Deang

It would really be more helpful if signature lines included ... a SIGNATURE! Monikers are cool -- but I'd much rather know someones real name. Equipment lists are good. It actually annoys me when I don't see one. I can't give good advice without some kind of reference point. Those of you with loads of equipment should take advantage of all the available space on the rest of the page. Why this need to create a 2 dozen line, vertical list -- when the whole thing can be done in four lines horizontal? Then there is the important stuff we all leave off: Room size, acoustical properties of the room, how far away we sit, what we like to listen too, and how loud we like to listen.

I thought it was 'left' angles that caused distortion in wires. Crap, now I have to rewire my whole system.

That machine is a giant killer. Several things set it apart from most of what is out there. 1. It was developed by Sony's video shop -- not the audio guys, and they were working independantly. Competitive spirit here pushed out a machine that many favored over the 777. Bruce Edgar used (uses?) it to demo his monster setup. 2. It's a two-channel only deck. So, the entire design is worked around 2 channels instead of 5. Less is more. There is almost 15 pounds of chassis, and the power supply caps are almost as big as what I've seen in most amps. Almost 30 pounds total. 3) It's beautiful. Exudes quality, and just sounds great. Did you ever play with the filter settings? Sony's little inside joke on 'audiophile' decks. I call the 'Soft' setting the 'Rega Planet Setting'.

I like Steve Decware's little SET amp based on the EL-34. I'd love to hear that thing. Mark, I don't buy into the 'milliwatt' thing, but It does seem logical that if you're running big Heritage and 3.5 watts, you should easily get 90-95 db at 12 feet and still have plenty of headroom. I've been experimenting over here for a while with this power thing, and what I've decided is that there is SPL, and then there is unbridled, unrestricted SPL. I think some peaks happen so fast, the meter just doesn't pick them up -- but the ears do. If I compare 100db on the RF-7's and Quicksilvers to 100db with the Scott and Cornwalls -- it's interesting. The RF-7 based system sounds effortless and free breathing, while the Cornwalls and Scott start pinching and compressing. At 95 db however, the Scott and Cornwalls pull even. There is certainly more going on here than what the meter is saying. That said, I just can't imagine anyone needing more than 20 watts for big Heritage, unless someone does most of their listening at 100db or more -- which is insane. 100 db is freaking loud. The Quicksilver products: Most of the amps on that list are poor choices for Heritage speakers. Early Mike Sanders designs had a reputation for driving tubes very hard. Most of those early designs are pulling 80-90 watts out of four EL-34's or KT-88's, and were tube rectified too boot. They have a reputation for sounding great, but going through tubes very fast. Users of the early stuff would go through a new set of output tubes once a year. The Mono-60 was his first design that ran the tubes honestly -- which is why he ended up with four EL-34's to get 60 watts. I asked him why he stopped making them, and he said sales started slipping because people didn't want to dish out for two quads of EL-34's when they could get 80 watts with four KT-88's. He agreed with me that the M-60's sounded better. Incidently, Mike Sanders listens to horns -- and his stuff is voiced accordingly. If I had the big horns -- I would probably want to hear the Mini-Mites on them. The Horn Mono's were designed specifically for big horns, and supposedly sound great -- but there is a load of feedback in the design. I'm O.K. with some feedback -- but I think he went coo-coo for cocoa puffs on those things. Of course, I don't know jack squat about amps -- so who am I to say anything. There is a review at the Stereophile site on the Horn-mono's -- they seemed to like them quite a bit. Personally, experience has taught me that if you want to go separates, you can cheat on the amp(s) a little bit -- but don't cheat on the preamp. I still think most of the front end signature comes from the preamp. The biggest changes in sound over here happened when I switched preamps -- every time.

I don't know, you could probably use it as a Frisbee --

God likes you more than he likes me. He always makes me pay full price. I guess that's what I get for not tithing. Luck is not a factor, and you better give glory to God before He decides to melt one of your transformers.

Quicksilver M-60's: EL-34 based, 60 wpc monoblocks, designed and built by Mike Sanders of Quicksilver Audio. I use them for my RF-7's. I paid $950 for them off of Audiogon. I would consider these major overkill for the Belles -- in a major way. You only need about 20 to 30 watts max.

