Deang

I was willing to sacrifice some of liquid in the middle to get the power. Hey, what's an old hard rocker like me to do? I had completely written off SET because of the power limitations, but when these amps popped up on AudiogoN -- I felt they were right up my alley. Of course, the power doesn't really do much good if the tubes are going start ringing like a telephone every time I put a little juice to them. Because of the impedance issue, and my simply obnoxious listening habits -- I NEEDED CURRENT, POWER, GIVE IT TO ME NOW...uh, I'm O.K. I'm a little concerned right now, and am looking forward to getting home and moving some things around. I'm especially concerned about the AE-3. As I was gently tapping tubes last night, one of the 6SN7's was very sensitive to movement. The KR' ping a little when tapped, but damn -- there's a lot of glass there, and it didn't really surprise me. Tapping on the AE-3's chassis next to the tube socket brought major ringing, and gently rocking the tubes in their sockets brought sounds that only the best haunted houses could compete with. One tube socket/6SN7 is especially bad in relationship to the amp it is feeding. Since it was on the same side as the channel that's slightly louder, I did the following: 1) I powered everthing down and changed the 6SN7's around -- no change. The problem stayed on the same channel. 2) I powered everything down again and put in the NOS CBS Brownbase 5692's -- no change. The problem stayed on the same channel. 3) Repeated the above with the stock Chinese 6SN7's. Again, no change. 4) I switched around the interconnects on the amps coming from the AE-3 -- and the "problem" moved to the other channel. I took out the AE-3 and opened it up. I checked all the solder joints on the back of the tube socket, all the wiring going back to the RCA jacks, and the associated solder connections. Everything "looked" good with the exception of a resistor that was sitting on top of a solder joint on one of the socket standoffs. I moved the resistor off the standoff. Well, that wasn't causing the problem. I may send the AE-3 back to Cary and have Kirk give it a going over. I don't really know what else to do.

Max, the problem isn't posting pictures using links from another web page. The problem is posting pictures into the post taken with my digital camera, and stored on my hardrive. I could have used the 'attachment' feature -- but you can only attach one picture. Gee, I guess I could have submitted 8 posts. Randy, Your'e right. Living with tubes for the last couple of years definitely tames the 'wow' factor. I read once that the Super Amp DJH gets one 90% of SET. I think I can agree with that. However, it's also true that the Apollos do not deliver the liquid midrange of a 2a3 - and so this might also account for why my jaw wasn't dropped -- so to speak. Ed, Yes, I'm using the AE-3 DJH. I sure wish It had a balance control. As usual, I have a little bit of image drift, and it seems one of the Apollos has a slightly elevated output as compared to the other. Since there is no adjustable bias feature, there is no way for me to even things out. Looks like I'll be buying new output tubes. Kelly, Based on what I have been reading in the manual, it appears my noise level is excessive. I may have a ground loop. I think I may also need to go into the amps and check all of the grounding connections. I'm getting ready to read the info at the link you sent me on polarity -- hopefully, I will find something there that will help. Also, you were right, the alternative for the output tubes is the V52. Apparently, based on your posts on the Welborne Forum -- you favor the V52 over the KR300BXLS. Is this a direct replacement (drop in) -- or do I have to make a change within the amp to accomodate this tube?

Kelly, I sent you mail with pics attached, uh -- I think. AOL compressed the damn things into one file, so I have no idea what you are going to see. In addition, when I'm this tired I become just about completely inept. Jeff, yes -- these are the amps that were on AudiogoN Crash, where abouts do you live, and who's "droning"? Sure easier for you to drag some Heresies and an Eico here, than for me to drag 300lbs of SET and RF7's to you:) We might have to come back and report how you waxed my *** with two squawkers and an Eico:) As far as the amplifier "merry-go-round" goes, well...4 amps in a little over a year ain't THAT bad. Thanks to AudiogoN, each upgade ran me about $300, including this one. It's been fun climbing the ladder, and I've been able to try some things I otherwise would never have been able to try.

Let me guess -- I'm the only one that can see them. I don't get it. I actually have to find a server to host these damn things before they can show up here!! You got to be kidding. Upgraded forum? What B.S. I'll figure out a way to do it in the morning. I need to go to bed. What do you think about the microphonics problem Kelly? SET amps more of a problem in this area.

