Jump to content

Tube Preamp recommendations - Pics


mobile homeless

Recommended Posts

Interesting, Dean. I have found the octal based preamps to have a LARGER soundstage with way more bloom than the 12AX7-12AU7-6922 based options. I remember you writing this before and I thought it sounded different than what I was hearing. I do think the Octals also have a more open and see-thru sound than the mini tube variants. But to me, I have always thought they sounded larger as well, with more bloom, less antiseptic, and more 3-dimensional. It's this open - 3 dimensional - and less "equipment" characteristic that makes me prefer the octals. Ultimately, in my view, they sound more natural and organic to me, especially with tube rectification, which adds a bit of this quality, though subtle. When I had Chris' Pantheon 6SN7 SRPP here, I thought the Cary was a bit quieter, a bit more extended with slam in the bottom, and very refined. Where the Pantheon overtook the Cary was in the removal of the last vestiges of electronic sound (though subtle), bringing in this more harmonically rich take. Another way of describing the difference? IT let the music BREATHE more. The Cary was tight and powerful, with no grain but the Pantheon was more relaxed, a bit more loose, but allowd the notes to ebb and flow, sounding more natural. It had some noise issues but damn if it wasnt the most natural sounding pre I have had in my system. IT is THIS natural quality that comes with the 6SL7/6SN7 basesd preamps done right. I dont think I have heard a mini tube pre match it. To me, the modern 6922 et al based pres sound more solid state for lack of a better word. That is NOT a good description since SS has so many connotations. But I feel they are more contained and restricted sounding on the whole.

Now these are a heap of adjectives to try to describe what the units SOUND like. Some think them nebulous and not saying anything concrete(you have said this in past as well, just recently in fact). To them, I say look up the specs. I have found them wholely unrefined and ill-equiped in explaining how the preamp will SOUND ...but are useful in areas like impedance/output etc for system matching. For those here that groan at these decriptions, I understand. btw, these preamps DO change sound with different tube options. And getting it to the highest plane in YOUR system, will take experimenting. Some tubes really bring that sweet spot in to play. It's here that experience and options are a help.

As for old preamps, I generally think the preamp needs to be really in great shape due to the low noise floor needed. I think more modern pres generally perform this better than vintage although some vintage can sound GREAT. I just have never been a total fan of the stock Dynaco preamps but many have modified them to a better standard. Personally, I would go elsewhere but that is just my taste. Others are happy.

kh

ps- On a final note, a passive with a phono stage lacks enough drive in my opinion, depending on the phono stage. I found this a case with a few when using my various passives over the years. For quite a while, I ran a Stan Warren Superphon SP-100 Buffered Passive and it didnt have enough gain (a passive has NO gain) to run a phono stage without additional help to achieve proper dynamics and volume. AT the least, however, it's a good option to own (or even BUILD) a passive to have on hand. I dont prefer them with SET ultimately, but I have had one on hand since the 80s and have used them off and on. The little Creek OBH-12 with remote volume/mute control is a nifty little number and very transparent. Still, it's sitting on my shelf...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"I have found the octal based preamps to have a LARGER soundstage with way more bloom than the 12AX7-12AU7-6922 based options. I remember you writing this before and I thought it sounded different than what I was hearing."

This is why I brought up the circuit aspect. How much of what we are hearing is tube, and how much is topology?

"I do think the Octals also have a more open and see-thru sound than the mini tube variants."

This is what I meant by direct and immediate.

"...I have always thought they (octals) sounded larger as well, with more bloom, less antiseptic, and more 3-dimensional. It's this open - 3 dimensional - and less "equipment" characteristic that makes me prefer the octals."

"Bloom" is a word I do not prefer to use, because I have never experienced expansion in all directions. After getting the AE-3 DJH and unloading the Line1, I did notice how the sound projected out towards my chair, but at the same time thought the Line 1 did a better job with the side to side and top to bottom thing.