Man, whacked upside the head by Tom again. I don't know, I've had some pretty nice solid state in the house. I'm sure Bryston sounds as least as good as McIntosh. Overdriven tubes through tube amps and Klipsch sounds more like the real deal to me than the same sound through the solid state I've had. I can only go by what I've heard in my house. I wasn't aware so many of those guys used SS on stage. Thank the Lord I'm reproducing that stuff with tubes or I wouldn't be able to deal with it. I guess I do prefer the somewhat fat, rich, and somewhat softer sound of tubes over the power and control SS gives. I do believe the Quicksilvers give most of both, which is why I think I'm so hooked on them. Ed, I didn't pry that one from Craig. I won it off an eBay auction. I had bought Craig's original 299a, and was so impressed with it I decided to upgrade to the 299b. The one pictured on Craig's site is Craig's original 299a that I bought from him. Both of these amps received some major cosmetic treatments. It takes me about 5 hours to go over the chassis with 1500 grit, .000 steel wool, vacuuming, Windex, and ISP. I pretty much cover every inch.

That 'CDP' sitting on the floor is actually a POS DVD player. Who you trying to kid Ed? Everyone knows DVD players produce nothing but earbleed on horns. Shameful, just shameful. I should have bought two of those when I had the money. Cool how good stuff just sounds 'good', and it almost doesn't matter what it is as long as one doesn't cheat on the preamp.

"...dedicated 2-channel horn systems by self proclaimed audiophiles...I would agree that 2-channel only horn hobbiests/audii philes seems to gravitate to tubes and few seem to swear them off after embracing them." Yes, this is what I was thinking of. Yes, rope caulk everywhere. Caulk everything. I even used it to damp the woofer basket and to add some mass. I even wrap a band around my head while kicked back and listening -- got to damp those resonances you see. The next step is to get a stack of Deflex damping pads and line your bass bin. You can bankrupt yourself with upgrades on the front end -- trying to bring nirvana. The quickest path to satisfaction is putting your time and money into the Belles. On the tube power end -- most of this stuff is just a stone's throw away from each other sound wise. You need richness and warmth behind those Belles, and something like the reasonably priced Scott is just the ticket. Rock-n-Roll, 2-channel movies, and Radio is not going to benefit all that much from the refinement of SET, or other highly refined pieces that will set you back some. The Scott is just a great place to start, and in the end, you may find you could have stopped with it. I KNOW. There is only so much money, and you want to get things up to speed as fast as possible without taking out a 2nd mortgage. There are advantages to using amps that aren't the ultimate in transparency. One of those things is not having to use a $1000 CD player to get the edge off of the digital that transparent amps bring forward. I KNOW. I use my Cornwalls for late night listening. My source is a Marantz DVD player. Last night I put in Korn 'Untouchables', barely turned up the Scott -- and really had great listening session. Now, about those RF-7's...

The "rats nest". Never,ever, judge a book by it's cover. Yeah, The Jolida is pretty, but you're not going to see anything like this underneath. Imagine trying to solder all those points.

I guess beauty really is in the eye of the beholder.

O.K., maybe she won't win a beauty pageant, but I've seen worse. Find one in good shape, buy an aftermarket cheapy cabinet, slide it into a shelf, and they look pretty decent. I actually think they are kind of cool looking, and it's pretty neat having the extra controls -- they DO come in handy.

kjohnsonhp -- get something like a used AE-3 ($400 or less) in front of that Dynaco -- and you can live happily after too.

Is it accidental that 99% end up using tubes to run their horns? Not just here either, but the world over. Three years ago, most of here were using SS. I was using a tube preamp, but 200 watts of Luxman on my RB-5's! With the exception of Jeff, I can't think of one single person who has gone back to SS. I still think the problem there was not having an active preamp driving the Manley Stingray. Tubes get you closer to a harmonically 'correct' sound. There will be texture and richness. If you want to hear what Marshalls sound like -- reproduce the sound with the same technology that makes a Marshall sound like a Marshall. Personally, I think you'll be fine on the bass. C'mon man, your missing a horn loaded 15" driver! You'll get some natural room gain, and 90% of the music you'll probably play ain't going to go down past 40Hz anyways. Your ears will adjust. You're trading some slam for detail (actually hearing the individual bass notes). The pitch will be right and it will have great pace. Quit second guessing your choice -- the Belles are the bomb. Now go get yourself a Scott 229a or 299b. Have Craig work it over, and be done with it. You'll have tube rectification, plenty of power, tone controls, a balance knob, and a phono section. Four out of the five things just mentioned you will not get with a Jolida. Once you've seen the makeup of a Scott, you'll understand why no one builds anything like them anymore. A $600 investment gets you $2500 or more worth of tube integrated. Get settled in, rope caulk the squawker, clean up the wiring, get some decent tubes -- and live happily ever after.

