maybe tubes are not that great? I do not know! HELP!

[Zen Traveler]

Really really great and sensible post. I commend you on your time spent doing research!

 

Hey! Here is one we truly agree and he has less than 3400 posts to go before he can tell us what he REALLY thinks....I realize this is in the Tube section where there can be some signature differences in amps, but I still think when it comes to solid state folks don't hear  as much difference unless the impedance requirements aren't being met.

Edited April 8, 2016 by Zen Traveler

[richieb]

And preaching, arguing, whatever you want to call it the "best" of any one topography is like preaching the virtues of a Ford Mustang to a Camero lover and vise versa. And besides, everyone knows Dodge Hemi power rules!!!

[Ski Bum]

Didn't realize this was still here, left over from the old forum...an old measurement of a SE/ss bi-amp setup.  Sure looks to me like room modes are of far greater concern than any tube amp misbehavior (although those harmonics definitely do result in subtle tonal colorations).  

 

 

I'm sure PWK would ridicule this discussion, I can see him asking if we intend to play our records as though they were guitars, but it's his own fault for giving us the speakers amenable to such ridiculous (as well as fun and educational) approaches in the first place.  If I didn't own Klipsch speakers first, I would never have gone down the tube rabbit hole.  DIY, do it inexpensively, have fun with it.  (Not trying to be preachy with that, just sharing experience to help 2B and whoever else navigate the terrain and avoid the puddles.)

Edited April 8, 2016 by Ski Bum

[NOSValves]

 

It is quite obvious to everyone that you have Moderator buddies who let you do what no one other business owner can do.

 

If you have examples that prove your point, make them.  Yes, Craig has crossed the line at times and been duly warned, and he's responded positively.  I can assure you that Craig doesn't feel like he has any "moderator buddies."  Take your issues with us up personally or with Chad, as you see fit. 

 

Dave

 

 

 

 I used to have a really good moderator buddy...sadly she is no longer employed by Klipsch... I despise all these current moderators ....just kidding!    

[NOSValves]

I do not preach the virtues of single ended but know thats the sonic presentation I favor. I've had more amps through my rig than I care to mention which always get sold for - another single ended. I do not and do not intend to listen at concert levels so mid to hi power is not a requirement with my KHorns. And if I do I always keep a little extra power amp in reserve. Currently enjoying 5 watts of tube rectified EL84 and if my offer is accepted monoblock 2a3 will be on there way.

 

 

Now that is a sensible positive testament for SET and low powered amplifiers.... great post! 

Edited April 8, 2016 by NOSValves

[NOSValves]

Dodge Hemi power rules!!!

 

 

Now them is fighting words!

[richieb]

Dodge Hemi power rules!!!

 

 

Now them is fighting words!

Easy there Big Fella - last thing you want is to hook up with 392 cubic inches of Dodge Hemi power.

[2Bmusic]

 

 

 

My big ben 4 ~6 watt SET did not have enough to power to reproduce bass notes as well as a 25 watt p/p amp.   

 

 

The curiosity is killing me. What is this 25 watt push pull EL84 amplifier? 

 

In case you did not get it from what I wrote previously, Quick Silver horn mono's.   TO BE PERFECTLY CLEAR...they sounded great. but $2,000  better than the yamaha rx A1030... not so much. If I did not have the yammy 1030, the horn mono's are keepers! 

 

AND the fact that I have the Yamaha RX 1030 is accidental.   I had been wanting a Macintosh or Pass amp.  I never thought I would have the money to buy one,  and in fact did not ( at the time) .  BUT i needed an amp.  I looked on CL and this 1030 which I knew nothing about was for sale brand new used less than a week.  I offered the guy $400 and he took it. I connected it to my ( new to me) lascalas and it sounded good.  Thinking that tubes would sound better I saved up and bought the Big Ben.   Since that is a buy it and you keep it, I kept it. Although it sounded a small bit better than the 1030, again it was not worth the money as far as sound improvement goes.

 

Then, 2 yrs later, I got to listen to khorns. I was blown away by the improvement!   BUT NOW the BB 6 watt SET just was not enough for the BASS when comparing to the yamaha 1030.   So now you know the rest of the story.

