McIntosh MC 30's or VRD's

[dubai2000]

Dave,

 

thanks for the kind words - will do - he is my second Collie and by chance looking wise very similar to the first. To be honest I doubt that he'll reach such an old age - he should be ten by now - I picked him up from an organisation that rescues Collies from bad environment. Mine was severely disturbed and it took a really long time for him to open up. He still is not always easy - but I wouldn't part from him - actually he was the reason form my last house moving almst three years ago (complaining neighbours in an apartment building). Well - turned out to be a positive development as I know have the space for two setups .

 

Wolfram

Edited January 25, 2015 by dubai2000

[mustang guy]

Fisher 80AZ monoblocks have been compared to the MC30.  To be honest, I have a pair of 80AZ amps I never listen to and I've never heard MC30's.

 

I use my solid state and either stream or play SACD, DVDA or the occasional CD. In fact, I am starting to wonder if I shouldn't go ahead and sell my older stuff.  I'd hate to do it for the beauty of it, but the sound isn't being used and that's such a waste. 

[Max2]

It always interests me that when talking about their systems, how the networks are rarely if ever mentioned. you guys can believe whatever you want, but the filter will have at least, if not more impact on the sonic signature than an amplifier will. What we want to know is something about the syngergistic aspect, as well as the listening habits and personal tastes of the listener -- things which are rarely discussed.

 

Did you forget Dean?

 

I know exactly how much your networks cleaned up the sound when my components were stock.  It sure is nice to have adjustability now that things are much different.

 

[joessportster]

Max

 

Instead of trying to integrate the tubes  into your HT what not use an audio switch on your source and have a tube amp / tube or passive pre set up for 2 channel there are some EXCELLENT passive pre amps that will allow all that tube glory to shine through and a really good but cheap audio switch will allow you best of both worlds

 

I use the Schiit Sys  (  http://schiit.com/products/sys  ) it works 2 directions IE...1 in and 2 out  OR 2 in and 1 out,  and for 50.00 I think it would solve your problem Hell I will send you mine that sets unused and you can try it with any amp to see for yourself if it would work for you 

[Fjd]

Those crossover networks look nice.  I think that Chad should give Dean is own sub-forum under Technical/Modifications. Of course, if he had is own sub-forum, I suspect he could never get any work done. 

 

Actually, there is a lot of information out there on the forum but as with any niche topic it is difficult to mine the data. For certain topics, I've seen a lot of good information come out of posts in the garage sale section but it is very difficult to find when wanting to refer back to it. 

 

Probably the piece where it could be interesting and there isn't too much out there would be related to experiences with the different capacitors (e.g., we do have schu's description of Jupiter caps) used in the crossover networks with very high-resolving systems, similar to discussions of using different coupling capcitors in amplifiers with simple circuits; however, the threads tend to degenerate into people telling us we are wrong in what we are hearing.  The difference in capacitors is another area where Audible Nectar can describe the differences very well between his two pair of restored MC30s.

 

I've been working with some DIY as time permits and my two-channel today consists of a First Watt Aleph J clone (singe-ended amplifier with Jfet input stage and Mosfet output stage) coupled with a pair of Hersey speakers with Mundorf EVO capacitors in the crossover.  I was using it at very low listening levels late last night and was surprised at the incredible amount of detail that was resolved from the recordings even at these very low listening levels. 

 

 

 

It always interests me that when talking about their systems, how the networks are rarely if ever mentioned. you guys can believe whatever you want, but the filter will have at least, if not more impact on the sonic signature than an amplifier will. What we want to know is something about the syngergistic aspect, as well as the listening habits and personal tastes of the listener -- things which are rarely discussed.

 

Did you forget Dean?

 

I know exactly how much your networks cleaned up the sound when my components were stock.  It sure is nice to have adjustability now that things are much different.

 

 

 

[Fjd]

 

I was using it at very low listening levels late last night and was surprised at the incredible amount of detail that was resolved from the recordings even at these very low listening levels.

That caught my eye. Normally, low level allows more detail appreciation than very loud levels. This is because the midrange sounds louder.

 

 

 

That makes sense.  Nothing controlled in my perceptions here or controlled in my swapping of amplifiers, but I have been sensing that when I use certain low power single-ended tube amps and the single-ended mosfet designs, the music just seems to fill the room with more detail than the higher-power amps at similar volume levels that I think are not disturbing the neighbors. 

 

The amplifier the Aleph J replaced was an unrestored Harman Kardon Citation 12 and it seemed the volume was set higher (to the point where I was wondering if the neighbors could hear since this is an apartment set up) to achieve a similar level of detail. 

 

On the Hersey speakers I do have the midrange tap on the autoformer swamped with a resistor and set for the 3dB drop since the speakers are away from the wall/corner and on stands to get them more at ear level.   

Edited January 25, 2015 by Fjd

[Fjd]

If the Aleph didn't sound way better than the a Citation 12, I would be worried. The early transistor amps were very smeared. That's the first characteristic people hated. Too much negative feedback.

Back to levels. Ideally, you want low ambient noise, and volume at about conversation level. That will facilitate hearing detail.

 

 

While it is a temporary setting for job circumstances, I currently do not have too many opportunities for the ideal listening environment.  Due to the extremely low ambient noise level at night is why I believe that I can hear the differences during these late night sessions (at 3:30 am there is practially no noise in this complex and every little pop of a switch can be heard like a crack of thunder in the night - well maybe not that loud.....). 

 

Although I would like to raise the volume closer to a conversation level, it seems that someone will hear it and comment the next day.  I was verbally practicing a presentation at the same time at night and my voice actually woke the neighbor where they started to knock on the wall. During the day the ambient noise is just too high.

