robert_kc

There are many modern classical recordings that were captured in hi-res, and are available to consumers in a variety of hi-res formats (SACD, Blu-ray, Pure Audio Blu-ray, Ultra HD Blu-ray, 24bit/192kHz downloads, and DSD downloads). Hi-res recordings are available in stereo, multi-channel, and audio/video. For classical music, “LPs vs. CDs” is a false dichotomy.

Here's my 2 cents:Terminate the speaker cables with banana plugs. Wire the amplifiers' speaker connections to one of these:http://www.vadcon.com/pp/pps16-bbgs.html http://www.vadcon.com/pp/pps8-bbns.htmlWith the amplifiers powered off, you simply plug whichever speakers you want into whichever amp you want.Use something like a Niles AXP-1 to switch the RCA output (e.g., from CD player) between the amps.This can serve many amps, and many speakers, and has no amp power limitations, and no concerns about frying an amp because of what's going in inside a box.I have this installed in several systems. Works great.

I agree that sometimes classical music fans must decide between an older performance that they prefer vs. a newer recording that has better audio. As I said in another thread, I’m not a music scholar, so I’m not hypercritical of the performance. I enjoy many modern conductors and orchestras. (Some experts on operatic singing are so critical of technique that I wonder if they enjoy more than a small percentage of recordings available.) Specific to Barber’s “Adagio for Strings”, as I said in the other thread, I think that my hi-res FLAC download of the following 2011 recording has better audio quality than the 1982 recording by the LA Philharmonic, and is an enjoyable performance: An eBay seller is offering a new multi-channel hybrid SACD of this “American Stringbook” by the do.gma chamber orchestra for $14.15 US, free shipping. With that said, certainly there are some performances that are difficult to match. Here’s a 1982 Zeffirelli film adaptation of “La Traviata” that for me has not yet been bettered. This was recorded on 35mm film. I have a DVD. I hope that someday the 35mm film will be re-digitized and remastered as high definition video and hi-res audio (i.e., Blu-ray or Ultra HD Blu-ray).

I listened to the loud passage (the part that sounds harsh) of the 1982 recording by Bernstein “as delivered” via the CD (i.e., as mastered by DG), and then with your EQ applied (i.e., your XML file imported in Audacity, Effect, Equalization). As expected, with your EQ applied, the treble is significantly attenuated, and IMO doesn’t sound good at all. Unless I’m missing something – and bearing in mind that I’m not a recording engineer - I think it’s more accurate to call this “attenuating the treble of a poor quality recording” – vs. “demastering”. To each their own. I prefer to buy a newer performance and better quality hi-res recording, vs. using Audacity to adjust EQ on an old recording that has poor audio quality. P.S. My hi-fi systems are tuned by ear, and sound great when fed a good quality recording. My benchmark is live classical music.

Here’s a CD that includes a recording of Samuel Barber’s “Adagio for Strings” that I think has poor audio quality: This is a DDD recording from 1982. I don’t think the harshness has to do with frequency imbalance. I’m not an expert – my suspicion is that it has more to do with early digitization technology. Here’s a hi-res FLAC download of a 2011 recording that I think has better audio quality: This recording does not have attenuated high frequencies, and yet doesn’t sound harsh (to my ears). Bottom line - I don’t think the difference in audio quality between these two recordings is primarily due to frequency balance. (I imagine that LP aficionados have AAA LPs that don’t sound harsh, and have vivid presentation of the massed violins.) If Bernstein’s performance with the LA Philharmonic had been recorded on analog tape, then perhaps the recording could be re-digitized and remastered from the original analog tapes and delivered as a hi-res digital deliverable. I don’t doubt that attenuating the high frequencies of the 1982 recording by Bernstein would make this recording sound less harsh, but I would not characterize this as “demastering”. (Perhaps I’m just hung up on semantics.) Am I missing something?

