First Watt F3 compared to my Cary Tube Amplifiers(modified)

[mikebse2a3]

My Listening comparison of First Watt F3 vs Cary CAD-2A3i and Cary CAD-2A3-SE amplifiers in my system.

I thought this might be interesting to those that appreciate amplifiers of these wattage ranges when paired with High Efficiency(104db or more) Horn systems but using different design technology.

(Disclaimer: I have modified these Cary amplifiers): The Cary CAD-2A3i with independent 2A3 bias controls and a choke in the pwr supply for improved performance on High Efficiency Horns and in the case of the CAD-2A3-SE I've modified the bias point of the 2A3 and pwr supply modification to enable any 2A3 tubes to be used since it was orginally used the higher output KR 2A3 tube.)

Loudspeaker used were Jubilee LF/K402-TAD4002 HF bi-amped with active EV DC-One DSP crossover.

The F3 was compared both in mono and stereo listening test.

1st comparison Jubilee LF with K402/TAD4002 HF being driven with the F3 (ie: vertical bi-amp) vs Jubilee LF driven with CARY CAD-2A3i and K402/TAD4002 driven with Cary CAD-2A3-SE.

2nd comparison Jubilee LF with K402/TAD4002 HF being driven with the F3 bi-amped vs Jubilee LF with K402/TAD4002 HF biamped with the CARY CAD-2A3-SE amplifiers.

3rd comparison Jubilee LF/K402-TAD4002 HF systems vertically biamped with two F3 amplifiers.

Some might like to hear that the solid state amp (First Watt F3) was the best.
Some might like to hear that the tube push/pull amp (Cary Cad-2A3i) was the best.
Some might like to hear that the tube single ended amp (Cary CAD-2A3-SE) was the best.

If that is the case I'm sorry to dissapoint all those who might fall into one of the above groups.

IMHO based on my unique room/system all these amplifiers sounded excellent but even more surprising was that they sounded for all intents identical!

I wish anyone who believes that tube amplifiers are inherently noisy with hum and bloated bass could hear these examples because the single ended is dead quiet and if reasonable attention is taken in proper bias/balancing of the output tubes in the push/pull amp it is also dead quiet in my room/system.

I also wish anyone who believes that solid state amplifiers inherently lack something in vocal realism that only tube designs have, have edgy high frequencies and don't image as good as tube amplifiers could hear this solid state design because that is not the case in my room/system.

The First Watt F3 male and female vocal reproduction was very realistic and naturally reproduced in everyway the equal of my Cary amplifiers.

The First Watt F3 was also the equal of my Cary amplifiers in high frequency reproduction without excess edgyness.

The First Watt F3 can do Bass!..reproduction of acoustic bass and drums was excellent and for the record the single-ended and push/pull tube amps also were the solid state amp equal in bass reproduction in every aspect in my room/system.

The First Watt F3 soundstage/image reproduction is equal to the tube amplifiers in my room/system.

I know this is a short review of my experience with the First Watt F3 but that is because these 3 amplifiers are each excellent and equal IMHO when used in my room/system.

The First Watt F3 amps will stay in my collection along with the Cary tube amplifiers to be enjoyed for their excellent music reproduction.

Anyway this is just one persons experience with the F3 in a unique room/system setup so take it for what it's worth under those circumstances.

miketn[]

First Watt F3 on one channel LF and HF vs Cary 2A3 p/p (LF) and Cary 2A3 se (HF) on other channel

[mikebse2a3]

First Watt F3 on one channel LF and HF vs Cary 2A3 se on LF and HF of other channel

[mikebse2a3]

Jubs fully driven by F3s

[Chris A]

Quote

I thought this might be interesting to those that appreciate amplifiers of these wattage ranges when paired with High Efficiency(104db or more) Horn systems but using different design technology.

Thanks Mike.

 

I suspect that some of the perceived differences that are written about in other sites (6moons, for instance) are due to using speakers that are significantly different than the ones that you and I use (Jubilees, in our case). Addionally, these reviewers, for whatever reason, are not bi-amping, and that could be a really big deal in terms of SQ.

 

Quote

The First Watt F3 male and female vocal reproduction was very realistic and naturally reproduced in everyway the equal of my Cary amplifiers...The First Watt F3 was also the equal of my Cary amplifiers in high frequency reproduction without excess edgyness...The First Watt F3 can do Bass!..reproduction of acoustic bass and drums was excellent and for the record the single-ended and push/pull tube amps also were the solid state amp equal in bass reproduction in every aspect in my room/system...The First Watt F3 soundstage/image reproduction is equal to the tube amplifiers in my room/system.