[paul79]

http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews2/audioreviews.html

 

I've actually talked to Srajan Ebaen on  few occasions Craig. Maybe you can discuss how your 30 year year old design you have copied is so much better than anything they have ever heard with him and send him one of your amps for a review. You can fool the less knowledgeable members on this forum with your sales pitch at every chance you get but you will not be able to stay in a room with real amplifier designers. 

 

I would love to see the square wave response you were bragging about from an independent unbiased lab. Your avatar pretty much says it all. 

 

Also I thought we had an agreement but I never thought you would abide by it.  The only market place you have is this forum and the members here but only the ones that do not understand amplifier technology. How you get away with pitching your product when others are not allowed to do so is beyond me. 

Not trying to start a war here. Just an honest question that deserves answer....

 

Have you ever heard any of Craig's amps? If so, what did you not care for in listening?

 

Thanks for your consideration.

[CECAA850]

I despise all these current moderators ....just kidding!

 

 

 

[Mallette]

I used to have a really good moderator buddy...sadly she is no longer employed by Klipsch... I despise all these current moderators ....just kidding!

 

NOT FAIR comparing us individually or collectively to Amy!  I despise us compared to her.

 

Dave

[Fjd]

 

 

I think we have somehow created our own “red herrings” that we are now chasing upstream.  In many of the articles where we have jumped to conclusions that Paul was promoting one type of amplifier topology over another, our conclusions appear to be incorrect and he is really expounding upon how well-engineered his Klipshorn speakers are.  When it comes to amplifiers, I believe that PWK was primarily pointing out a simple mathematical relationship and facing an economic reality of the times he lived.

 

After reviewing a multitude of evidence for which I have outlined a few key points in more detail below, I tend to hold the view that I don't think PWK can be used as an advocate of low powered SET amplifiers any more than he can be used as an advocate for mid-power solid state amplifiers.  Although, in one of the “Dope From Hope articles” he does state that “In a typical living room or small theater, our present all-horn systems offer concert-hall levels with a mere 10 watts peak input.”  There again, PWK specifically stated 10 watts, not 5 watts, and I believe his statement was a tribute to the engineering of the loudspeaker in that it could reproduce concert-level SPL with fairly low power (e.g., doing the math), not an endorsement of any specific amplifiers or amplifier topologies.

 

The simple fact of the matter was, is, and always will be, the Klipschorn speaker efficiency allows a person to use very low-powered amplifiers if that type of amplifier meets that person’s listening requirements, regardless of whether that choice is SET, SEP, Push-Pull, solid state, or otherwise; and as I have noted in other posts, the Klipschhorn will reveal very quickly if the amplifier sucks or the source sucks or both suck.

 

 

 

Really really great and sensible post. I commend you on your time spent doing research! 

 

 

 

fjd that post was incredible!!! You did a great job on that one!!

 

 

 

Thanks!  I shortened the original post to save on bandwidth.  Here is what I believe to be a worthwhile read. At the link is an issue of “High Fidelity” magazine from December 1956 and Page 4 starts an article related to G.A. Briggs of Wharfedale Loudspeakers giving a demonstration on October 3, 1956 of “live and recorded music” in Carnegie Hall to about 2,500 in attendance.  Page 9 starts a section of the article where PWK in conjunction with Gray Research and Development Company did a smaller scale demonstration of Klipschorn loudspeakers on October 9, 1956 in Hartford, Connecticut at the Bushnell Memorial Hall.  I find it interesting to read an article that was written so close to the actual event.

 

http://vintagevacuumaudio.com/vintage-magazines/high-fidelity/1956-12-high-fidelity.pdf

 

Actually, I’m not in this trying to correct misinformation on the internet, that’s an impossible goal. However, I do believe that if people are genuinely interested in the technical aspects that PWK has considered in developing the Klipschorn and the design decisions and trade-offs that were considered, PWK's Dope from Hope series is well worth the time it takes to read.  It seems that a few of the attachments to certain documents on the Klipsch main website may be missing, but with internet search capabilities, I was able to find most hosted on other websites.