Chris: I’ve read your other thread, and your instructions. I’ve downloaded Audacity 2.2.2 Am I correct that you’re using Audacity as a graphic equalizer? Everyone’s situation is different, but based on what I’ve read thus far, I don’t feel enthused about using a graphic equalizer to manipulate my classical music files. I can use a tube preamp with tone controls when I want, and 3 of my systems have subwoofers with remote controls. Since I have 5 systems, presumably if I used Audacity I’d have to manipulate each music file for each system? There’s no easy way to copy the SACD layer of SACDs, or Blu-ray, so editing those files apparently is out? I used Audacity to generate a frequency analysis for 4 different operatic sopranos performing 4 different arias, and I don’t see the point of the exercise – for me. Here’s Magdalena Kožená singing “Ich bin der Welt abhanden gekommen” – which is beautifully recorded: For me this graph serves no purpose. I suppose I could do a frequency analysis of 2 different sopranos singing the same aria, but this doesn’t interest me either. Here’s what I think each hi-fi enthusiast who listens to classical music must decide for themselves: For the classical CDs in your collection that have poor audio quality, is it worth experimenting with the Audacity software to adjust the tonal balance in an attempt to make the recording sound better? My opinion: If it’s an old poor-quality recording, then it’s unlikely you can “make a silk purse from a sow’s ear” – in other words, a poor-quality recording likely has more problems than tonal balance. (As we’ve discussed earlier, some RCA Living Stereo recordings as early as the late 1950s have surprisingly good audio quality after they were professionally remastered from the original tapes (i.e., true remastering) and delivered on SACD – but these are the exception IME.) I respect the fact that different people enjoy the hobby of hi-fi differently. For people who enjoy tinkering around with hi-fi, there are many ways to enjoy the hobby (many sub-facets): Some people spend many hours focusing on LPs. In some cases, a different turntable and cartridge for mono recordings. Perhaps different cartridges for different music genres. (Is a belt drive turntable better for classical music???? Is an idler-wheel turntable better for jazz????) Some enjoy cataloging and editing metadata for huge collections of digitized music, and seeking the most beautiful GUI interface, and building playlists, etc. Some are into digital networking, accessing all their music throughout their home by using their smartphone, and accessing their music from anywhere in the world. Some people (the cool kids) enjoy tube rolling. 😊 Some tube amps accept multiple types of output tubes, and multiple types of rectifier tubes, and multiple types of input tubes, yielding more than a hundred combinations of tubes, that to some people’s ears each sound different. Some people enjoy using calibrated mics to measure and plot the sound in their room, and use DSP based gizmos to adjust frequency and delay, and use separate amps for each driver. Some people like using graphic equalizers (sometimes vintage hardware, sometimes modern software) to adjust the sound to their liking. Some people like tinkering with room acoustics, installing foam panels on their walls. Some people collect 1970s era quadraphonic recordings and equipment There’s even a guy who collects 8 track tapes and players. (Google: Tracker Bob Hiemenz) Etc. My opinion - based on what I know thus far - messing around with equalizer software isn’t my cup of tea. My solution to a poor quality classical recording is to buy a newer performance that was captured via a high-quality recording (preferably 24bit/192kHz, or hi-res DSD) and delivered in a hi-res format (i.e., SACD, Blu-ray, Pure Audio Blu-ray, Ultra HD Blu-ray, plus downloaded hi-res (24bit/192kHz or 24bit/96kHz) FLAC, and DSD). I’m not a music scholar, so I’m not extremely persnickety about the performance. I enjoy many modern conductors and orchestras. OTOH, I can’t tolerate poor audio quality – particularly when the sound is harsh and causes listener fatigue. My opinion is that if the recording was made and mastered at 24bit/192kHz or 24bit/96kHz, why not buy it as 24bit/192kHz or 24bit/96kHz (e.g., FLAC download or Blu-ray or Pure Audio Blu-ray), vs. buying a version that was down-sampled to the 30+ year-old Red Book CD standard (i.e., 16bit/44.1kHz). Similarly, if a recording was made as hi-res DSD, why not buy it as an SACD or hi-res DSD download, vs. buying a version that was transcoded to PCM and down-sampled to CD. In rare cases where a performance was captured in high quality analog (e.g., magnetic tape or 35mm film), then remastering from the original analog tape can deliver good results. In addition to superior audio quality, modern recordings of classical music often feature video, which IMO can be an enjoyable way to experience a classical concert, and of course is particularly important for ballet and opera. As discussed earlier, for large listening rooms, 5.1 surround sound can be beneficial IME. FWIW, my favorite deliverable for classical music is currently Blu-ray video, followed by multi-channel SACD and Pure Audio Blu-ray, followed by hi-res downloads. (Ultra HD Blu-ray classical recordings are very slowly becoming available.) Bottom line: To each their own. OP: My suggestion is to try some modern hi-res recordings. IMO –a great way to start is the following Blu-ray box set that I showed in an earlier post in this thread: Rafael Frühbeck de Burgos Danish NSO Ludwig van Beethoven: Symphonies Nos. 1–9 Joaquín Rodrigo: Concierto de Aranjuez Hector Berlioz: Symphonie fantastique, Op. 14 Richard Strauss: Eine Alpensinfonie (An Alpine Symphony), Op. 64, TrV 233 This Blu-ray box set is currently available on Amazon for $40.32 US, which I think is a tremendous value considering the amount of music (12 major compositions) being delivered in high-quality hi-res audio and video. If you’re using an AVR to drive you Klipsch, and you’re satisfied with the sound quality – great. OTOH, if you think the sound is “dry” – or not musically engaging – perhaps try vacuum tube amplifiers. My opinion is that classical music, hi-res recordings, tubes, and Klipsch can be a great match in terms of audio quality. If you buy collectible vintage tube amps and you decide they’re not your cup of tea, you can always get your money back by selling them. IMO, buying a vintage Scott or Fisher tube amp is like buying a vintage Omega mechanical watch. Buying a vintage McIntosh tube amp is like buying a vintage Rolex. Either you like this kind of stuff, or you don’t. OP: We haven’t heard from you in a while. What do you think?

