Deang

What speakers are you going to be driving? BTW, decent tube amps do not sound 'dull' when compared to most solid state in the same price range. In fact, the treble 'sparkles' when compared to the dry top end of most solid state.

I'd like to say however, that I would take a set of RB-5's and a sub over both of them. I'd be very interested in hearing the new RB-75.

...is really cool. I had one of my amps out today taking a look underneath trying to figure out if there was anything in there that could be upgraded when I get some extra money. It didn't take long to figure out that the parts that are in there are really good. The only thing I could really think of was maybe uprading the rectifier with a HEXFRED. I decided to give him a call and I just asked him, "If YOU were going to do something to these amps to raise the bar a little, what would YOU do?" "Nothing", he says. "The parts are great, the transformers are great, it's clean -- I really can't think of anything I would want to do." After 20 minutes of chatting he loosened up a little and says, "Well, you know -- I did replace the one power supply cap, the one next to the choke -- with a 750 MFD, and it did tighten up the bass somewhat. What's in there now? A 300? Yeah, you could do that -- that would be good." He told me what I needed to do, and it looks like I'm going to have a really BIG ugly blue cap for each amp to go along with the smaller ugly blue caps. He didn't like the HEXFRED idea, saying he considered them unreliable over time. I also got a really good lesson on how a cathode auto-biasing circuit works -- for all the good it did -- as I only understood about 1/2 of what he said. A great guy who obviously knows his stuff and still loves doing it.

Craig, you're a moron Yeesh, what every happened to giving an objective opinion? If you were running most anything else besides the solid state, lower powered Luxman -- I would say go with the RF-3's. However, you're keeping the Luxman -- and I think it will do well with the Heresies. Now, something to consider here. It's not just a matter of the RF-3 having a meatier low end (which is a definite plus if you plan on doing movies through the system), but the overall presentation of the midrange from the Heresies. The open and forward nature is a shock to some people initially, but in all honesty -- it is very accurate. An easy way to understand the difference between these two speakers in the midrange is by using the goofy little 5 band equalizer on your car stereo. If you take the middle slider and move it to +1 -- that would be more like the Heresy. If you take it and move it to -1 -- that would be like the RF-3. Not a perfect analogy, but close enough. I think the upper treble is cleaner with the titanium domes behind the horn (Reference) -- that's just what I hear. The Heresy actually has a really good sounding bass, especially if you stay close to walls or corners. At high SPL's, you might find the midrange horn taking over a bit. Think live, amplified music here. The RF-3's will go louder without pinning your ears back. The Heresies will deliver better low level detail and dynamics at low to moderate listening levels. The RF-3's image better -- but Heresies will fill a room up with sound right quick. People used to three-way horns find Reference lacking. People used to 'audiophile' type speakers and two-ways -- find Heritage somewhat aggressive. Help any?

You really need to learn how to think in the abstract.

It's not nice to talk about Mark that way.

What kind of shape is your ST-70 in? Those are very nice units. Have you considered sending it to Craig for a tune up, or have you done this already? The 299's are nice, but so is the Dynaco stuff. I don't think you can get a fair appraisal of the ST-70 until you get a decent preamp in front of it. Where are you coming up with the $1000 figure -- there are two AE-3's on Audiogon right now selling for less than $400. The following thread might be of interest to you and Craig both. http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.pl?forum=tubes&n=44167&highlight=wiring+in+triode&r=&session=

http://webace.com.au/~electron/tubes/ I've been there most of the night.

Snap, crackle, pop, snap, crackle, pop, snap, crackle, pop -- bringing you closer to the "live" event.

No man, you're losing it. My browser went wacky -- but you actually posted the same post in both threads!

Mark, Are you the same 'Mark Deneen' of Paragon fame?

Double post. Oh well, mind as well make good use of it. I need some help understanding what is going on when one bypasses the grid of a pentode tube, and goes 'triode'. I've been reading some stuff that indicates this is really cheating the circuit, and that to do it right involves more than just strapping a resistor across the pins. Also, my question from the original thread -- Are you the same 'Mark Deneen' of Paragon fame?

"So then, what's the advantage to changing the Heresy from 8 ohms down to 4 ohms? Just to be able to handle more power from a SS amp at a 4 ohm load?" I don't understand at all how this works with solid state, since solid state works with current as opposed to voltage. I have no idea why a solid state amp would have different taps. Out of my realm. The only thing I know and believe is that the appropriate tap is dictated by the lowest point in the impedance curve.

The reason I brought up the ALKs, is because Al's crossover turns the Cornwall into a 4 ohm speaker. With tube amps, the opinion of most is that the transformer should not see an impedance lower than the taps that are being used. So, an '8 ohm' speaker that dips down to 4 ohms on occasion -- should be put on the 4 ohm taps. Not everyone believes this though, and even Leo went turncoat and recently bought some 8 ohm tapped Magnaquest transformers for his Moondogs and RF7's.

Nice work. Craig, Why does it always look like the Eico has less parts than the Scott? Is it just an optical illusion?

Mint Dynaco IV's for a pitance and everyone wants to get picky.

$125! You gotta be kidding?

The two speakers DO NOT use the same horn. Also, according to the signature block, looks like he is already running a second system with RB-5's. At any rate, the RB-3's employ the newest driver technology. You should always go to the next level if you can afford it.

Does he have the ALKS?

Justin made a funny.

Yes, they are pentode push-pull.

Michael Hurd is next, then Kelly. I really enjoyed the book, so much so I read through it twice. I read the chapter, "The Speaker Years" -- many more times. It was nice to find out that he just wasn't brilliant, but decent and good as well. I may meet him someday yet.

"Interesting, so what are the limitless connection possibilties?" I have no idea, I don't do amplifiers. What preamp are you using in front of the ST-70? I don't know what to think about what you just said. Is your ST-70 running straight-up PP/Ultra-Linear? I sure wouldn't characterize the Quicksilvers that way (lacking in bandwidth). Hey! Check this out...

Chris, I'm curious here about your description. Is it that the Wright's are more 'articulate', which is a word I use to describe a systems ability to keep everything intact and free from congestion during complex passages -- or is it they have a higher degree of 'immediacy', in the sense of more low level detail resolving power -- like taking things normally layered deep in the music, and bringing it to the top? The reason I ask is because based on my limited experience -- I would actually use the former to describe good push-pull, and the latter to describe SET.

I'm with Kenrat on this one. Something like that shows up on my wall and it's definitely getting the shotgun.