Chorus IIs powered McIntosh tubes

[jimjimbo]

4 minutes ago, mikebse2a3 said:

 

So far every time I've listened to the MC240 versus MC30's (This was multiple versions of each model so not just a couple of amps) my preference has slightly been for the MC240.

 

miketn

I've had both the MC30's and the MC240 hooked to LSI splits, and to Khorns....tough call for sure.

[derrickdj1]

Accuracy is such a vague term in most of our listening environments.  Also, without being in the studio during the recording and mastering of a track, in our homes we are making the best guess as to what the engineers wanted us to hear.  I do feeling tone control, remastering a cd, ect can make the music more appealing but, is not neccessarily accurate IMHO.  I am not in the 1% and don't want to be.  I want what sounds best to me.  I like tube amps but, they rely on distortion for their great sound to some extent.  That's OK.

 

I am proud not to be an eccentric audiophile and will take being a guy who just like his muic. I paid for it, I set it up and want it to sound good for me and if others like it, that's a bit of extra icing on the cake, lol.

[mikebse2a3]

I want as accurate a system as possible (within certain design goals) with the added ability to compensate for the real world inaccuracies..!!!

 

Another interesting observation I made about myself awhile back was when after repairing a friends jukebox I was listening to music that I first heard reproduced through jukeboxes many decades ago and it emotionally transported me back to a very happy time in my life that my much more accurate system wouldn't have been able to achieve to the same degree for Shure.

 

miketn

[NOSValves]

I had some personal things come up so I missed the last couple days and have little time to respond to all the posts. I do want to make something clear...I am in no way saying anything bad about McIntosh amplifiers.

 

 I do however find this place has led the newer crowd to rely way too much on specifications and measuring things to death. To me this is about enjoying music and in turn your system. I personally have never found the absolute best testing equipment to sound the best. 

 

       Musical sounding system is the name of the game to me. The best testing gear, flattest room response and so on usually sounds like a machine reproducing music to me. 

[Dawson's Ridge]

On 9/17/2016 at 0:13 PM, NOSValves said:

I do want to make something clear...I am in no way saying anything bad about McIntosh amplifiers.

I do however find this place has led the newer crowd to rely way too much on specifications and measuring things to death. I personally have never found the absolute best testing equipment to sound the best. 

 

      

Coming from one of the 'older crowd', you and Sidney Corderman have a different opinion: "McIntosh has always used a scientific, measurement based approach. If a design doesn't measure well, it isn't going to sound good".   

[NOSValves]

On ‎9‎/‎17‎/‎2016 at 2:32 PM, Dawson's Ridge said:

Coming from one of the 'older crowd', you and Sidney Cornerman have a different opinion: "McIntosh has always used a scientific, measurement based approach. If a design doesn't measure well, it isn't going to sound good".   

 

 

good grief....

[jjptkd]

Interesting read on distortion, especially if you're a Bob Carver fan, enjoy:

 

http://thecarversite.com/yetanotherforum/default.aspx?g=posts&t=4481

 

"So far, our tests indicated that very small amounts of distortion (0.15 per cent) are perceptible if the program material is sufficiently simple—for example, a single pure, steady tone. Mixing two tones dramatically raised the threshold of perception to over 2 per cent. Three simultaneous tones, representing increasingly complex program material, resulted in a perception level of a surprising 4 per cent. With normally complex music, it was necessary to increase distortion to a full 6 per cent before it became just perceptible."

 

 

[WMcD]

Ya gotta love Bob Carver.

 

Did anyone notice that the picture caption lists five listeners (four mentioned elsewhere) and there is also mention of ten ears.  Plato is listed in the caption and photo shows Plato is a corgie or the like.  When "all" listeners purportedly agreed I wonder how Plato's perceptions were included.  Smile.

 

You can find the specs on the speaker on the Internet.  All direct radiators.  I don't see sensitivity but it must be someplace. 

 

For good or bad it seems to me the added tones must have been played by the direct driver mid and tweeter.  This is contrary to PWKs testing which made sure the critical tones were in the woofer range.

 

Yikes, four watts average.  That is ear bleed level for K-Horns.  

 

Too bad that K-Horns and Class A amps were not used.  My guess is that we'd see some different results, though interesting results.

 

WMcD

[Chris A]

On 9/15/2016 at 9:49 AM, Chris A said:

Has anyone read this book?