 

In many respects this is a fun mental exercise in trying to understand the decisions PWK made and the actual trade-offs that he had considered.  Of course, the posting of PWK’s table outlining amplifier wattage in the “high power amplifier for heritage” thread and some of those comments really got me thinking about a few things. I guess in that thread at the link below I was researching how PWK concluded that two watts were sufficient to fill a room with concert-level peaks inherent in the music, not trying to figure out if he had a preference or recommendation.  

 

https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/163148-high-power-amplifiers-for-heritage-speakers/

 

When revisiting all of PWK’s writings and other publications that were written during that time, it became clearly evident that PWK was, first and foremost, an engineer building a high-quality high-performing loudspeaker capable (not to be confused with “mandatory that everyone use it this way”) of producing concert-level sound of 115dB SPL at the listener position.

 

In “Dope From Hope, Vol 4, No. 3 August 21, 1963” PWK indicated that “In quality or accuracy, all loudspeakers err by greater or less amounts.  Comparison between them is not the best way to evaluate them.  Comparison with live sound would be much better when and if possible.  Then one would not judge which sounds best but which sounds most like the original.  If the original sounds bad, then surely, so should the reproduction.”

 

In “Dope From Hope, Vol 5, No. 1 Feb. 24, 1964” after the proper loudspeaker selection, PWK outlines that room acoustics are the second most important/critical aspect in achieving good audio. 

 

I did not have any pre-conceived notions of what I may find, just that I would post what I did find.  In all of my reading I found no evidence that PWK was promoting one type of amplifier topology over another, or even made any comment regarding that he liked the “sound” of one type of amplifier topology over another.  In fact, liking the “sound” of an amplifier seems like it would have been counter-intuitive to how he believed a loudspeaker should be evaluated (excerpt above from Dope From Hope, Vol 4, No. 3 August 21, 1963). 

 

Dope From Hope, Vol 16, No. 3 March 1977 dedicated an entire issue looking at the distortion that Dr. Matti Otala found in the early solid state amplifiers and did offer thoughts on the impact to the music reproduction.  This may be the only place where PWK did a general comparison of tubes vs solid state, where he concluded that Transient Intermodulation Distortion (TIM) found in early solid state amplifiers impacted the sound and needed to be engineered out of solid state amplifiers.

 

The quote verification search actually started last fall when I wanted to add a legitimate PWK quote to my signature and was trying to verify several audio related quotes that I found interesting and were often attributed to PWK.  During the quote verification process, I find it rather staggering how many quotes on the internet are either incorrect or never made, attributed to the wrong individual or have been completely skewed out of context from the context in which the author had said or written the words.

 

Regarding the 5 watt amplifier quote, since I could not find a shred of evidence he said it or the context in which he may have said it, I had hoped Maron (most recently "Zako" on the forum) could provide some insight; however, with his passing away last October (may he RIP), I believe that the forum lost the “last gray haired eminence with ties to all of PWK's wrecking crew of tin foil hat experimenters.” 

 

If the quote was actually said, given that PWK was an engineer designing and building loudspeakers (with a design goal of reproducing concert-level sound of 115dB SPL) and outlined why he believed that room acoustics were the second most important/critical aspect in achieving good audio (Dope From Hope, Vol 5, No. 1 Feb. 24, 1964), I suspect he may have been criticizing the amplifier manufacturers of his time.

 

 

Disclaimer: As used in my various posts, "concert-level," “115db SPL at the listening position,” “SET,” “Push-Pull,” “solid state,” “harmonic distortion” and other terms were not used or meant to be taken as mandates; and not used or meant to be taken in any disparaging way by any forum member or by anyone reading these threads and lurking.  As always, please note that the information presented by this author is meant for fun, hopefully informative and thought-provoking, and is not intended as insult or otherwise!!! 

 

 

 

[CECAA850]

In “Dope From Hope, Vol 5, No. 1 Feb. 24, 1964” after the proper loudspeaker selection, PWK outlines that room acoustics are the second most important/critical aspect in achieving good audio.

 

I thought it was speaker wire!

 

 

So many people obsess over gear and totally neglect the room.  It's amazing.  I guess room treatments aren't sexy like gear is but until you address the room, you really don't know what you're listening to.

[paul79]

Absolutely agree with above... Speaker to room marriage is the most important part of ALL of this....

[Fjd]

Hmm.  Some semantic pot holes have appeared in the road.