This post was my lame attempt at posting some pictures. Please bring back the old forum.

...buy SET ...and give the rest to the poor I had to find out for myself, and I have. These "pure distortion devices" make a luxurious sound. The Welborne Apollos showed up today, and I had a nice, extended lunch break. I hurt my back a little when I pulled one of the amps out the box while I as in a somewhat awkward position. I was fighting back peanuts and twisted my upper body to get the amp and bubble wrap to clear the top of the box. Damn, it hurt. Each monoblock weighs 12 pounds more than the Super Amp. They are heavy. Almost 50 lbs a piece. I buy solid state amps by the pound (the Aragon 4004 MK II weighs in at 75lbs), but never really thought about it in regards to tube amps -- which is strange, because so much of what a tube amp does is related to the transformers. Externally, the amps are gorgeous. I figured even if they sounded like crap, I was going to keep them for asthetic reasons alone. No scratches, dings, or otherwise. There are some micro-knicks on one of the edges of the transformer covers, but one would have to be as anal retentive as me to notice. The bottom plates are not perfect, there are some "scuffs" -- but the wood around the bottom edges are flawless. The KR300BXLS output tubes are about the size of a three-way light bulbs. Actually, I think they ARE three-way light bulbs -- and KR must be making a mint relabeling these things. I wiped them both down with some damp paper towels, and then hoisted them upstairs with my back already going into spasms. Yesterday I referred to them as "The Apollos". Today -- I called them many other things. I had everything all set up, awaiting their arrival, and so I just put them in place, put the tubes in, attached the wires, and powered them up. They hum alright, with a little buzzing just to make things interesting. Not too bad though. It was expected, so it didn't surprise me. I was letting them warm up when I heard a very slight, barely discernable thump. They do have some kind of internal startup sequence that I'm not quite up to speed with -- so I ignored it. After a few minutes I went to grab a CD. Remembering most of anything I wanted to hear was downstairs, I leaned over and punched the eject button to see what was sitting in the 9000. Pantera's Cowboys from Hell Did I really want to subject these things to that sort of abuse? I hit play and dialed up to about 8 o'clock. O.K. This is cool. Like the Super Amp DJH, but the leading edge of the transients aren't as sharp. It's warmer, and the remaing splash from the treble is gone. Most of digital "splash" vanished after I added the 9000ES -- now it's completely gone. What's left are cymbals that trail away into the empty space. Nice. Imaging is about the same as the DJH. It's a little different, but I can't put my finger on it just yet. Listening to this made me think about how good the Super Amp DJH must really be. I have to honestly say here that the difference isn't worth getting excited about. Actually, I'm glad -- because I thought the Super Amp DJH did a fantastic job of throwing an image. The Apollos are the same. It's wide and deep, and most of the sound just kind of hangs out there in front of you. The bass is not as dynamic, not quite the authority of the AE-25 DJH, but nice and tight -- with good body. Very natural sounding and more than easy to live with. The Apollos' bass is not quite as percussive in character, but very musical and articulate. The bass work on this Pantera CD is insane, and I could easily hear every blistering note. Like the treble, the midrange is also warmer. A nice glow instead of a hot white light. The Apollos somehow do this without giving up clarity and detail. I thought the Super Amp DJH kicked some serious butt in the clarity department -- and the Apollos match it, but without the brightness that usually comes with clarity. The RF7's seem happy with these guys. If there is a problem in the frequency response due to any dips in impedance -- I don't hear it. Of course, the amps are wired to the 4 ohm taps -- maybe this helps. At any rate, everything is just dandy from top to bottom. I thought going from the Bryston to the stock Super Amp was a pretty big jump in quality of sound. The move to the DJH version of the Super Amp was a couple of notches better still. The Apollos cover about the same amount of distance as the jump from the stock Super Amp to the DJH version. It just might be easier to say that all four amps are in the ballpark. The Bryston is in the nosebleed section. The stock Super Amp is playing shallow center. The DJH model is covering second. The Apollos are on the mound. I'll leave that distance between the mound and homeplate for Moondogs, Laurels, and cost no object state of the art designs. I will need to email Al K. and a couple of others regarding my findings. I'm sure these things will pinch up if I take them to the limit -- but that's not why I bought them. Even at 8 o'clock on the preamp, it's loud enough. I'll throw a little juice on the RF7's later and see what happens. I'll add some pics later tonight after I get home. Again, thanks Kelly, for always working to help me keep an open mind.