You might be surprised to hear that, well, these statements don't surprise me all that much. In fact, I'm surprised that you didn't hear any more differences than you did. Perhaps you'll share more impressions over time on the more minute differences, however small.

 

First: I'd like to restate that I believe you should think about setting up your own hi-fi reviews, since you are really good at using good and revealing comparison techniques, as well as appropriate tests and testing equipment to confirm what your ears may be telling you and what they might not be telling you.

 

Second: my understanding of what amplifiers are good at and what they are not good at continues to evolve. Mr. Pass's article that I keep referencing on this forum on amplifier feedback and distortion was like another piece of a jigsaw puzzle that has been missing for many years and then suddenly shows up. The effects of bi-amping and tri-amping happens to be another piece that has made this murky subject of amplifier topologies and technologies (SE vs. P-P, tube vs. BJT vs. FET) a LOT more understandable. More on that subject later.

 

I also still have a bad attitude about poorly designed SETs with cheap output transformers, etc, even if bi-amped. I'm not buying any stock in Bottlehead currently, and those 300B monoblocks ("Paramounts") should be reported to the BBB, I think.

 

Third: I was considering trying out a SIT-2 amplifier, a "Static Induction Transistor" design by Nelson Pass that is a single-stage, single-ended FET design but this time using SiC as the base material for the transistors, and no feedback in the circuit design. But now, I think that I'll turn my attention to the Yamaha SP2060 crossover that I picked up last fall and try integrating it into my Jub/subwoofer setup in order to listen more critically for any differences that I wasn't able to hear in 2009 with Heinz's unit driving Jubs. I'd like to use it to tri-amp my Jubs + subs using the higher order L-R crossover filters available in the SP2060 at incrementally lower and higher crossover frequencies - a couple of things that my AV pre-pro won't do in the subwoofer channel.

 

[The benefit of using the pre-pro and using Audyssey is that I now know the relative delays of all speakers in the setup without having to guess. Audyssey seems to be very good at setting delays and relative loudspeaker channel gains. The effect of getting everything dialed in while listening to multi-channel sources, such as Daniel Barenboim's/Staatskapelle Berlin's Beethoven piano concertos (all five concertos back-to-back) on Blu-Ray that I watched and listened to again last night was absolutely mesmerizing.]

 

In other words, I believe that I'm reaching the point of diminishing returns on amplifiers, so I think that I'll turn to the next upstream device in the signal chain. I haven't done much A-B listening to other active crossovers so it is time to try it out, not that I'm dissatisfied presently, because I'm not. I like to try out new things every once in a while...contrary to popular opinion.

 

Thanks again for the revealing review--you ought to start selling stock in your (proposed) new hi-fi reviewing adventure

 

Chris

[Daddy Dee]

Thanks Mike.

interesting review.

[Deang]

I'm definitely surprised that the different topologies didn't differ more from each other than they did. Interesting. I don't quite know what to think about that.

Did you try them all 100 wpc?

[mark1101]

Nice write up Mike. Another positive review of the First Watt F3. I have been interested in that unit but I'm not in the market for amps right now, otherwise I'd probably just go out and buy one. You bought 2. They must sound pretty darn good.

[Schu]

Thanks for sharing... I need to read thru that, but really... thanks

[mike stehr]

Is the Cary push-pull amplfier using some sort of half-wave damper tubes for rectifiers? They sort of look like RCA 6AU4s...

[mikebse2a3]

Cask05: "I also still have a bad attitude about poorly designed SETs with cheap output transformers, etc, even if bi-amped. I'm not buying any stock in Bottlehead currently, and those 300B monoblocks ("Paramounts") should be reported to the BBB, I think."

Chris I can certainly understand a bad experience with an amplifier creating doubt in someone but I believe you would agree that a poor implementation of any technology shouldn't be used to condem a technology. As an example, Jubs or Khorns for instance if not implemented properly would sound very dissapointing and people might blame their technology but in fact it's the implementation that should be blamed. This often unintentional misguided judgement happens for many reason in audio and spreads like the flu on the internet so easily on forums today!