 

Distortion is not necessarily bad, and often results in an interpretation of being "more realistic" by the user.  By objective measures, Maynard's amp with 5% 2nd harmonic undoubtedly measures worse than 2Bmusic's Yamaha in a multitude of ways.  So on a certain level I find it impossible to regard single ended tube amps as simply "amplifiers" as they're adding something that wasn't in the recording.  That's just a fact.  (And yes, I realize that 5% 2nd harmonic is consonant, largely masked by the fundamental, and basically inaudible.)  It's also a fact that many who have experienced both prefer the "process" that the tubes apply. 

 

 

 

When I say best sound possible, I am taking about music that sounds as close to original as possible.

   

 

Some would posit that the magic of the original performance was bastardized the moment the sound was captured by the mics, in which case a little tube amp processing embellishment on playback is a-ok.  Accuracy to the original is a laudable goal, but never achieved.  If that's the goal, then go by the book: only use amps with low distortion, low output impedance, and enough power that clipping is never an issue, and enjoy the resulting dry, clinical sound.  Or try one of Maynards designs, which definitely add a bit of wetness and real-life-resembling spatial qualities (IME only SE amps do this trickery).

 

Bi-amping may work, provided the amps don't have too much divergence in their sonic character.  A lyrical sounding SET up top may audibly clash with a tight, dry ss amp on the woofs.  That was my experience, at least.  The puny amps weren't as strong down low, but there was a certain roundness of tone from the tubes that was lost with ss.  Another experience I've had is that the small tube amps seem to be able to handle eq (bass boost) rather well, with less handicapping of overall power than I expected.  Have you tried to simply eq your bass?

 

 

Didn't realize this was still here, left over from the old forum...an old measurement of a SE/ss bi-amp setup.  Sure looks to me like room modes are of far greater concern than any tube amp misbehavior (although those harmonics definitely do result in subtle tonal colorations).  

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sure PWK would ridicule this discussion, I can see him asking if we intend to play our records as though they were guitars, but it's his own fault for giving us the speakers amenable to such ridiculous (as well as fun and educational) approaches in the first place.  If I didn't own Klipsch speakers first, I would never have gone down the tube rabbit hole.  DIY, do it inexpensively, have fun with it.  (Not trying to be preachy with that, just sharing experience to help 2B and whoever else navigate the terrain and avoid the puddles.)

 

 

 

I’m curious if the second harmonics are really inaudible or a contributor to the “bloom” that characterizes a SET amplifier with higher levels of distortion or if it has anything to do with the air gap transformers used in single-ended designs?  I have to think that someone has tried to measure it somewhere for a better idea as to what may be audible for some type of average level hearing acuity.

 

In another post I had expressed a view that, in general, I believe that most manufacturers (especially those making mass-produced products) will go to extraordinary lengths to “claim” accuracy, for what appears to be done in order to give consumers some level of “assurance” that they are buying products that are “accurate.”

 

With human nature being what it is, I believe that the general consumer doesn’t want their friends (or anyone on the internet) questioning them on why they bought an “inaccurate” stereo system (whatever “accurate” or “inaccurate” may actually mean).  Peer pressure or maybe advertising pressure at its finest. 

 

I personally believe that in most situations, you can easily find that most systems are just not accurate; and, in those indelible words of Bill Murray spoken in the movie Meatballs, “It just doesn’t matter.” 

 

 

 

 

 

Where I believe that certain aspects of the problem comes into play, is all of the “conditioning” that we continually go through for the goal of 'accuracy.'  I see that some in this thread seem to be freely admitting that maybe accuracy isn't the goal; and in most situations my goal is not necessarily “accuracy,” at least not for every situation.  However, in general, I encounter very few individuals that are able to admit to themselves that maybe a significant reason why they enjoy a certain amplifier is because it has its own 'sound' that works well with their speakers and works well simulating what they find important in a music listening experience.

 

As you seem well aware, there is a lot of internet chatter everywhere regarding second harmonic distortion and it is up to debate (or some type of testing) whether these distortions are audible or not; however, very few will readily admit this is most likely an amplifier “inaccuracy” (by definition?) in the form of its harmonic distortions.