 

This is a VERY interesting book...BTW.  For those that understand a little about circuit theory and don't have a lot of problems with ordinary differential equations (the formulas are derived  for acceleration, velocity, and displacement, along with current and voltage[ or EMF]).  This book answers a lot questions why bi-amping and tri-amping sounds so much better.  And why a lot of folks like SETs without feedback.  Read chapters 3 and 4.

 

It's not that this stuff isn't known to some degree, rather its value is in pulling everything together into a narrative with the math and the physics of what is happening when using voltage feedback (i.e. virtually all amplifiers) instead of current feedback (i.e., "transconductance" or current-source) amplifiers with effectively infinite output impedance.

 

Chris

[Dawson's Ridge]

Chris, not many are at your level of technical understanding, certainly not me. As a layman, I have always avoided bi-amping. Every time I considered it I came away with too many questions and concerns. These included realizing that to 'true bi-amp' I needed to use an outboard electronic crossover and by-bass the internal passive crossover components in my speakers. I also realized that I needed to make sure I used two compatible amplifiers and that the crossover frequencies were correct for my drivers.

 

When I added up the cost and complexities of another amplifier, a quality crossover component, more cabling, and the lack of knowledge to know exactly how to ensure the correct power and frequency settings, I decided I would just focus on a high-quality and straightforward 2-channel system trying to get the "cleanest" (PWK) signal possible with no unnecessary equipment and using proven technologies and reliable brands.       

[Chris A]

4 hours ago, Dawson's Ridge said:

As a layman, I have always avoided bi-amping. Every time I considered it I came away with too many questions and concerns.

I don't believe that it is that difficult -- and that's why I put this biamp/tri-amp FAQ together: 

 

4 hours ago, Dawson's Ridge said:

These included realizing that to 'true bi-amp' I needed to use an outboard electronic crossover and by-bass the internal passive crossover components in my speakers.

Yes, but there are some people using passive crossovers that have separated the HF and woofer sections from each other to avoid the electronic crossover.  BTW: electronic crossovers are much easier to use than passive ones, IMHE.  More and more people are using lower cost crossovers like miniDSP.   I find, like anything else in the audio path, that quality counts, and that you can hear when you've placed a cheap electronic crossover in the chain.  I recommend higher quality, just like you would recommend higher quality loudspeakers, amplifiers, and pre-amps. 

 

4 hours ago, Dawson's Ridge said:

I also realized that I needed to make sure I used two compatible amplifiers and that the crossover frequencies were correct for my drivers.

This seems a bit over-the-top.  I use $80-$150 Crown D75As (used) for everything except the Jubilee HF drivers (TAD TD-4002s, which are driven by a First Watt F3).  "Compatibility" really isn't an issue past that point.  In fact, I believe it's much easier than trying to select one stereo amplifier to drive your loudspeakers through passive crossovers.  You can use almost any two stereo amplifiers that you wish to bi-amp (or three to tri-amp).  I find almost everyone here has amps lying around unused on the shelf or in a closet.  I see no other difficulties.  There are more than a few people that frequent this forum that have made the switch.

 

4 hours ago, Dawson's Ridge said:

I decided I would just focus on a high-quality and straightforward 2-channel system trying to get the "cleanest" (PWK) signal possible with no unnecessary equipment and using proven technologies and reliable brands.       

Actually, the reason why I posted the reference to the book above is that the cleanest signal to your loudspeakers' drivers is "one amp channel per driver", so that you don't have recirculating back-EMF in the loop from passives and other drivers, especially electrical EMF through the combined passive sections (HF, MF, LF).  That's the point of the reference, above.  PWK never really had access to affordable good quality electronic crossovers for two-channel operation as they were still too expensive at the time of his passing.  That's changed--rather dramatically. 

 

4 hours ago, Dawson's Ridge said:

I decided I would just focus on a high-quality and straightforward 2-channel system trying to get the "cleanest" (PWK) signal possible with no unnecessary equipment and using proven technologies and reliable brands.       

So did I.  I'm bi-amping all my surrounds (Jubilee fronts, K-402-based multiple-entry horn center, and Cornwall surrounds.  All of my gear is name-brand and extremely reliable (Klipsch, EV, Yamaha, Crown)--in fact much more reliable than tube amplification--which requires periodic maintenance to avoid bad things from occurring. 

 

4 hours ago, Dawson's Ridge said:

Chris, not many are at your level of technical understanding

I understand that.  That's why I've published threads to make it easier for those that don't really want to learn about the "why", but rather the "how" only, and have provided help to those willing to change. 