I trust that you will elaborate.

I don’t have the Elgar CD titled “The Black Knight”, so I can’t comment on its audio quality. Chris: How did you arrive at the “demastering curve” for this CD? The term “demastering” makes it sound (to me) like there is an electronic record (i.e., change log) of all adjustments that were made to the recording during mastering, and these adjustments can be “rolled back” or removed - i.e., the changes made during mastering can be precisely reversed. Am I correct that this is not the case? If not, then it seems to me that the term “demastering” may be misleading. Are you removing the mastering engineers’ changes, or adding your changes on top of theirs? For classical music, if you are adjusting a recording’s tonal balance based on a graphical representation of the frequency distribution, how do you know what the “correct” frequency distribution of the live performance looks like? Unless the same equipment was used at the live performance to record a frequency plot, how can you know what the frequency spectrum of the recording should look like? Specifically, for the Elgar “The Black Knight” CD, how do you know that your “after” graph of the frequency distribution is more faithful to the live performance than the “before” graph? If your adjustments were done by ear (which I think is OK), then what’s the point of the graphs? (With all due respect.) If the audio was compressed during mastering, how can you un-compress it? Or, do you have a graphical representation of a different group of musicians performing the same composition, and are you using that frequency distribution as a benchmark? (In other words, you think your benchmark recording of the same composition has correct tonal balance.) But – if you adjust all recordings of a composition to have similar frequency response, at what point are you correcting recording inaccuracies, and at what point are you changing the artists’ interpretation of the music? As I said in a different thread, each consumer must define their goals for reproduction of music in their home. Do you want to blast heavy metal music so loud that they it might cause hearing damage? Do you want unobtrusive background music, in which case dynamic compression may be indicated? (My opinion is that dynamic range compression should be handled by a parameter setting in the consumer electronics, as is the case with my Oppo universal players and Chromecast Audio. I have mine set to “Off”.) Do you like thumping bass? Sizzling highs? My goal is to recreate as close as possible the experience that I had in the symphony hall or opera house. (Though there are limits to the dynamic range that almost any home hi-fi system can reproduce – except perhaps those of you who own Jubilee plus huge subwoofers. I’m thinking about the difference (in a hi-res digital recording) between the opening of Movement 4 and Movement 5 in Mahler Symphony 2.) And I want the inevitable deviations in recorded music to sound pleasant vs. unpleasant – to my ears. As I said in another thread, it seems to me that for some pop music – specifically if there never was a live performance (not even in the studio) - the issue of “high fidelity” reproduction is not as relevant. (If the music was never performed in the real world, how is it meaningful to talk about hi-fidelity reproduction? You can’t “faithfully reproduce” something that never existed in the real world.) Apparently, for at least some pop music, the issue is what sounds “good”. (Or, perhaps, what is a “winning formula” – i.e., for winning “ear-share”, and winning “wallet-share” by selling CDs and downloads. For most consumers, what grabs their attention, and causes their head to start bobbing up and down?) Moreover, what sounds “good” apparently differs on cheap earbuds vs. in the car (where there is high ambient noise) vs. on a good hi-fi system in the home. (This is not something I’m concerned with, because I don’t often listen to pop music, and I don’t listen on earbuds or in the car. With that said, I respect the fact that different people like different music, and different people listen to recorded music in different ways.) On one hand I recognize that the recording process is undoubtedly more complicated than the average consumer (including me) might assume, on the other hand there are some 60 year-old analog recordings of classical music that sound natural, and are enjoyable to listen to. For example, the liner notes for this SACD of a 1955 performance of Beethoven’s “Violin Concerto in D” states: “In remastering these tapes, we kept the signal path as short as possible … The DSD program is essentially identical to the analog tape … No signal processing was necessary to “improve” these extraordinary tapes.” Clearly the 1950s era mics, tube preamps, and analog tape changed the sound somewhat. However, DAWs (digital audio