 

Of course, I suspect that there will be people reading this and thinking to themselves, “Well this is a bunch of BS, “my” amplifier doesn't distort like that...my amplifier is as accurate as they come.”  However, I would hope they have enough of an open mind to do a little research on the topic (I think I’ve given a good start here and in the high power amplifier thread); and then ask themselves if they really know with certainty that this is the case” or “are they making an assumption that the amplifier cannot be inaccurate because they enjoy it, therefore, it must be “accurate”?  I don’t know, just more food for thought at this point.

 

From another perspective, the recording of an instrument will have captured the actual overtones/harmonics that the instrument originally produced in the live session.  Now feed the signal of the recorded instrument into the amplifier and given the levels of harmonic distortion of the amplifier, it seems reasonable that the distortion will in effect become a new fundamental that has been added to the harmonics of the original instrument.  Is the amplifier "accurate" or "inaccurate"?  Of course, I know what Bill Murray would say.

 

I have a few more items tagged for reading related to air gap transformers vs. transformers in general; however, in many respects, it seems that the amplifier that 'blooms' typically has a higher level of second order harmonic distortion and as a result will typically be creating “new” harmonics of what was originally a harmonic rather than only reproduce the harmonics of the original instrument on the recording. 

 

In addition, while by no means an absolute, I have given a lot of thought about the aspect of people generally concluding that the lower watt amplifier has the "better" sound.  For example, I can't count the times I've read where a person has a 300b then listens to the 2A3 and concludes the 2A3 sounds better.  Then the 45 comes along compared to the 2A3, and guess what?  Of course, the 45 has the better sound.  I've read similar conclusions about the 71A tube and the 1626 tube in the Darlington circuit. Etc., etc. etc.  

 

What does this all mean?  Is there any correlation or validity to the aspect that in each instance the lower power amplifier is ran much closer to its maximum, thus generating additional second harmonic distortions?  I know this is general and not all amplifiers have the same level of distortion at full output, but it does seem to be an interesting phenomena to consider.

 

Somewhere I had read a signature on one of these audio forums where the signature said, "shape the sound."  Personally, as much as I use "accuracy" in attempting to evaluate gear, I also love having choices and assembling “situational systems” to meet different listening objectives. 

 

 

Disclaimer: As used in my various posts, "concert-level," “115db SPL at the listening position,” “SET,” “Push-Pull,” “solid state,” “harmonic distortion” and other terms were not used or meant to be taken as mandates or absolutes; and not used or meant to be taken in any disparaging way by any forum member or by anyone reading these threads and lurking.  As always, please note that the information presented by this author is meant for fun, hopefully informative and thought-provoking, and is not intended as insult or otherwise!!! 

[NOSValves]

I used to have a really good moderator buddy...sadly she is no longer employed by Klipsch... I despise all these current moderators ....just kidding!

NOT FAIR comparing us individually or collectively to Amy! I despise us compared to her.

Dave

LOL!!! Well then I'm not alone.

[mikebse2a3]

PWK Papers: http://www.klipsch.com/pwk-papers

"Distortion in Audio"

Note especially PWK's comments on harmonic and intermodulation distortion in relation to amplifiers.

In all of audio including amplifiers my ears and experiences tell me there are "Bugs" that we aren't measuring for and are yet to be discovered..!!!

Knowing the fact that all amplifiers have "Bugs" I have to say the well designed Low Wattage Single Ended Triode and Single Ended SS(First Watt F3) are presently the least "audibly" infected when paired with my Jubs in my room.

miketn

850000_Distortion_in_Audio_635110477100100000.pdf

Edited April 9, 2016 by mikebse2a3

[DizRotus]

Dodge Hemi power rules!!!

 

 Now them is fighting words!

Easy there Big Fella - last thing you want is to hook up with 392 cubic inches of Dodge Hemi power.

Craig raced a 440 cid Camaro that ran sub 10 second quarters. The current crop of FCA hemis would not scare him.

[FloridaBoy]

 

 

 

 

My big ben 4 ~6 watt SET did not have enough to power to reproduce bass notes as well as a 25 watt p/p amp.   

 

 

The curiosity is killing me. What is this 25 watt push pull EL84 amplifier? 

