recall your earlier comments about dual mono (really dual transformer) pres. The PL outweights and outsizes the AES unit by a factor of two but I cannot say it sounds any "better". I cannot discern better channel separation or microdynamics or resolution in the PL. That said, I do usually prefer the sweeter sounding 12s (always been a red guy). I think you're quite right that some music favors one over the other - but I'm not going to keep two preamps. Since I'm now running EL34s in triode at the power stage, I wonder if I've already got a enough "sweetness" there. But as I said I am favoring the PL pre on string music and vocals already. I favor the AES on jazz trio or quartet and rock. Apples and oranges it is. Hmm. BTW I did pick up some low-microphonic EH tubes for the AES right off the bat as I'd read about the microphonics issue. The PL tubes are stock and I'm sure it is capable of sounding sweeter still with the right valves.......... Paul |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 7722 Registered: May-04 | Interesting article. Expensive speakers. " ... the SoloVox are not only among the best speakers you will ever hear, they might well teach you how to listen to music and what to listen for." http://www.americanwired.com/audio/a23solovox/a23solovox.html |
|
Bronze Member Username: PaulfolbrechtPost Number: 100 Registered: Dec-05 | Jan, That's just too much damn money for single-fullrange-driver speakers in wood enclosures. |
|
Silver Member Username: Two_centsPost Number: 724 Registered: Feb-04 | I didn't know that bent plywood was that costly. Let's see, if I attached 8" drivers on two of my Eames chairs, their value would increase by $8,500. Hmmm... New power cord seems to give more punch, snap and dynamics to the music. I'll keep the cord in the system for a while and then switch back to the old cord to see if the improvements were imagined. http://www.elementcable.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=24&products_id=39 |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3969 Registered: Dec-03 | April HiFi News has the dreaded Kessler showing off his vocabulary over the Prima Luna Prologue 3 and 4 separate pre- and power- amps. He likes them, that's about all I can take away. |
|
Silver Member Username: PaulfolbrechtPost Number: 102 Registered: Dec-05 | Jan, Quick question: Is it is possible to know the effect on an amp's power output switching output tubes has? My PL 7s put out 70W/ch with KT88s. I am wondering, FWIW, what EL34s in those sockets will do. I have decided to give the PL 7s another run against the Six Pacs with EL34s in both, this time. A more direct comparison. Thanks in advance, oh learned one! |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 7770 Registered: May-04 | Sorry about the delayed response, my computer and the forum don't seem to have been on good speaking terms the last few days. I'll post the response I typed yesterday in the event you have not accomplished the tube swap on the PL. I can't help you on this one. If the PL was intended to swap tubes as you plan, the owner's manual should provide the information you seek. Not every amp can just swap out tubes at will. If the owner's manual doesn't mention this swap, I would not attempt it. If you should go ahead with the trial, you can get on any of the tube guides (I think I've listed a few recently) and look at the total wattage dissipation for a KT88/6550 and a EL34 and make your guess from there as to power output for a sub'd tube. You'll see how much power the tubes will output when running in different classes of operation, so you'll need to know how the amplifier operates. For the specific tubes you have to place in the PL, you will need to know the maximum voltages (bias, plate, cathode) allowed for that specific brand and model of tube. If you put a tube into an amplifier that won't allow adjustment to the correct voltages, you will risk blowing up the tube and possibly damaging a few components in the amplifier. |
|
Silver Member Username: PaulfolbrechtPost Number: 103 Registered: Dec-05 | Jan, Since I'm paying you good money for all of this tube expertise, I would indeed appreciate somewhat timelier responses. Ha! Turns out I'm not paying anything at all, so I wouldn't apologize about taking a whole day to answer my latest question.. The PL 7s can indeed take EL34s, 6550, and KT66s in addition to its KT88s. No manual - my pair was so early it wasn't printed yet. Still coming, I'm told - and it had better be quick because they're sold now. I still liked the Six Pacs better with EL34s in both. Just a bit bloomier. *Might* be due to the triode circuit, or maybe the 0 negative FB, or both, or other things - who knows. But I like them somewhat better. If it weren't for that transformer hum, they'd be quite perfect IMO. Paul |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3972 Registered: Dec-03 | The PL2 manual has a list of recommended and not recommend tube swaps. A manual is essential; it is part of the equipment. If the dealer/distributor does not provide one, try http://www.primaluna.nl/ There is also primaluna@primaluna.nl |