The 6922 breeds do seem to be more two dimensional in nature (hanging out closer to the speaker baffles), but apply a little volume and the soundstage shakes loose well enough. With some volume, the 6922 preamps have an expansive quality, and the soundstage literally explodes forward into the room. There is a somewhat homogenized quality to the sound, and I'm wondering if this is what you are hearing as "mechanical", or "equipment-like". It's very likely that room acoustics and speakers are playing important roles here in our perceptions. I do agree that the 6SN7 in a preamp sounds very clean and open. I think a good word here, and one that I know you like -- would be "unfettered". :)

"Ultimately, in my view, they sound more natural and organic to me, especially with tube rectification, which adds a bit of this quality, though subtle."

I can't make any judgments or constructive comments here. Most of my music is amplified, and though I can get a bit of a handle on "natural" -- "organic" means nothing to me. Either type preamp sounds "natural" to me, in as much as whether I am listening to live Rock in a bar, or in an arena -- both sound "natural" to me. Not a perfect analogy, but I think you get the jist of what I am saying.

A classic Holsten mouthful of a freaking paragragh comimg up here.

"When I had Chris' Pantheon 6SN7 SRPP here, I thought the Cary was a bit quieter, a bit more extended with slam in the bottom, and very refined. Where the Pantheon overtook the Cary was in the removal of that electronic sound, bringing in this more harmonically rich take. Another way of describing the difference? IT let the music BREATHE more. The Cary was tight and powerful, with no grain but the Pantheon was more relaxed, a bit more loose, but allowd the notes to ebb and flow, sounding more natural. It had some noise issues but damn if it wasnt the most natural sounding pre I have had in my system. IT is THIS natural quality that comes with the 6SL7/6SN7 basesd preamps done right. I dont think I have heard a mini tube pre match it. To me, the modern 6922 et al based pres sound more solid state for lack of a better word. That is NOT a good description since SS has so many connotations. But I feel they are more contained and restricted sounding on the whole."

When discussing the sound of the Cary, I'm right with you. When you begin discussing the Pantheon -- I'm lost. I don't understand descriptions like, "electronic sound...breathe more...more relaxed...allowed notes to ebb and flow..." However, I'd like to set that aside, because what is of real interest here is that both preamps use the 6SN7, yet sound substantially different (at least to your ears). This brings us to where I began: How much of what we hear can be attributed to the tubes, and how much to topology? I believe you were primarily hearing the difference between SRPP and the cathode follower design of the 70.

I had plenty of time to compare my Hong Kong 6SN7 SRPP linestage to the 6922 based Companion IIc. Tonally I think they sound very similiar, and all things considered -- I really don't have a preference of one over the other. Though "different" in their presentation of the soundstage -- they both sound excellent. As far as the 6922 goes -- I would certainly choose a SF Line 1 or Companion IIc over a bone stock AE-3. So, the tube type is a very small thing here overall, and just one of many factors determing how pleasurable one finds the sound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a wonderful thread, chock-full of useful information concerning the 6SN7 output tubes. The more I've read, and thoughts on my entry-level AMC 1030s tube preamp based on 2 X 12AU7 and 2 X 12AX7WA I owned last year (phono stage included), the more I'm inclined to purchase a tube preamp again and keep my much loved McIntosh MC250 transistorized beast!

This may be a bastardized setup to the purists out there, but I can't help but love my Mac; the quality and reliability, the clean and dynamic punch I get when listening to massive pipe organ recordings at "Grande Tutti" at near 100dB levels through my Cornwalls, all at a budget I can digest (at this time). The only triode amps that could provide the high levels I require are obviously out of my price range; the fabulous flea-powered SETs that you know and love would simply weez and gasp under the load (and that's no way to treat a triode)!

Kelly and Dean both informed me about DeanG's now for sale SRPP line-stage preamp based on twin 6SN7 output tubes, along with tube rectification, choke regulation, point to point wiring, using high-end quality transformers and caps...I'm genuinely intrigued by this lil' gem and it's simple straightforward design, not to mention being 6SN7 driven, and CHEAP (approximately $250 on eBay plus shipping from Hong Kong)! Dean swears by it, so it has to be good!2.gif

So I'm curious...is Dean's affordable tube preamp heavily modified or is it in stock form (minus NOS tube rolling, natch)? What mods would be necessary, if any, or would it be satisfactory as it is? And lastly, would this preamp really improve the dynamics and soundstage with my present 50 WPC SS amplifier and horn speakers, i.e. would this be a good matchup? I'm sure it can't hurt the sonic soundscape I enjoy now, but would the improvement be slight or evolutionary? This tube-newbie needs to know...4.gif

PS - What is the definition for "SRPP"? I'm still tryin' to learn all this valve lingo!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forwarning: This post moves in and out of lots of territory...