RB5's and RSW12 or SVS 20-39+ and Samson 1000 amp would be a superior sonic experience.

Oh yes, I think about that often. I thought about it yesterday when I read Colin's post about being embarrassed to hear his K-horns in the store when he bought them, and then getting home and hooking them up to his Bottleheads -- and being very pleased. Now, this certain thing that I hear -- this "rightness" in my brain -- I heard with RB5's and the RF7's with solid state gear. I can't help it the RF7's sound great with just about anything you shove at them, and Heritage only sounds great with 3 watts:)

Now we know the truth. Now we know what Kelly really drives those Cornwalls with -- for I see cables coming off of that monster. Unbelievable -- the Moondogs are only for show!

The rectifier changes AC to DC. Tube rectification works good in low power designs, not so well in higher power, higher current designs. Kelly, please say I finally said something intelligent -- it's been a long month.

It's mostly about preference. In the late 70's, when I first got into this stereo "thing" -- I started with the Original Advents and Powered Advents. In the early 80's, while shopping for something new, I heard the Heresys and Klipschorns as well -- but opted for AR-11's and G.A.S. In the late 80's and early 90's, I heard some of the KG series of speakers -- I opted for Magnepan and Luxman. In 2000, I heard the RB5's -- and now more than ever, feel the reason I liked them so much is because they brought me back to what I had in the late 70's and early 80's -- without the limitations of those designs. I think the ears and brain just get used to a certain sound early on, and subsequent upgrades are simply an attempt to improve on the general signature that one has pre-determined is "right". Because of this, it doesn't surprise me those who have been initiated into the Heritage lineup early on, find the the Reference offerings disappointing. The signatures are very different. I OTOH, find Heritage disappointing. Whatever it is in the RB5 and RF7 that draws me into the music, I find lacking when exposed to the Heresys and LaScalas. Some of you probably don't understand that any more than I can't understand how some of you can listen to a pair of RF7's and not be completely enamored. I find the comments by Maxg and NOZ the most interesting. Max, because he now listens to an old set of Sansuis, and NOZ, because the SPL's he normally seems to listen to -- would make it difficult to detect and differentiate the more subtle tangibles: imaging, low level detail, and overall resolving power. A two-way is a two-way, and in spite of the RF7 being rated take 250 watts -- would probably not sound very good with bass drivers jumping out of the box while trying to reproduce the midrange. This is the limitation of a two-way using cones for the midrange. However, I can generate as much SPL with the RF7's using a 15 watt tube amp, as I can with my DQ-10's being driven by 200 watts -- and distortion is very low. I can't even imagine pushing 100 "real" watts, much less 200, through a pair of RF7's. No, you are not going to get the lightning fast transients of the Scala, or the big sound of a Forte, Cornwall, or K-horn -- but the RF7 does not leave you empty. I'll just say the RB5's replaced a set of much loved Magnepans. Now NOZ, when I saw the pics of your setup, it looked like the RF7's were pulled way into the room, and it didn't look like you had them toed in any. At the time I thought how much better it would sound if you pushed them back to get some bass reinforcement from the back wall, and toed in -- to maximize the effect of the imaging. Of course, by the time I saw the pic -- you had sold them. Max -- when funds permit, you might seriously consider giving Reference another shot. Biwire, spend a little time with placement -- and discover what a two-way can really do. Do you remember when you said the following? What has changed? "...the RF7's - wow. Having heard the very mixed reviews I was not expecting much. This is the closest thing to a Heritage speaker Klipsch has produced in a long time IMHO. Like a Heresy but with some serious bass. That bass is tight and well controlled highs are breezy and mids strong. All in all I was impressed, and they do a lot better job with classical than the RF3's. Were I currenly in the market, the RF7's would command my very serious attention." "The RF7 is a stand out speaker from the show (along with the KHOrns, the Martin Logan and another pair of electronstatic speakers called Finals). The RF7 is, IMHO, the first of the reference series that can almost match the Heritage range where it counts for me - in the mids and highs. Previously I have found that the horn drivers on the reference range were lacking in comparison to the Heresy's (for example) although obviously the bass is far larger. My test pieces for the speakers were: Dire Straits - Private investigations, Three Blind Mice test recording with Bridge over Troubled water and Dvorak's New World Symphony Ist movement. In other words, rock jazz and classical which covers 99% of my collection. It handled the lot with aplomb, and I was particulary taken with the staging of the classical work, although tonally I might question the Kettle drum that plays such a large part in the first movement bit it would be a minor quibble. Trumpets, sax and voice are particularly well reproduced (possibly as well as on my Heresy's - although I did not have them side by side for comparison and was therefore working from memory). Strings are not (IMHO as always) a strong point of the reproduction on Klipsch speakers generically. For me even the KHorn over-emphasises the string draw in relation to the trial off resulting in a higher impact than I have experienced live. This can be wearing over time and tends to tire me as a listener." Now, imagine the RF7's properly set up, in a decent listening room, with gear suited to their strengths.