|
Silver Member Username: PaulfolbrechtPost Number: 112 Registered: Dec-05 | Well, John, I've now sold the amps, and the manuals are going to the next guy. Not sure why the delay either - Kevin said they had to be signed by Croece as they all are. The PL monoblocks are stellar equipment (amazing at their price range) but I like the Cary Six Pacs just a weeee bit better. I am keeping my PL 3 preamp which has thus far destroyed all challengers. Challengers are over - I'm very happy with it. I now know I prefer the 12A?7 sound in a pre and this preamp does it as well as ANYTHING out there at virtually any cost. Cheers, Paul |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3997 Registered: Dec-03 | Cheers, Paul. The link I gave above has PrimaLuna manuals in pdf format, but not so far for the PL7. Anyway, good luck. Hey; it is not a good advertisement when the first unit in the country gets sold within weeks! |
|
Silver Member Username: PaulfolbrechtPost Number: 113 Registered: Dec-05 | You're talking about the monoblocks? Drawing any conclusions from the fact that I sold them implies that I know something - a dubious proposition! :-} As I said, they are a killer product. I just prefered the Six Pacs very slightly. And, the Pacs were cheaper for me b/c I bought them used - nearly $1000 off new retail. That counts. One thing the PL do have over the Pacs is that they are dead dead quiet. The Pacs have a bit of transformer hum, not uncommon among big tube amps. Inaudable at the listening position, but there. Again, those PL7s are just utterly dead quiet, with your ear to the driver even. Paul |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 4014 Registered: Dec-03 | Kessler in April HiFi News, reviewing the PrimaLuna Prologue 3 and 4:- "In addition to the aforementioned sense of scale and, yes, grandeur, the two pieces together produce a silky sound that's emphatically tubey without lapsing into the saccharine, chocolate box gooiness of SETs, or of old amps in need of an overhaul". |
|
Silver Member Username: PaulfolbrechtPost Number: 131 Registered: Dec-05 | You trying to point out that the PL stuff is good? It sure as heck is. I'm keeping my PL 3 preamp. It's knocked down all contenders and I'm through playing and auditioning. I think it's an amazing peice of kit for the price, definitely in league with $5,000 preamps and probably above. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 4022 Registered: Dec-03 | Paul, I wondered if anyone would respond about SETs. That reviewer is incapable of saying something is good. It is too easy to understand. He is one of these guys who you have to stop believing. I read his reviews of the PL1 and PL2, too. His summary, in the PL 2 review, was that they are as different as coke and Pepsi, "if you catch my drift". Ha ha. |
|
Gold Member Username: Rick_bOrlando, FL Post Number: 1327 Registered: Dec-03 | I wondered if anyone would respond about SETs. As to Mr. Kessler....I'm reminded of what my father told me when I was a young boy. "Never argue with a fool". Just another reviewer with no ear at all. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 4023 Registered: Dec-03 | Thanks, Rick! "It's not his ears, but what's between them, that worries me". |
|
Silver Member Username: PaulfolbrechtPost Number: 132 Registered: Dec-05 | I don't care for Kessler either (tho I did chuckle at his description of the iPod as 'semen-white' in a recent editorial). For the most part, the mags and the reviewers are full of it. Everybody knows that, right? It's an 'Old Boys Club' between the reviewers and the designers and manufacturers. It's as simple as that. While it doesn't mean reviews are faked and everything they say is nonsense, there sure is a lot of snake oil! The last thing I read in a mag that really ticked me off was a "description" (that said nothing) of how much better Tara's *$14,000 per meter* interconnect was than the next model down. Ha! |
|
Bronze Member Username: DarkmusicDover, Delaware Usa Post Number: 26 Registered: Apr-05 | On the subject of tube sound...the sound in my system has changed recently...let me try to explain...about one month ago I found an interesting (and pleasing to my ear) tube combination for my jolida 707 -- I used rca 12ax7 and at7 tubes in the preamp and some Chinese 6p3p tubes in the amp. My speakers are old tannoys. Two weeks ago I added a passive power conditioner to the system. I first connected the power unit using the dual zone connection, but later switched to high current output. The detail and soundstage improvements were dramatic (literally jaw-dropping). But I noticed that the sound I had previously associated with tube sound -- I'll call it "lush" or "warm"-- disappeared coinciding with the higher power output of the power conditioner. (I'd say about two or three blankets were lifted off my speakers and I do not remember (since 1977) hearing them sound this "clean." The sound presence is amazing... I am wondering what has happened here...is the experience as simple as clean power == clean sound, better soundstage, better imaging, better music? |