workstation) didn’t exist in 1955, and if a DAW (or other digital signal processor) wasn’t used to change the sound during re-mastering, then could this recording be “demastered”? Unfortunately, the average consumer (like me) usually has no way of knowing how much “mucking around” the recording and mastering engineers did via their DAWs on a particular recording. And therefore, it seems to me that the consumer must rely on their ears, and their goals for their hi-fi system, to determine what adjustments they wish to make via their home audio system (e.g., via tone controls, graphical equalizer, PC based software, etc). Bottom line, as a classical music lover, my criterion for assessing the quality of a recording is fairly simple: Does the recording sound like what I remember hearing in the symphony hall or opera house (where no electronics are used – no sound reinforcement – the sound is 100% natural). I recognize that memory is fallible – nonetheless this is my criterion. I attend live performances of classical music (large scale and small scale) and opera many times a year (full season subscription to the symphony and opera, plus several chamber performances) – in venues with good quality natural acoustics – and this forms the benchmark for how I assess the sound coming from my home hi-fi system. I don’t disagree that some recordings of classical music sound unnatural – i.e., don’t sound like what I typically hear in the symphony hall. If a recording of classical music doesn’t sound like what you recall hearing in the symphony hall, and you need to boost the bass (or attenuate the treble), then why not simply perform the adjustment by ear and describe the process as “adjusting tonal balance”? I make adjustments in my home hi-fi system via component matching (certain amps sound better with certain speakers), tube rolling, and in some cases use of tone controls. (OTOH, in some configurations, a power amp is directly connected to my Oppo UDP-205, and there are no tone controls.) This methodology is by no means perfect, but I’m able to arrive at an enjoyable home listening experience that – based on my memory – is close to what I heard live. (Assuming SOTA recording.) Here’s my question about use of software-based graphs to “demaster” recordings: Unless you have a graphical template of the frequency distribution for an “ideal performance” of every piece of music ever composed, I don’t understand how a graph of a recording provides a basis for making adjustments. (And, of course, if such a library of templates did exist, then it seems to me that the risk is that art is being homogenized.) If you don’t have a specific template for each composition, would you propose a generic template for each sub-genre of music? Would you adjust the frequency distribution of a classical composition for acapella soprano voice to match the frequency distribution of an acapella performance that features basso profundo – or adjust to match the frequency distribution of a jazz group that features a string bass and kick drum – or adjust to match a Mahler symphony? Moreover, every time you load a recording into a software tool, and digitally edit it, don’t you risk introducing artifacts of the software, and additional distortions? This may simply be ignorance on my part about the process that you’re employing, and I ask my questions with all due respect. I’d appreciate the opportunity to read more about it. Sorry if this discussion has veered off-topic. Back on topic. OP: My experience is that if you buy high-quality high-resolution recordings (i.e., SACD, Blu-ray, Pure Audio Blu-ray, Ultra HD Blu-ray, plus downloaded hi-res (24bit/192kHz) FLAC, and DSD), and use a good quality player that has high-quality DACs (I use Oppo UDP-205), and use suitable tube amps (my favorite is usually 6L6GC), then large high-end Klipsch (I’m familiar with RF-7II and Palladium) can deliver excellent sound quality for classical music. Garbage-in/garage-out – poor quality recordings, and low-resolution digital deliverables, can make music sound harsh, and massed strings are an “acid test”. (I have an early CD that includes Barber’s “Adagio for Strings” that had me turning down the volume control, because it sounded harsh. My modern hi-res download (newer performance that was captured in hi-res) of “Adagio for Strings” has no problem with harshness.) As I said earlier, operatic soprano can also be difficult to reproduce without causing the listener to cringe. (It’s unfortunate that recording technology wasn’t better during Maria Callas’ prime.) The solution: high quality recordings, tubes, and “big boy” Klipsch. (Unfortunately I don’t have room for Klipschorn or Jubilee. I need the narrower tower speakers: RF-7II and Palladium.) For the occasional recording that has tonal balance “out of whack”, then treble and bass controls can be useful. That’s my 2.5 cents …