My "list" wasn't really skewed at all. It was a valid question. One, or more of those characteristics account for the RF7's supposedly being better suited for HT. My point is -- that whatever characteristic(s) contributes to this idea -- will also bode equally well for music. The Forte's have a larger front baffle with which to launch the soundfield. This, with the passive radiator -- probably helps to fill a room better. The tradeoff is loss of pinpoint imaging and some accuracy. The RF7's, like any narrow tower, are somewhat finicky about placement. Find the right spot, and they fill the room. At least, mine do. As a matter of fact, they pretty much fill the whole house. It is probably true that in one type room, the Forte might respond better -- and in another type room, the RF7. Yes, they are "bright", but I liken it more to "crisp" and "open". The RF7's can disappear in a room. I do not know what the Apollos will bring. I am hoping for much of what I already had with the AE-25 DJH, along with additional richness, texture, and better tonal accuracy. Basically -- I want to hear Marshall amps, Les Pauls, and Stratocastors in my listening room, not speakers trying to sound like Marshall amps, Les Pauls, and Stratocasters. I'm much like Kelly in that with the exception of my Magnepans and the RF7's -- I have owned monitors all my life. The monitor quality imaging is actually what drew me to the RF7. They sound very much like RB5's that have been pumped full of steroids. It's a "tight" sound, that's "big". Incidently, when I first got the RF7's -- in one of my first posts regarding impressions, I stated how late at night, at low levels -- how much they reminded me of my Sennheiser HD600's. Very hard for me to imagine not having a pair. If I had it to do all over again -- I would have bought 4.

I have a friend that runs my old RC7's (I used two for L/R) with 2 Adcom 555 MKII's (biamped). It can be an assault on the ears with some source material, and overall -- I think it's painful. The RF7's are very crisp, and the Adcoms seem to turn that crispness into shattered glass. In other words -- very, very, bright, and grainy as hell. It's a great speaker, and you are going to want to mate that Adcom with a tube preamp, or upgrade the amp. Get the RF7's -- you'll enjoy them as long as you don't take the knob past 9 or 10.

So, what is it about the RF7 that makes it superior for HT as compared to the Fortes? Better micro-dynamics? Better articulation? Less grain in the midrange? More Open? Better imaging? Flatter response? And which of these is one willing to have less of, while reproducing music? An accurate reproducer should do both equally well. I don't even want to get it into the 2-way/3-way thing. I heard the KLF 30's and RF7's less than a month apart on the same equipment -- and the RF7's were much more musical. I say since he already has a very nice set of Fortes that he is going to take to the grave with him, he should buy some RF7's, and experience the magic for himself.

I'm interested... please email at dean.wescott@wpafb.af.mil so we can talk offline

RB5's -- 2 years

B&K over all of it

I like hard crap. Have you heard anything off of Fuel's first two CD's?

From the tribe of Judah

2nd answer... ....overdriving them with more power than they were designed to handle. As long as you don't drive your 25 watt amp into clipping -- you're not going to hurt anything. Jim!! You know this crap already!! Also, with 25 watts on a horn loaded 15" driver -- I bet it wasn't moving at all, much less a 1/4".

Think he's got some Moondoggies tucked away somewhere?