DEan, I am having a hard time understanding why you are having trouble with words like "relaxed, breathe more, allow notes to ebb and flow" when I actually think these are EXCELLENT descriptions of the sound. You get "unfettered" but you dont get "relaxed, breathe more, etc?" These are adjectives that descibe to me the sonic differences in the SOUND using words that describe that sound, something, in a strange way, is FAR more descriptive than numbers, and in this case, can EASILY be pictured in the process. You get some words, but others you choose to be confused by.

Strangely enough, the ones that you are confused by are some of the better descriptives in my view. Have you heard a system that doesnt allow the notes do ebb and flow, or DECAY off into space like a real instrument does? Where the music sounds more natural in that it is being produced in real space, and not CANNED from two devices aimed towards your skull?

This is PRECISELY where ANALOG walks ALL OVER digital in my view. Digital has YET to convey this to the level of top flight analog. And I think the SACD I have heard has not totally achieved this either, despite what many are saying. But that constrained presentation of digital, especially the example of old digital with brick wall filtering, is a aural comparison, though rather gross, to the point I am making in the descriptives above.

Also, I dont think you have the type of music that reveals these aspects of a system as much. I listen to a ton of indie rock and noise bands, most of which you havent heard of. On the other hand, I DO know you probably listen to Zeppelin, Hendrix, Doors, YES, Who and others that we are both familiar with. I think this material, especially with digital (actually, almost totally with digital) is hard pressed to convey some of these differences, mainly because there is less space between the notes and not as much dynamic contrasts from soft to loud. Bring in the 70s and 80s popular culture rock, and you have even MORE STUDIO added gloss and artificial sound. I still wonder what you are listening to to ascertain the differences in something like the Bruce Moore Companion and the octal all tube regulation HK unit. These REALLY SHOULD be sounding different in subtle, but important ways, at least this is in the experience that I have had.

When you pop up a snoring dot face when some Ella Fitzgerald and Joe PAss is played, I wonder what other types of music and sounrces you are using to ascertain the sound of this gear? I do remember you using two Journey recordings to review another piece in the past. I personally could not draw many conclusions about the piece and how it performs just using this, or only Led Zeppelin, Hendrix etc. I think this might define too narrow a parameter in which to draw conclusions about the sound of the gear on a whole.

On the other hand, you raise an important point. That the SYSTEM and ROOM play a huge role, not to mention your setup. As for equipment, yes, those two preamps were both using octals but had differnt takes on the sound. Yet I still felt there was a family similarity. IT was just that one was a cathode follower circuit with monster filtration and top flight parts and film foil caps, while the other was an SRPP with tube regulation, high quality OIL CAPS, and twin chokes.

Anyway, some interesting points here. Still not sure why certain adjective tend to throw you so much; perhaps you are trying to be too literal here. When Sam Tellig writes the words "palpable presence" in describing SET vs PP, I can instantly get a picture of the difference his is implying. MAybe reading a lot helps here as well as using words to describe reality (or imagined reality).

Interesting thread with some good preamp comments and discussion.

kh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

----------------

On 10/11/2003 2:05:29 PM jt1stcav wrote:

PS - What is the definition for "SRPP"? I'm still tryin' to learn all this valve lingo!

----------------

SRPP would stand for Series Regulated Push-Pull. It is actually a particular tube topology.

A somewhat technical definition is found here.

SRPP explained

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Dean swears by it, so it has to be good!"

Ha! The only thing I'm swearing to is that it works great with my tunes. It is similiar to the Patheon and AE-3 DJH, so it will probably do well with other types of music too.

"...is Dean's affordable tube preamp heavily modified or is it in stock form...What mods would be necessary, if any, or would it be satisfactory as it is?"