Youtube and streaming services (e.g., Spotify Premium) are good for exploring music, however IME modern high-quality high-resolution recordings of classical music deliver the best sound quality (e.g., SACD, Blu-ray, Pure Audio Blu-ray, Ultra HD Blu-ray, plus downloaded hi-res (24bit/192kHz) FLAC, and DSD). In a large room where the main speakers must be far apart, multi-channel can be beneficial. Subwoofers can be a PITA, but when "dialed in" can help deliver the power of classical music - particularly when the crossover is in front of the main amp, thereby off-loading the main amp and speakers. This past weekend, I heard excerpts from Wagner's Ring performed live - another example of music where large Klipsch - augmented via subwoofers - excel in delivering a "live concert" experience. And, of course, subwoofers are essential if you want to experience the power of the pipe organ - e.g., in this 24bit/96kHz FLAC download:

Klipsch excel at delivering the high frequency power of the operatic soprano voice. On this Blu-ray, listen to Anna Netrebko belting out "Casta Diva". I've heard Anna perform live - she could fill the 3,563 seat Civic Opera House in Chicago with her voice - with no sound reinforcement (i.e., no PA system). The RF-7II's horn can deliver this power, and sound gorgeous doing so - when driven by the right tube amp.

IME, tube amps - particularly 6L6GC (and sometimes 7591) - driving RF-7II can deliver the natural timbre of string instruments - assuming a good quality recording. IME, solid state amps can make Klipsch sound "dry" - i.e., the warmth of the stringed instruments is missing.

IME all of the recordings that I listed above have excellent multi-channel audio quality when played with the right tube amp directly connected to an Oppo UDP-205 - with one clarification - IIRC, two of the Abbado Mahler recordings are older and are stereo vs. multi-channel. BTW, this Blu-ray video of Abbado's Mahler 9 is excellent: There's no striking basso profundo singing in Rachmaninoff's "All Night Vigil", and therefore the recording has little extreme low frequency content. Bruffy's recording on SACD has excellent multi-channel audio quality. Late at night when I can't sleep I listen to Bruffy's recording of Rachmaninoff's "All Night Vigil" - it is incredibly beautiful. My approach to compensating for differences in recordings is not suitable for 99.9999% of consumers: I own 24 tube amps (spread across 5 systems), and in 4 of my systems I can select an amp that sounds good with a particular recording. For me its part of the fun of the hobby. OTOH, for most people, I think simple bass and treble tone controls on an integrated tube amp are adequate to compensate for recordings that have high or low frequency imbalances (which is not uncommon).

P.S. There are of course also many multi-channel classical SACDs. Here's a few that I highly recommend: These classical SACDs sound fabulous with RF-7IIs in a surround-sound system, when driven by tube amps. (My Oppo UDP-205 universal disc player provides multi-channel pre-amp functionality, including bass management. No AVR needed.) Bottom line: Klipsch speakers and tube amps go together like peanut butter and jelly - particularly for classical music - including multi-channel SACD and Blu-ray.