You guys are a bunch of kooks. Cary rules, and it doesn't matter if it's 6SN7 or 12AU7 -- just make sure it's tube rectified. They just plain sound great.

If I was running Scala's, K-horns, or Belles -- there is no doubt I would be running Triodes or Beam Tubes minus the grid connection on the tubes. Those three-way horns just don't NEED the additional drive and extension through the middle and top that UL provides. I think it's probably true with the Cornwall as well, but the lower sensitivity puts it on the border. I think straight up pentode is a good compromise with them.

I've heard both the LaScalas and Klipschorns several times, and there ain't no way a Cornwall can match the speed and articulation of the horn loaded bass. I do think the 'fullness' of the Cornwall bass fills in the bottom better, helping to balance out the output of squawker (as Tom pointed out). I think the ALKS would help here too, as m00n could move the squawker leads to the other taps (lowering the output of the squawker).

Magnet wire is an excellent choice for those interconnects -- you did good. You'll have fun doing the upgrades over time, and they will give you 'more'. Don't forget to throw the Scott in there from time to time, and throw on some Led Zeppelin -- just to keep those caps broken in and your ears cleaned out.

I couldn't have said that better myself. That's exactly it. I forget in what thread I said it, but 95 db with the Quicksilvers sounds loads better than 95 db did with the 18 wpc SET amps. I could get 95 to 100 db with the Apollos, but it wasn't all that much fun to listen too. I do 95 db with the Quicksilvers, and the bandwidth just seems to go on forever in both directions. There is no edge, and I'm not grinding my teeth. The difference is substantial. I think the transparency and immediacy of SET is awesome, but as soon as I would take the Apollos up a little, things would get nasty very quickly. The bass of the Apollos was outstanding, better than the Quicksilvers to my ear -- but I've been wondering how much of what I was hearing was really just the 2nd order harmonic distortion of the low notes piggy backing on the fundamentals. It's a double edge sword. If you want the ultimate in transparency, you're going to have to give up the 'big sound'. Incredible imaging with the Apollos, which could push the soundstage almost to my chair at even the lowest volume levels. I do miss that sometimes -- buy hey, you can't have it all. However, I can achieve the same effect with the Quicksilvers by simply turning them up a little more. I just think the hard driving stuff, and Rock in general, just sounds better overall with some power underneath it all. Choices should REALLY be based on size of the listening room, choice of music, and general listening habits. Everyone doesn't listen to K-horns and Jazz, that's just a fact -- Now, where's that Chevelle CD

I know it may not be possible for you -- but try to get the Belles as close to the walls as possible. In corners would be the best. After you get your bank account built back up, you can buy some ALK crossovers from Al K.

SS bass is tight, fast, and punchy. Tube bass is slower, more rounded, and more like a thump instead of a whack. With tubes, the bass notes hang around long enough to enjoy them. In comparison, with SS, the notes almost seem like they're over before you have a chance to get into them. No time to savor.

Nice. What recipe did you use for the interconnects? Chris Vanhaus'? How would you characterize the difference in signatures between the Scott and Bottleheads?

Oh man, you gonna take me on with half your tubes glowing. Dude, you're brave. What a waste of some good 6550's -- get 'em all together and then cut their balls off. You must have meant to say my '8' wimpy EL-34s.

Of course, as soon as you move to the KT-88 or 6550, you lose most of the midrange warmth and texture. The treble won't 'sparkle' as much either. My experience with the EL-34 to date is that it exhibits the attributes normally used to describe the tube sound. They in fact sound 'tubey'. A little fat, warm, and smooth as electric velvet. Having run KT-88's (somewhat similiar to the 6550) in the Superamp DJH, I don't really feel the additional drive and slam in the lower registers is worth giving up the magic midrange for. I really enjoy putting the juice to the RF-7's and never having the top harden up or go strident. The treble is oh so sweet and rich. When that Jolida 'opens up', what you will notice is the soundstage expanding outwards and forwards (bloom), and there will be more focus (stable images within the soundstage). Craig, Someday, we will have to run the Quicksilvers against the Mark III's. Doesn't that sound like fun? Your tube rectified, fast and deep 6550's against my eight (8) EL-34's and solid state rectification. I was always partial to small blocks anyway!