Well, I haven't done anything with it except the tubes, and it sounds good just the way it is. Personally, I would leave it alone. It's quiet, it sounds good, and everything works.

"...would this preamp really improve the dynamics and soundstage with my present 50 WPC SS amplifier and horn speakers, i.e. would this be a good matchup...would the improvement be slight or evolutionary?"

Based on my experience of running CD direct (without a preamp), everything improves, and I don't think the improvements will be subtle. I don't imagine there would be any problem running it with the Mac.

I've received about a half dozen emails about the preamp, and it will go to the first person who coughs up the money. I do have one serious potential, and I'm waiting...

"What is the definition for SRPP?"

"Shunt Regulated Push-Pull".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks painful for the SRPP link...it was way over my head, but I think I got the gist of it.

Dean, I appreciate all your answers to my many questions concerning your 6SN7 preamp. If I had the $450 - $500 on me right now, the funds would be sitting in your PayPal account this very minute, and you'd be shipping it off to me on Monday.2.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the Tube CAD Journal link:

"This circuit has many names: SRPP, SEPP, Totem Pole, Mu Follower, Mu amplifier, Cascoded Cathode Follower, and its original name, the Series-Balanced amplifier (Feb. 1943, US patent 2,310,342. Just what "SRPP" means is uncertain; maybe it stands for Series Regulated Push-Pull amplifier or Single-Ended Reflexive Push-Pull amplifier."

Sherry? I like mine served chilled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yeah?

"The SRPP stage provides a reasonably low drive-impedance, low parts-count and a single stage solution. The distortion of the SRPP stage is fairly low. However this is due to it's "SeRies Push-Pull" nature, which introduces distortion cancellation within the SRPP stage."

From

Put your Thorsten filter at on

In fact... I have not a clue who's right or wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, missed that big ole post up there. saw your little one and was wondering what you were talking about. At any rate, no -- not too aggressive.

The descriptions are not confusing once you define them using words I am familiar with. "Decay" I understand perfectly, "ebb and flow" I don't. Instead of saying things like "unfettered, relaxed, and not canned", I would say "wide open, airy, and doesn't sound like speakers". I don't really "choose" to be confused by them, I just don't see some words as being easy to understand when being used to describe sound.

Also, I dont think you have the type of music that reveals these aspects of a system as much... I still wonder what you are listening to to ascertain the differences in something like the Bruce Moore Companion and the octal all tube regulation HK unit... When you pop up a snoring dot face when some Ella Fitzgerald and Joe PAss is played, I wonder what other types of music and sources you are using to ascertain the sound of this gear?"

I have plenty of music that shows the differences. As a matter of fact, anything I play reveals the differences. Chances are, I can pick up on near as much with the music I'm familiar with as you can pick up with the music you are familiar with. I'm not convinced that a Jazz Quartet exhibits as much dynamic range as some of the recordings I use. I don't mean to sound rude, but if the majority of the material you listen to is similiar to the MP3s you posted, then I propose to you that this material is anything but challenging to an amplifier.

Since you brought them up (yet again), why not find or download a copy of Winds of March, Patiently, or Lights -- off of Journey's Infinity recording. I also use The Moody Blues, Jean Luc Ponty, Rush, STP Core, and Judas Priest SWD. I listen for very specific things on each of these, and have never had a problem getting a system dialed in using them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kudret,I will be selling my AES AE-3 very soon. I bought a Rogue Audio Magnum 99 and it is due in 10/22( you helped convince me Kelly). This AE-3 is a factory assembled unit.Fantastic entry into the world of tubes; im asking $350. Email me if your interested.

kek

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Rogue 99 Magnum below. Did you order this beast new, kek? I didnt remember you having the little AE-3 for some reason. The Rogue is clean...but a bit $$$ (in Cary SLP-98 territory). Then again, my fully modified Cary would have cost the consumer $2400 in 1991. It's amazing how many bargains there are in tube pre's these days with used online and stuff like that HK 6SN7 SRPP tube rectified unit coming in at an insane price. It's a good time for tubes...

rogue_99_mag2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...