In addition to many multi-channel Blu-ray opera and ballet recordings, and multi-channel Blu-ray of individual classical performances, following are some classical Blu-ray box sets that I think are excellent, and represent a great value:

I listen to classical music and opera. I prefer tube amps with my RF-7II. My basement 4.2 system can deliver a near-live-classical-concert-experience. Front, center, and left speakers are Klipsch RF-7 II. A single rear speaker is a Klipsch RF-7. Subwoofers: SVS SB16-Ultra, Klipsch R-115SW. These four tower speakers plus two subwoofers provide plenty of acoustical power in this average size listening room. (I sit approximately 10 feet from the speakers.) Collectively, they total four 1 ¾” titanium compression drivers mated to Tractrix horns, eight 10” woofers, one 15” powered subwoofer, and one 16” powered subwoofer. (I recognize the RF-7II are small compared with Klipschorn and Jubilee, but the RF-7II (plus 16” subwoofers) are the largest speakers I can accommodate.) Source: Oppo UDP-205. The Oppo UDP-205 provides "bass management" - i.e., a built-in crossover, and a connection for a powered subwoofer. With Oppo's bass management, the low frequencies are off-loaded from the main amp and speakers, thereby facilitating greater overall dynamics. Here's the tube amps that I have in this system: Scott 272 (EL34), Inspire “Fire Bottle” SE Stereo Tube Amplifier HO (single-ended-pentode (SEP) power amp currently equipped with 6L6GC), Scott 222C (7189), McIntosh MX110Z tuner/preamp, Fisher KX-200 (7591), Scott 296 (6L6GC), Pilot SA-260 (EL34), Scott LK150 (KT88). A patch panel allows me to connect the speakers to whichever amp(s) I want, and F/F RCA cables enable me to connect an amp to the Oppo, and a power amp to the MX110Z (if I choose to have a pre-amp in the audio chain). I love classical music, which involves natural instruments performing together live in their intended venue (i.e., symphony hall or opera house). IME, the RF-7II are capable of reproducing this natural sound, when driven by the right tube amps. I experience no listener fatigue when using the right tube amps with my RF-7II. (IME, RF-7II can sound harsh with solid-state amps, and can sound bright with KT88 tube amps.) Recently I’ve been watching/listening to surround-sound Blu-ray video recordings of classical concerts, and I find that RF-7II and two stereo tube amps (one for L&R, one for center and single rear) provide excellent audio quality.

My frame of reference: I listen to classical music and opera. I use tube amps for music. (Solid-state amps for movies.) Nothing against the Palladium. I have the smallest towers - the P-37F. They need a sub - and the P-312W is a beautiful match. The RF-7II don't need a sub for most music, unless you want to experience the lowest pedal notes of a pipe organ, or the full impact of a bass drum. (I have RF-7II for left, center, and right in a surround sound system.) IMO, both the Palladium and RF-7II need tube amps in order to reproduce the natural timbre of orchestral instruments. The RF-7II sound great with 6L6GC (e.g., Scott 296, or my Inspire SEP amp). I like 7591 amps with my Palladium P-37F (e.g., McIntosh MC225, Scott 299C, Fisher 800B.) BTW, I have a pair of McIntosh MC30s (6L6GC) in another system, and they sound wonderful. If you use a solid-state amp, I suggest tone controls - you might need to attenuate the treble - and possibly give a slight boost to the bass. I've not heard the RF-7III (vs. RF-7II). Nonetheless, if I were buying speaker(s) today - I'd buy RF-7III in either walnut or cherry. It will be interesting to see if Klipsch introduces a new tower speaker positioned above the RF-7III.

I own Palladium P-37F (and P-312W), and RF-7II (and R-115SW). IMO, the Palladium are a luxury product, that feature exotic (i.e., expensive) cabinet shape, and veneers. IMO, the RF-7II sound better (when paired with the right tube amp), but have plain boxes and lower grade veneers. I need speakers with a tower form factor, due to space limitations. I have hoped for a mythical “RF-9” – i.e., an upscale version of the RF-7III. Given Klipsch's current product line, I might buy a single RF-7III for my mono system in my bedroom.