Cask05: "But now, I think that I'll turn my attention to the Yamaha SP2060 crossover that I picked up last fall and try integrating it into my Jub/subwoofer setup in order to listen more critically for any differences that I wasn't able to hear in 2009 with Heinz's unit driving Jubs. I'd like to use it to tri-amp my Jubs + subs using the higher order L-R crossover filters available in the SP2060 at incrementally lower and higher crossover frequencies - a couple of things that my AV pre-pro won't do in the subwoofer channel. "

I would encourage you definitly explore the SP2060 and especially if it will give you more free filter options to implement some Cello Palette or McIntosh type program eq control. Just 3 or 4 well chosen peq settings can really be used to take what are often basic good recordings (but tonally challenged for many reasons) to a much higher level of realism and enjoyment.

Cask05: "since you are really good at using good and revealing comparison techniques, as well as appropriate tests and testing equipment to confirm what your ears may be telling you and what they might not be telling you."

Thanks Chris.....something that you almost never seem to see anyone comparing equipment or evaluating loudspeakers or room acoustics with is mono as part of the evaluation process. Mono listening can reveal how each loudspeaker is interacting with the room's boundries and acoustics differently and knowing this can help a person to understand the problems and lead to possible solutions. Listening to a mono signal through one loudspeaker at a time also simplifies the recreated soundfield in the room which allows the listener to listen to a given piece of equipment for clarity, detail, tonality, dynamics with the least masking and alterations due to multiple source constructive/destructive interference and the more complex soundfield created in the room by multiple sources. Mono when used properly is like evaluating with a well focused magnifying glass.

miketn

Edited June 11, 2014 by mikebse2a3

[mikebse2a3]

Thanks Mike.

interesting review.

Glad it was interesting to you Daddy Dee

[mikebse2a3]

I'm definitely surprised that the different topologies didn't differ more from each other than they did. Interesting. I don't quite know what to think about that.

Did you try them all 100 wpc?

I guess some might say my system or room is masking the differences or that my hearing has issues.[]

I believe one very reasonable answer is that as the different topologies are performing closer to ideal and accurately then they must sound the same.

Man I heard Khorns pushed with 100watts once and I will say they sounded great outside cause I couldn't get out of there quick enough!!![]

miketn

[mikebse2a3]

Nice write up Mike. Another positive review of the First Watt F3. I have been interested in that unit but I'm not in the market for amps right now, otherwise I'd probably just go out and buy one. You bought 2. They must sound pretty darn good.

Thanks Mark...finding good amps isn't as hard as finding good room acoustics now that's a challenge...!

miketn

[mikebse2a3]

Thanks for sharing... I need to read thru that, but really... thanks

Appreciate it Schu....wasn't sure if there would be much interest so it's good to see some find it interesting.

[mikebse2a3]

Is the Cary push-pull amplfier using some sort of half-wave damper tubes for rectifiers? They sort of look like RCA 6AU4s...

They are 5AS4 miniwatt and are considered an upgrade to the 5U4. They are used as full-wave rectifiers and in the Cary they are paralleled for higher current capability.

I can't tell you how happy I was to add a 2A3 push-pull amp to my collection. Dennis Had told me once that they only produced somwhere around 100 of these amps so you don't see this version very often with the tube rectifiers.

miketn

[Deang]

"I believe one very reasonable answer is that as the different topologies are performing closer to ideal and accurately then they must sound the same."

Considering how different these amps are in design and function, I doubt that they can all be objectively ideal, not with dummy resistors or a true load. Put on some Metallica.

[djk]

The J-FET has similar curves to a triode tube, I would expect them to sound similar.

If anyone wants to DIY, NP provided all the details after the first 100 units were sold.

If you have trouble buying the J-FET I have some.

I also have some of the higher power IXYS FETs used in the newer designs, although they are easy to find at Digi-Key.

********************************************************************************************************

10-21-2001 2:08 AM djk


"I hope I dont sound like a complete dolt here but exactly what is the advantage of a low power tube amp vs. solid state stuff. "

Are you sure there is an advantage for tubes?

In the beginning there was the phonograph.

And it was good.

And then came the tube.

And it was, well it was louder.

But not necessarily better.

Feedback. Push-pull. FETs. Then bi-polar transistors.

The first transistor amps were copies of tube amps, just made with transistors. They inherited all the warts from the tube designs and picked up a few of their own. Notice that I haven't said anything bad about the transistor yet.

Lack of odd harmonic distortion in tubes.

False.

All feedback amps have higher odd harmonics. The feedback only cancels even harmonics. This is true whether it is a tube, transistor, or MOSFET.

