Flevoman Posted January 7 Author Share Posted January 7 16 minutes ago, CWelsh said: Beautiful! I love the minimalist look. Reminds me of @henry4841's Little Sweetie projects It's not just the exterior that is minimalist; the construction is also very simple. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWelsh Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 18 hours ago, Shakeydeal said: The Node volume control is done in the digital domain and it’s not a very sophisticated one at that. When you attenuate past a certain point, you are throwing away bits. Not good. So it’s no wonder a preamp sounds better. But if you have enough front end gain, a well designed passive pre will beat most all comers. I may be misreading what you're saying, so please bear with me while I try to get this clear. When I see the word attenuate, I understand that to mean reducing. So, are you saying that reducing the volume using the Node volume control means that I am throwing away bits, or am I reading this backwards? What I feel gives the most articulate sound is to have the volume control on the Marantz set at about a 3:00 o'clock position (around 85%), then use the volume control on the Node to set the loudness. Most of the time, that means the volume level on the Node app is in the bottom 25% of the overall range. I will say, pushed beyond that it does seem to sound more detailed, but it is at a less comfortable dB level for me. However, if I reduce the volume setting on the Marantz and increase the level on the Node, it starts sounding a bit muddy overall. Is this where you think a passive preamp would be the better option? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakeydeal Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 So is the marantz an integrated amp? Does it not have remote? I don’t understand why you are Daisy chaining two volume controls? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWelsh Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 3 minutes ago, Shakeydeal said: So is the marantz an integrated amp? Does it not have remote? I don’t understand why you are Daisy chaining two volume controls? The Marantz is an integrated from 1974, so no remote. The Node feeds into the Aux input on the Marantz which I am using only as a preamp (Marantz Preamp-Out outputs to ACA). The volume control on the Marantz definitely affects the output volume of the system, as does the volume setting of the Node. I don't know how I could do it any other way than daisy chaining. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWelsh Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 Sorry, @Flevoman, I feel like I'm stealing your thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OO1 Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 this amp is quite rare in the USA or Canada , there are clones of these SET 45 amps since real Welborne tube amps are scarce , higher quality workmanship and sound quality , an amp for purists , either you like em or you dont , on the + side , the resale value is rising Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakeydeal Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 54 minutes ago, CWelsh said: The Marantz is an integrated from 1974, so no remote. The Node feeds into the Aux input on the Marantz which I am using only as a preamp (Marantz Preamp-Out outputs to ACA). The volume control on the Marantz definitely affects the output volume of the system, as does the volume setting of the Node. I don't know how I could do it any other way than daisy chaining. The best scenario is either a different integrated with remote or an amp/preamp combo and use the Node with its volume control in fixed mode. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82 Cornwalls Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 2 hours ago, Flevoman said: I suddenly remembered that I still have an old preamp lying in the attic from my first audio period about 20 years ago, a Peraux. I connected it to see what it does, and yes, I hear a difference. But do I like it? Not really I think. It has been sitting unused for years? I would have to plug it in and play something through it for a while (not necessarily even listening to it) before I could make a judgement. Not saying it will make a difference, but just what I would do. Also fwiw I have what I feel is a very neutral 6922 tube preamp that just seems to add something positive with my tube amplifiers whether the gain is needed or not, but especially so with amps that don't have a super high input sensitivity. I'm not familiar enough with 45 tubes to know how much drive they need, but I have seen pictures of these amplifiers with 2 small driver tubes instead of just 1 like yours. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grindstone Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 3 hours ago, Flevoman said: I can unfortunately not find much information about this amplifier, except that it also comes from America. Well, making cars might not be your strong suit, but apparently, you're doing something very well when it comes to audio 😉 But can you tell me what level this amp is? Is it a good beginner's amp, or is it considered a more serious amplifier? That was very much a serious amplifier and you are fortunate to have them. I just lost 2+ hours trying to find (what used to be easy to find 20 years ago) info on the thing. I still haven't found Ron's circuit, but perhaps someone who built one will see your post in time. What I remember is that Ron and Jack (Electra-print) worked together to hatch that thing based on Jack's 45 DRD circuit. Jack spent a bunch of time finding input tube operating points that were complementary in distortion to that of the output stage, and the magnetics are all custom, all first-rate and wont be wound again (Jack retired). If there is specific information you seek, it may be gone unless you are lucky enough to correspond with the right person who perhaps built a kit. I've never seen a gutshot except yours so I can't say from the pics (thanks for those, BTW) if that's Ron's work or not--perhaps other Welborne owners may comment. It looks minimal because it is minimal--and you may be sure it was quite well-engineered for the given set of goals. IMO, that's the zero-NFB SE config to do the least damage to signal on the way through an amp--but it needs a pro winder with fast test gear to keep all the parasitics well out of band (and as an old RF guy, audio was/is slow to Jack). Personally, I'd expect the listening report to be as yours sounds (thank you, also, for that)--clear and more sparkle, basically. I'd expect the harmonics out of that thing at 5-700mW or whatever you feed Lascalas to be very much different than many other low-watt SE amps. As zero NFB SE amps go, a direct-coupled amp _should_ be cleaner. My opinion only, but something like that is about as good as it gets for low-watt zero-NFB SE amps. Twenty-some years ago, kits were $1100 +/- 200 a pair, depending on options/wood/tubes/caps/blah blah...I remember because I didn't have the $1200 then Congrats. This was Jack's, but I _think_ (?) Ron's is supposed to have a 6N1P input tube. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flevoman Posted January 7 Author Share Posted January 7 1 hour ago, 83 LSIs said: It has been sitting unused for years? I would have to plug it in and play something through it for a while (not necessarily even listening to it) before I could make a judgement. Not saying it will make a difference, but just what I would do Yes it has been sitting unused for more than 20 years I think. But I have used it for some time and there is no difference. But thank you for this advise 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flevoman Posted January 7 Author Share Posted January 7 @grindstone What a nice piece of information, thanks for that. While I don't have any intention to sell it, could you perhaps give me an estimate of the current value of this amplifier? Indeed, it has a 6N1P tube. Unfortunately, I don't grasp all the information equally well, but that's definitely not your fault; it's my lack of knowledge on this subject. I understand it's quite an old amplifier; would it be necessary to replace certain parts to make it perform at its best again, or should I leave it as it is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grindstone Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 OK @Flevoman -- got some info for you, please check your PM's. If you're not a DIY'er completely comfortable with ~500VDC, my advice would be to stay out of there. If they run right, I'd just listen a while and get used to what they do. No help on value, sorry. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henry4841 Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 I use a buffer pre made by Firstwatt called the B1 for volume control enabling the use of a sub because of two outputs, one for the sub and the other going to the amplifier. A buffer is an impedance matching device and has very little of any effect on the sound. I matches the source to the amp much better than the source being tied to the amp. Best of both worlds. I have not found a need for pre with gain using my speakers even though I do have many of them I have built over the years. Unfortunately the are no longer for sale and the price was high when new unless you build it yourself. Easy build with very few parts. Perhaps members know of another brand of buffer available and much cheaper. One can be built using an op-amp as I have also built in the past. I am sure there is probably a retail version by someone available. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flevoman Posted January 8 Author Share Posted January 8 @henry4841 Thank you for your tip and explanation. Honestly, what you're describing appeals to me the most. A way to attenuate my signal (apparently, amplifying the signal isn't necessary with these sensitive speakers) but in a more audiophile manner than what I'm currently doing, using the volume control on the Cambridge. Is what you're describing the same as a passive preamplifier? And if so, would essentially any passive preamplifier work well in my system? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakeydeal Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 I'm not trying to answer for @henry4841, but my take is that if you have a source with 2v output, have 104 db speakers, and an amplifier with high(ish) input sensitivity, you are a prime candidate for a passive linestage. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lighting guy Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 Flevoman, you could also try a set of stepped attenuators instead of a passive pre. I have a pair made by Scott Endler in the US. They were built 15 years ago, so I'm not sure if he's still in business, but you could do an internet search. I ran them inline between an Apollo CDP (2v output) my Wright 3.5's (2a3 SET) which have an input impedence of 100k. They give you volume control without adding much to the signal path. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henry4841 Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 5 hours ago, Flevoman said: @henry4841 Thank you for your tip and explanation. Honestly, what you're describing appeals to me the most. A way to attenuate my signal (apparently, amplifying the signal isn't necessary with these sensitive speakers) but in a more audiophile manner than what I'm currently doing, using the volume control on the Cambridge. Is what you're describing the same as a passive preamplifier? And if so, would essentially any passive preamplifier work well in my system? Yes but active buffer vs passive pre both no gain. Better option being active buffer because of impedance matching of components. The problem with Firstwatt B1 was price, $1K. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OO1 Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 6 hours ago, Flevoman said: would essentially any passive preamplifier work well in my system? no , ideally you need a quality preamp with separate tone controls to allow you to EQ the sound , I would recommend the Mark Levinson LNP-2 , one of the best preamps ever designed by Mark Levinson himself . 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakeydeal Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 37 minutes ago, OO1 said: no , ideally you need a quality preamp with separate tone controls to allow you to EQ the sound , I would recommend the Mark Levinson LNP-2 , one of the best preamps ever designed by Mark Levinson himself . Get your room and system right and EQ can go pound sand...... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henry4841 Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 4 hours ago, OO1 said: no , ideally you need a quality preamp with separate tone controls to allow you to EQ the sound , I would recommend the Mark Levinson LNP-2 , one of the best preamps ever designed by Mark Levinson himself . I quit using tone controls and or EQ decades ago. Not needed when everything right. I am referring to high end audio where one spends lots of money for a pure signal. Tone controls and EQ is for the masses and not audiophiles serious about sound reproduction. But then this hobby is entertainment and if one desires manipulated sound I say go for it. There is no right or wrong. With a trained ear one can hear a difference though. You do not find tone controls on Nelson Pass linestages, preamps, for an example. And they are not cheap. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.