Youthman: I’ve not heard the RF-7III, so I appreciate your reviews. I prefer tube amps with my RF-7II. My basement 4.2 system can deliver a near-live-classical-concert-experience. Front, center, and left speakers are Klipsch RF-7 II. A single rear speaker is a Klipsch RF-7. Subwoofers: SVS SB16-Ultra, Klipsch R-115SW. These four tower speakers plus two subwoofers provide plenty of acoustical power in this average size listening room. (I sit approximately 10 feet from the speakers.) Collectively, they total four 1 ¾” titanium compression drivers mated to Tractrix horns, eight 10” woofers, one 15” powered subwoofer, and one 16” powered subwoofer. (I recognize the RF-7II are small compared with Klipschorn and Jubilee, but the RF-7II (plus 16” subwoofers) are the largest speakers I can accommodate.) Source: Oppo UDP-205. The Oppo UDP-205 provides "bass management" - i.e., a built-in crossover, and a connection for a powered subwoofer. With Oppo's bass management, the low frequencies are off-loaded from the main amp and speakers, thereby facilitating greater overall dynamics. Here's the tube amps that I have in this system: Scott 272 (EL34), Inspire “Fire Bottle” SE Stereo Tube Amplifier HO (single-ended-pentode (SEP) power amp currently equipped with 6L6GC), Scott 222C (7189), McIntosh MX110Z tuner/preamp, Fisher KX-200 (7591), Scott 296 (6L6GC), Pilot SA-260 (EL34), Scott LK150 (KT88). A patch panel allows me to connect the speakers to whichever amp(s) I want, and F/F RCA cables enable me to connect an amp to the Oppo, and a power amp to the MX110Z (if I choose to have a pre-amp in the audio chain). I love classical music, which involves natural instruments performing together live in their intended venue (i.e., symphony hall or opera house). IME, the RF-7II are capable of reproducing this natural sound, when driven by the right tube amps. I experience no listener fatigue when using the right tube amps with my RF-7II. (IME, RF-7II can sound harsh with solid-state amps, and can sound bright with KT88 tube amps.) Recently I’ve been watching/listening to surround-sound Blu-ray video recordings of classical concerts, and I find that RF-7II and two stereo tube amps (one for L&R, one for center and single rear) provide excellent audio quality. I wish I could hear the RF-7III driven by tube amps, playing hi-res recordings (SACD, Blu-ray, Pure Audio Blu-ray, 24bit/192kHz FLAC) of classical music. (I’m thinking about getting a single RF-7III for my mono system in my bedroom, mated to my 1950s era Fisher TA-500 tube receiver.)

Welcome. When paired with a tube amp (particularly 6L6GC), RF-7II can deliver the natural timbre of classical music, as well as the dynamics. (In other words, "musical".) I suggest you read this: Tube amps can also be used for multi-channel. I use a state-of-the-art Oppo UDP-205 “universal player” for all digital audio and video formats: Ultra HD Blu-ray, Blu-ray, Pure Audio Blu-ray, SACD, hi-res FLAC downloads, hi-res DSD downloads, CD, DVD, etc. The UDP-205 has “audiophile grade” DACs and analog circuitry built-in, and I connect it to my vintage tube amps via red & white RCA analog connections. Stereo and multi-channel. Sounds fabulous. (I use HDMI solely for video to the HDTV.)

Could an Old-School Tube Amp Make the Music You Love Sound Better? My answer - based on the music I love (classical music): "Yes".

Thanks for sharing your photos of RF-7III vs. RF-7II. I hope that you play some hi-res classical recordings when you compare the RF-7III vs. RF-7II, and let us know your assessment. What amp(s) will you use with the RF-7III and RF-7II? Any tube amps?