 

Most people that have completed freshman-level physics (mechanics or electromagnetics) in college can read the book above, and that knowledge is increasingly being pushed down to second-year high school calculus (and both of my offspring had that math in first year high school physics: one of them went on to electrical engineering--the other business).  That's why I posted the link to the book.  There are a lot of folks walking around that can read about the "why", and enjoy it. 

 

I've taught in engineering school (graduate), and I can say that I've seen a wide range of understanding by students of the physics involved in any technical subject--and loudspeakers/sound reproduction are technical subjects--not literary or "liberal arts".  I wouldn't have referenced the linked book above if I thought that no one would benefit. 

 

Chris

[Dawson's Ridge]

Chris, thanks for taking the time to expand your thoughts on the technical aspects of bi-amping. I am a finance guy and the 'why' really helps me better understand my electronics/speakers.  

[tube fanatic]

2 hours ago, Chris A said:

All of my gear is name-brand and extremely reliable (Klipsch, EV, Yamaha, Crown)--in fact much more reliable than tube amplification--which requires periodic maintenance to avoid bad things from occurring. 

 

 

 

I

As a general statement this is totally incorrect and misleading.  Yes, some tube amps require occasional maintenance to stay within spec (I'm not sure what kind of bad things Chris is referring to if the operating parameters are off a bit).  Many require absolutely no maintenance, are as "plug and play" ready as any solid state amp, and are so totally reliable that even tube replacements can be a very rare occurrence (unless one considers an output tube replacement every 15000 to 25000 hours as maintenance).  I'm clarifying this point for the benefit of newer forum participants who may be misled about tube reliability when reading statements such as the above.

 

 

Maynard        

[derrickdj1]

14 minutes ago, tube fanatic said:

As a general statement this is totally incorrect and misleading.  Yes, some tube amps require occasional maintenance to stay within spec (I'm not sure what kind of bad things Chris is referring to if the operating parameters are off a bit).  Many require absolutely no maintenance, are as "plug and play" ready as any solid state amp, and are so totally reliable that even tube replacements can be a very rare occurrence (unless one considers an output tube replacement every 15000 to 25000 hours as maintenance).  I'm clarifying this point for the benefit of newer forum participants who may be misled about tube reliability when reading statements such as the above.

 

 

Maynard        

My first tube amp was plug n play and needed no maintenance the three or four year that I was using it. 

[Dawson's Ridge]

I have never owned a tube amplifier but comments by a leading US audio equipment manufacturer always persuaded me not to do so.

 

"Scientific testing and controlled listening tests reveal that most tube products have performance levels substantially inferior to solid-state models. The ability to maintain the performance of tube products will be difficult due to the limitations of tubes. If you desire the finest possible sound production in your home, you should take advantage of the many fine solid-state products currently available. It would be an unfortunate mistake to limit your enjoyment of music reproduction to the antiquated designs of the past."  McIntosh Laboratories

[ricktate]

Scientific testing and controlled listening tests reveal that most tube products have performance levels substantially inferior to solid-state models. The ability to maintain the performance of tube products will be difficult due to the limitations of tubes. If you desire the finest possible sound production in your home, you should take advantage of the many fine solid-state products currently available. It would be an unfortunate mistake to limit your enjoyment of music reproduction to the

antiquated designs of the past."  

 

I think this statement is full of PWK Bullshit......Although I have never owned a tube stereo amp I have heard a tube amp before and many would agree they sound better than most solid state amps. If I could afford a tube amp I'm sure I would have one. A lot of us have HK 430 and they always refer to the tube sound of these. My 430 sounded better than mine high dollar Yamaha with 80 watts and the HK only has about 24 watts. If I could afford to have the HK rebuilt I bet it would sound even better. The statement above must have come from a solid-state company pushing their products.

 

 

 

 

              

[Chris A]

Maynard,

 

The statement that I made, and that you quoted, is factual and can be proven.  But I sense that you don't want to go down that path, so I'll refrain. 

 

The comment I was making really was "the equipment that I'm using is very reliable".  That was the statement that I wished that you'd commented on, not something off topic. 

 

But, it's up to you how you want to respond...  I do wish that you keep the rhetoric to minimum.

 

Chris

[pbphoto]

If you don't want to pay for a built-in DAC, try to find a used MA6600 if you want autoformers.  or MA6300 if you want a direct-couple amp.