My SET mono-blocks will play louder than your SET mono-blocks No need to call Dennis about that, we've already had that discussion. Have you ever read the following from Dennis on the Cary site? He may design SET amps, but I believe he prefers triode P-P. "To illustrate a couple of vertically bi-amplified home systems, I would like to share two examples used in my home: System number one has a pair of B&W 801 Nautilus loudspeakers. This loudspeaker is a three-way design with a 15" woofer, a midrange driver and a tweeter. The crossover has bi-wirable separate inputs for the woofer and one for the tweeter midrange section. I have a pair of the new Cary Audio Design Rocket 88 stereo amplifiers driven by the Cary SLP-2002 preamplifier. One of the Rocket 88's is for the left channel and the other is for the right channel. This is called a vertical bi-amp system. In this usage, one stereo amp is used for each channel with one channel driving the 15" woofer and the other stereo channel driving the midrange tweeter. Two separate sets of speaker cables are used for each loudspeaker. The inputs of the Rocket 88 amplifiers are joined together with combining interconnects that Cary Audio now offers. In this case they are balanced to balanced "Y" connectors. I am running the channel that feeds the woofers in the ultra-linear 40 watt per channel mode with the speaker impedance switch set at 4 ohms. On the same Rocket 88 amplifier the midrange tweeter channel is run in the 20-watt triode mode at 8-ohm output. The end result is astonishing. The sound stage width and depth increased appreciably and even when played at extremely loud levels the presentation stays focused and life size. The sonic improvement over a single stereo amplifier is not subtle. System number two consists of a pair of Magnapan 1.6QR Planar loudspeakers. This system uses two V12 stereo amplifiers. I have one channel of a stereo V12 amplifier running in the ultra-linear 4-ohm position for the main bass & midrange panel and the other channel operating in ultra-linear 8-ohm position for the tweeter panel. This gives me great balance with more air in the high frequencies, along with great control in the bass & mid-midrange. Again, I've gotten fabulous results, even better than a single pair of V-12 mono blocs!"

Depends on the person. I've changed my mind about a lot of things related to politics and religion over the last 10 years. I listen to people. If what they say has some validity -- I investigate it -- instead of putting my head in the sand. I would never say anything about anyone's grandmother, unless she wore army boots. Ranger?

Justin, You are young too, and very intelligent -- so think about what you said. It is NOT pointless. People say: "Never discuss religion and politics". Is it any wonder that these two subjects are the ones that people are the most ignorant in? I say embrace them. Debate, argue, wrestle with the ideas, and know that in the end -- you will be a better person for it. People will never come to agreement on all things. However, it's not always about agreement, but about knowing why a person feels the way they do, and then knowing them as a person. Seeing into the soul of person helps to create compassion and compromise -- which is far better than hate and death. Want to cut down on terrorism? First adopt a realistic middle eastern foreign policy that effectively deals with the cultural and religious diversity in the area. Eveyone needs to be on a level playing field. Favoritism is not acceptable, for "God is not a respector of persons...". Part of that foreign policy forces Israel to comply with the two U.N. Sercurity Council Resolutions they have been in violation of since 1967, which deal with Israel moving back to the pre 1967 borders. Finally, the establishment of a Palestinian State would go a long way to the building up of a true trust relationship between the United States and the Arab/Muslim people.

Yes, I really like the DJH Super Amp. I will probably buy another someday. I can't argue with anything you said, as I understand the points made fairly well. Still, I think specs are important, and a good sounding tube amp specs out fairly good in most areas, and a bad sounding tube amp specs out horribly. There is a place for the numbers, and they shouldn't be totally discounted. I am where I am now, because I found out for myself that a 15 watt pp amp sounded better than one of the better solid state amps on the market. The Super Amp however, is a well designed unit with good parts and attention to detail. I don't believe ANY tube amp would have sounded better than the Bryston. I just think a good tube amp will spec out better than a bad one. That's all I meant by "middle" ground. The numbers have a place -- that's all. I agee that SOME of the numbers don't mean anything, and there are yet numbers to be found for things the brain itself hears. So now I will find out the difference between SET and PP, and find out if it is indeed "better". I'm testing the waters so to speak. Just putting my foot into the water to see what it feels like. But even if the water feels good, it will be difficult for me to let go of the watts. Watts mean headroom, and more headroom means less distortion. I think there's a spec for that somewhere:)