I’m not a technician. I’m afraid I can’t answer your question about setting bias. Craig / NOS Valves has rebuilt several amps for me. (My other amps were rebuilt by other techs before I bought them.) My amps fall into 3 categories: Auto-bias (e.g., McIntosh) Adjustable bias, with test points on top of chassis (I’m able to adjust these) Adjustable bias, without test points on top of chassis (I don’t know how to adjust these … I need to learn … someday …) AFAIK, my only amp that accepts more than one type of output tube is my Fire Bottle SEP (designed and built by Dennis Had). With all of my other amps, I stick with the specified output tubes (other than minor variants within a family). (BTW, Craig makes an amp that accommodates different output tubes called VRD – Valve Roller’s Dream – but I don’t own one … I’d have to sell something to make room …) Bottom line: I don’t know if a KT66 would work in your Audcom amp, or how to adjust bias. What about a 5881? 7581A? KT150? These all sounded good in my Inspire SEP amp, driving RF-7II. IMO, KT88 are too “bright” sounding. My MC275 and Scott LK150 use KT88 – and they potentially can sound good – iff I use a pre-amp and attenuate the treble. (I can run all of my other power amps directly connected to an Oppo universal player – i.e., no pre-amp.) Regarding EL34, my Pilot SA-260 is equipped with JJs, and it sounds good. My Fisher X-1000 has RCA 6CA7 fat bottle, and it sounds good (different system). My Scott 272 has Groove Tube – I don’t think I’ve tried different output tubes in this amp. I regret selling my mint Scott 210F mono integrated amp that had Amperex Bugle Boy, Made in Holland. Maybe Craig will post a response about your Audcom amp. Good luck, and keep us posted.

What amp? Am I correct in assuming your amp supports both KT66 and KT77? I own an Inspire “Fire Bottle” SE Stereo Tube Amplifier HO single-ended-pentode amp (originally equipped with KT88, 6CG7, 5U4). I’ve not tried KT77. (As you’ll see below, KT77 are one of the few supported output tubes I haven’t tried … tube rolling is a sickness …) However, I have tried EL34, in addition to Gold Lion KT66. The speakers in the system with my Fire Bottle SEP amp are RF-7II. My favorite tube combination, based on my preference for warm, rich sound listening to hi-res classical and opera recordings: 6L6GC / 5V4G / 6DJ8. Specific favorites: Output: Best overall sound: Groove Tube Gold Series GT6L6GE Performance Rating 5 (#2: Russian military 6P3S-E, Honorable mention: Tung-Sol 6L6G (coke bottle 6L6GC), Tung-Sol KT150, Gold Lion KT66, vintage Sylvania 5881) Best Value: 6P3S-E Best combination of sound and aesthetics: Tung-Sol 6L6G, Gold Lion KT66 Rectifier: Sylvania JAN 5V4G (#2 : various 5V4G & 5V4GA, #3 Mullard 5AR4) Input: Amperex 6DJ8 (Holland) Here’s the output tubes that I’ve tried in the Fire Bottle SEP amp: Zenith 6V6G (vintage) Sylvania 6L6GA (vintage) Sylvania 7408 (vintage, 6V6 variant) Mullard EL34 Bugle Boy EL34 (vintage) Russian 6P3S-E (Russian military surplus 1980s 6L6GC equivalent) Groove Tube Gold Series GT6L6GE (6L6GC) McIntosh branded GE 6L6GC (vintage) GE 6L6GC (vintage) Tung-Sol 7581A (6L6GC variant) Tung-Sol 6L6G (6L6GC in a big bottle) Gold Lion KT88 Tung-Sol KT150 Gold Lion KT66 Sylvania 5881 IME, 6CA7/EL34 can deliver excellent overall sound. (I run 6CA7/EL34 in Scott 272, Pilot SA-260, Fisher X-1000, and until recently I had a Scott 210F.) I prefer the “warm” sound of the 6L6 family. (I run GL6GC/KT66 in the Fire Bottle SEP, Scott 296 x2, McIntosh MC240, MC30 x2, Pilot HF-56 x2. Altec 353A, and Fisher TA500.) Of course, this is based on my speakers (RF-7II, Snell Type CV, Klipsch Palladium P-37F, JBL L880), in my rooms, my music, and my preferences. I’ve been happy with the new production Russian Gold Lion output tubes. If your amp will accommodate both EL34 and 6L6GC type tubes, you might try the Gold Lion KT77, and – for a warmer sound - the Russian 6P3S-E 6L6GC (which are very reasonably priced). That’s my 2.5 cents.

Thanks for the great review. If I were in the market for new speakers, the RF-7III is what I’d buy. Based on my experience with RF-7II, I imagine that RF-7III would be great for large-scale orchestral music.

eBay advanced search for completed listings.