 

I do have a fully restored Citation 12 that has been revamped to incorporate the Nelson Pass circut modifications and now has the Mosfet outputs.  At some point I will swap that amplifier and see if the difference is as startling.

[erik2A3]

Hi, Wolfram! A very good friend, a classical pianist, adores his Quads. Hoping you are well, Erik

[Schu]

It always interests me that when talking about their systems, how the networks are rarely if ever mentioned. you guys can believe whatever you want, but the filter will have at least, if not more impact on the sonic signature than an amplifier will. What we want to know is something about the syngergistic aspect, as well as the listening habits and personal tastes of the listener -- things which are rarely discussed.

Areed... an amplifier should be transparent imho.

[Deang]

Well, there's no such thing, they all sound different. A high quality solid state amplifier compared to something like the two amplifiers under discussion will sound very different, but not as different as two different filter types built with different parts. When someone starts talking about the sound of amos and preamps, I want to know something about what they are pushing the sound through.

[Deang]

"I know exactly how much your networks cleaned up the sound when my components were stock. It sure is nice to have adjustability now that things are much different."

Hi Max, in all honesty, I sometimes think the adjustability feature is overrated. If given a choice, the stock midrange is always run 3dB down, while the big driver/horn setups are run either 12 or 15dB down. If built with paper in oils or wax film capacitors, no adjustability to the stock setup is necessary, while the big setups are run 12dB down. I provide the ability to go 15dB down, but all but two are at 12dB. The vintage style capacitors just plain sound better to me with horns.

[Deang]

"Oh, the networks are important indeed - I have just installed another autoformer in my ALK universal network and the difference is far from subtle..."

Hi Wolfram, you must be using that C-core based unit. Those look really nice. When I decided I wanted my own unit, I asked Universal Transformer, "What would you build if you were building it for you?" They said PWK wanted the lowest DCR possible and required that they be soaked in wax. I was told that wax is thinner than water, and is the only method that actually gets into all of the windings, something varnish does not do. Potting with epoxy gets it done, but it's kind of expensive. The new units are built using a larger frame to accommodate the heavier gauge wire. I hear a difference between the 3619 and 3670, but I have to be honest and admit that I don't know what I'm hearing, at least, I can't put it into words. I'm mostly content in knowing that by their standards, I have the best of what they are capable of building, and I'm told it's the unit PWK wanted, but couldn't bring himself to pay for -- which is interesting, because they really aren't that much more.

Edited January 26, 2015 by DeanG

[Max2]

"I know exactly how much your networks cleaned up the sound when my components were stock. It sure is nice to have adjustability now that things are much different."

Hi Max, in all honesty, I sometimes think the adjustability feature is overrated. If given a choice, the stock midrange is always run 3dB down, while the big driver/horn setups are run either 12 or 15dB down. If built with paper in oils or wax film capacitors, no adjustability to the stock setup is necessary, while the big setups are run 12dB down. I provide the ability to go 15dB down, but all but two are at 12dB. The vintage style capacitors just plain sound better to me with horns.

 

 

Im pretty settled at -12db, but maybe I should try  -13, -14 or -15db.   I keep the Beyma's at -3, but I wish the transformer from AL had -1 and -2db also available.   Is the swamping resistor holding things at 8 ohms hampering transparency or SQ at all ?  Or I guess I should say, Caps aside, would a network with the swamping resistor be bested by a permanently fixed network without the resistor (or at least one setup to match the other) in clarity and resolution?

Edited January 26, 2015 by Max2

[dubai2000]

Hi Erik,

I loved my Quads as well - for quite a while - until I discovered vintage (read early 1970s) Cabasse. I suppose not many people outside France know about those. Those and a pair of Tannoy Arden are now the speakers in my non-horn setup. I am okay, thx. for asking. Hope you are fine yourself!

 

Dean,

yes, it's indedd those C-core based units. To be honest, I didn't expect too much of a change/difference - and apart from even more clarity, the sound became "softer"/less harsh sounding. Perhaps they have greater bandwidth? The manufacturer also winds his own inductors for the bass (also a C-core design) - those will be tried next. Once they are here I might open a thread in the technical section.... .

 

Wolfram

Edited January 26, 2015 by dubai2000

[erik2A3]

Wolfram -

Certainly I know of Cabasse! I've read MANY reviews about them over the years; always very positive too. Funny you mention Tannoy: the Tannoy Glenair is a loudspeaker I may pursue seriously sometime when (and if) I have the means. The dual concentric drivers have been around for a long, long time; and the build quality of the big Tannoys -- basket, motor structure, and so forth is really superb. We are doing well, listening mostly to vinyl on three separate systems. The Lowther horns with PM5A drivers -- not a single capacitive and/or inductive filter to speak of. Driver surrounds and spiders are still loosening up even after many hours, but they sound really nice, and are slighltly more efficient than the La Scalas.

[Max2]

Well I have more or less ruled out tubes due to the fact I am wanting to retain my AVR as a "do-all" pre for the time being. I guess Im still a cheap date at this point and love my remote.   Maybe my next home will have space to pull off a separate 2 channel setup.  Until then, Im going to have to keep a multi function, 5.1 setup even though Im mainly a two channel listener. I am considering a 5 channel Outlaw. Im marveled by the slew rate, SNR and THD, but what about the actual sound it makes?  I have heard two ATI amps and have been pretty dang impressed by them.  Another part of me is saying to stick with an older McIntosh SS two channel amp.  Do I want headroom or do I want small wattage, even though there is just a few Mac amps short of 200 WPC. The Outlaw amps are almost too cheap right now, brand new, warranty and all.   Im worried with the excellent numbers they're posting is just an over use of negative feedback which will give the usual non personality, thin sound of the common amps of today.    Amp guru's, please fire away.