 

In case you did not get it from what I wrote previously, Quick Silver horn mono's.   TO BE PERFECTLY CLEAR...they sounded great. but $2,000  better than the yamaha rx A1030... not so much. If I did not have the yammy 1030, the horn mono's are keepers! 

 

AND the fact that I have the Yamaha RX 1030 is accidental.   I had been wanting a Macintosh or Pass amp.  I never thought I would have the money to buy one,  and in fact did not ( at the time) .  BUT i needed an amp.  I looked on CL and this 1030 which I knew nothing about was for sale brand new used less than a week.  I offered the guy $400 and he took it. I connected it to my ( new to me) lascalas and it sounded good.  Thinking that tubes would sound better I saved up and bought the Big Ben.   Since that is a buy it and you keep it, I kept it. Although it sounded a small bit better than the 1030, again it was not worth the money as far as sound improvement goes.

 

Then, 2 yrs later, I got to listen to khorns. I was blown away by the improvement!   BUT NOW the BB 6 watt SET just was not enough for the BASS when comparing to the yamaha 1030.   So now you know the rest of the story.

 

This thread lost me. Do you still have the Quicksilvers? If so, what 12DW7/7247 and power tubes are you using? Your preamp may not be optimal for the Mono's and that may be why the 1030 sounds good....the preamp section is matched to the power section. I have found, over the years, that a preamp and amp from the same manufacturer is they way to go. However, there are always exceptions.

[tube fanatic]

In addition, while by no means an absolute, I have given a lot of thought about the aspect of people generally concluding that the lower watt amplifier has the "better" sound.  For example, I can't count the times I've read where a person has a 300b then listens to the 2A3 and concludes the 2A3 sounds better.  Then the 45 comes along compared to the 2A3, and guess what?  Of course, the 45 has the better sound.  I've read similar conclusions about the 71A tube and the 1626 tube in the Darlington circuit. Etc., etc. etc.  

 

What does this all mean?  Is there any correlation or validity to the aspect that in each instance the lower power amplifier is ran much closer to its maximum, thus generating additional second harmonic distortions?  I know this is general and not all amplifiers have the same level of distortion at full output, but it does seem to be an interesting phenomena to consider.

 

Somewhere I had read a signature on one of these audio forums where the signature said, "shape the sound."  Personally, as much as I use "accuracy" in attempting to evaluate gear, I also love having choices and assembling “situational systems” to meet different listening objectives. 

 

 

 

 

Frank, thanks for your insightful contributions to this discussion!  How do you find the time to write such long explanations?  As to the conclusions that some have made about the best sounding tubes, they are really invalid unless the same output xfmrs were used, at the very least.  And, there are a multitude of other variables which can affect sound, such as the frequency response created by specific values of coupling or bypass caps, the amount of nfb used (if any), the output tube's plate resistance, characteristics of the driver, and so on, that it becomes impossible to create a really controlled comparison.  As to lower power amps sounding better than their higher power counterparts, I can only say that in my experience the best sounding units are those which employ tubes designed for service in the ubiquitous table radios of days gone by.  And they maintain this amazing sound whether used at a fraction of their output power, where the distortion is extremely low, or closer to their maximum.  I have no explanation for this; yet, a 6V6 for example, using the same output xfmr and circuit characteristics, and matched to the same power output, doesn't sound as good to me or many others who were listening.  As to shaping the sound, I know few who don't do that in some fashion.  Every person for whom I've ever restored a vintage amp with tone controls uses them to create the sound they prefer!  Every custom amp that I design and build has some means of adjusting its sonic characteristics to suit individual taste, speakers, and room characteristics.  So, what constitutes "accurate reproduction?"  There's no point in having equipment with the proverbial, flat, "dc to daylight" frequency response if it sounds like garbage to the person who listens to it.  I'd rather listen to distortion which allows me to enjoy music to its fullest, than no distortion which sounds like finger nails scraping on a chalkboard.  Speaking of distortion, you mentioned the 1626 Darling amp.  I once ran loadlines for that tube and, with the recommended circuit parameters, I think the 2nd harmonic distortion was around 15% at full output.  Yet, folks who use those amps usually say that they have never had a more enjoyable listening experience.........

Maynard