A single ended amplifier with no feedback does produce predominantly second harmonic distortion driven just into clipping. Beyond 6dB into clipping the spectrum analysis shows the odd harmonics start to rise and look the same as a feedback amplifier.

Electrolytic capacitors don't sound good. The dielectric absorbs part of the signal passing through. When used as a coupling device the electrolytic gives up this charge when the signal goes through the zero crossing point. That means when it is supposed to be dead silent (the zero crossing point) all the hash comes out. Because of the high voltage in tube circuits they don't have electrolytic caps in the signal path. This is one of the main reasons cheap tube gear from the 50's and 60's sounded better than early solid state gear, they didn't have electrolytic coupling caps. When you hear tube freaks looking for 'Black Beauties', 'Orange Drops', and "Vitamin Qs" they are talking about coupling caps. They also didn't need electrolytic caps in the power supply either.

Electrolytic caps in the power supply have poor transient response. In transistor amps this translates into muddy bass. A choke input filter in a tube amp requires only a small high voltage filter cap. A 170W triode amp I used to own only had a single 9µF filter cap, a 'paper-in-oil' type (another tube freak gaga item). A cheap 2A3 based amp found in a console type hi-fi used a choke input filter and was single ended with no feedback. The first transistor amps were electrolytic coupling cap renditions of high feedback push-pull tube amps. They had the extra warts of electrolytic capped power supplies and electrolytic output coupling caps in addition to their electrolytic input coupling caps.

Remarks by 'homeless' tube freaks about the superiority of their glorified 2A3 juke box amps should be taken in this context. The solid state examples they have given as their 'reference' (B&K and Bryston) use un-bypassed electrolytic caps in their signal path and power supply, not to mention high negative feedback. Adding about $4 worth of film bypass caps in the right spots and $1 worth of emitter de-generation resistors to the diff inputs to reduce open loop gain will totally change the sound of these kind of amps. At this point in time the only affordable way to hear a solid state amp without electrolytic caps and feedback is to DIY. The http://www.passlabs.com/ site has good DIY content.

[Chris A]

A single ended amplifier with no feedback does produce predominantly second harmonic distortion driven just into clipping. Beyond 6dB into clipping the spectrum analysis shows the odd harmonics start to rise and look the same as a feedback amplifier...

[]

Electrolytic capacitors don't sound good.

You know, it's a bit amazing to me that some issues like the ones you mention take so long to change. "We've always done it that way before" holding back improvements, people that just don't care pushing product out the door, or even "tin ears" as root cause?

The JFET has similar curves to a triode tube, I would expect them to sound similar.

I remember a conversation filmed with Joseph Campbell in the 80s: he once said "don't get lost in the metaphor". I believe a lot of folks get lost in metaphors in this pastime/hobby/profession, actually. Mr. Pass is yet another individual that helps folks discard their fixations on certain technologies and "status quo".

I saw a movie on streaming Amazon Prime recently: "Side by Side" hosted by Keanu Reeves, which discusses, with famous film directors and cinematographers, the change from film to digital cameras, editing, and projection over the last dozen years or so. This is actually a study in the same sort of human behavior and belief systems as that which you highlight above (i.e., hi-fi audio). I recommend the film highly: it's very entertaining.

Chris

[Deang]

Attached (hopefully), are some curves of the Cary 300 CAD-SEI (Single Ended Integrated). Because of the high output impedance of the single ended low/zero feedback design, notice how the frequency response of the amplifier tracks with the impedance curve. The swings are quite significant. Does the F3 react to musical input the same way a zero feedback SET amp does? If so, who needs it. If not, then how can they possible sound "the same"?

[Ski Bum]

Dean, if one follows the 10:1 load to source impedance rule (as Mike, or was it Chris, previously mentioned regarding the F3 into the TAD cd), then the deviations are avoided (and look more like the three flat curves in the first image you posted, not the low impedance curves, which indeed look like roller-coasters). edit: I meant that as a question, not a statement, sorry. Oh, and I just noted the different output impedances: 1 ohm for the F3, which would be within the 10:1 realm, and the Cary's higher output impedance, which wouldn't...yeah, I'm surprised no frequency response weirdness was noticed, but then again, most rooms introduce aberrations that dwarf such minor non-linearities anyway.

Whoo, perhaps I shouldn't post after Bailey's and coffee...pardon my ramblings!