First Heritage Tweak Contribution

[Deang]

Tired of fighting those terminal screws on your McIntosh and vintage tube amps? Fun huh?

[Deang]

The nice thing about the terminal blocks is that they are very low mass -- which is great for tube amps. A great solution is the Goertz cable. Just drill a hole through the cable, split the sheathing away, scape the film from around the hole, screw in -- and never have to 'screw' with 'em again. $84 gets you 25'.

[Audio Flynn]

You are having too much fun!

I need a new equipment list for you. I am lost.

DQ-10 gone?

Heresey gone?

RF-7 still there?

My memory is not that good; but the music is.

[jt1stcav]

Pretty damn impressive! Are you using the 15 AWG Goertz HT or the MI1? Did you order them through their website?

They would work perfectly with the terminal strips on my MC250...the 11 AWG Orbeck Stratti I use are a twisted pair per channel; that's alot of copper bound under those short screw heads on my Mac and my Cornwalls. They're tightly screwed in place and not going anywhere, but the strain on the threads of those short screws are probably at their limits! I paid a deeply discounted price of $67 for the 10' pair, but at $84 for a 25' pair of the Goertz, I may have to reconsider my choice of speaker cables.

[Deang]

Yes, I'm using the 15 AWG 'HT' cable. It's a perfect fit. With the exception of the AWG rating and white exterior, it's identical to the M series. I knew this stuff would be magic when I ran across it, and it is.

And yes, I ordered it through their website.

Instead of calling it 'HT cable', which is tacky as hell -- they should have called it 'cables for old stuff'.

[leok]

Dean,

How do you like the sound of those cables?

leok

[Triode Pete]

Remember the best connector is "No Connector"!

If you need to use spades for your vintage equipment, I highly recommend the gold plated (heavy duty) spades from DH Labs, I believe they are OFC with silver then gold plate over them. They will accept up to 10 gauge cable & they fit perfectly (1/4" OD) between vintage terminal strips & vintage screw terminals.

They are a crimp connector but you could also solder them too.

I believe ACI (Wisconsin), VTV (California) sells them for ~ $1 a piece.

Audios,

Pete

[Deang]

Leo,

I got a feeling you might not believe in this kind of thing -- but it's kind of too early to tell. So far, it seems to be a fairly neutral cable. It's certainly smoother sounding than the 14 gauge stranded I was using Tuesday. I won't do any critical listening on this system until tomorrow night. I'm just letting things burn and settle in for now.

Playing "Blue Guitar" by the Moody Blues right now. Treble is smooth and extended with an absence of grain. This is pretty much the most I expect from any cable I use. Slight shifts in signature don't bug me, and after few CD's -- I pretty much get used to whatever is going on. For the most, I listen for grain and strain. The Goertz passes this test. Very smooth. The acid test is when I dump some power into the speakers. Must wait for that.

You might find the information at the Alphacore site of interest. What we are looking at here is a somewhat different animal. Low inductance, HIGH capacitance, and very low impedance. The higher capacitance drops the impedance closer to what the amps and speakers deal with. Whether this is true or not beats me. However, I'm a sucker for technobabble.

Characteristic Impedance

The degree of distortion along a loudspeaker cable depends on its resistance ( R ), inductance ( L ) and capacitance ( C ). The square root of the ratio L/C is termed Characteristic Impedance, and is a quality inherent in a cable, dependent on its geometry and materials, but not dependent on its length.

The characteristic impedance of the Goertz MI cables in the order of 2 to 4 ohms closely matches the impedance of loudspeakers. Almost all other speaker cables have characteristic impedance ranging from 50 to 200 ohms, a mismatch which causes distortion due to signal reflections. Impedance matching primarily improves the clarity of the highs and upper mid-range, but many users have also experienced improvements in the lower mid-range. The cause seems to be that signal reflections caused by impedance mismatch enter the feedback loop of many amplifiers and disturb their ability to reproduce faithfully even lower frequency signals.

[mobile homeless]

Today is my morning to wander in this place. Glad to see the Cornwalls finally arrived safely, although the idea of safety regarding the speakers was never in doubt. I was more curious as to whether you would survive... I never received a call or email so I had doubts.

One of the things I always liked about the Goertz solution was the great termination aspect. That alone almost sold me on a pair. They make some good stuff. I enjoyed my time with it.

Too bad you ditched the other gear before comparisons. I still am surprised you opted for Quicksilver run with a quad per channel vs the more simple pair. In my view, you might have liked the Quicksilver amps with the pair of KT-88 and equivalent. Of the Quicksilver amps I have heard, I have preferred the simpler PP units with tube rectification. The quad approach per channel might not be the best solution but I am sure you will give it a proper go. You might find it too noisy with the RF-7 (relatively speaking).

kh

[Deang]

Sorry I didn't email you or something, but I've been busy as hell. Until recently, I haven't even posted anything substantial on the forum. I just got the Cornwalls on Saturday. See the thread, "Compliments of Ken Krandazzo".

I did post the following at the "Tubes DIY" forum at the Asylum after your initial comment regarding the use of quad output tubes per amp.

I've got my eye on a set of mint Quicksilver M60 monoblocks. Each amp uses four EL-34's. When I related this possible choice to someone, he remarked in effect that four output tubes per channel would be "grainy as hell." He said I should stay with tube offerings utilizing two tubes per channel.

I only received two responses:

"With good matched quads of tubes, there is no inherent reason that I know of which would cause grain." /Jim Carlon

"A push pull, parallel arrangement should allow a lower turn ratio transformer and much more power before the onset of clipping. Sounds like one of the guys from the rubber room ward (TUBES)."//James Guillebeau

However, the choice was primarily made for me. I couldn't afford to keep the Apollos, I had less than $1000 to spend, and I definitely needed something with which I could power and test the DQ's with. This next set of DQ's are almost finished, and though I haven't said much about them -- I've done some interesting things with the crossover, and I'm looking forward to hearing them as well.

When it is all said and done, I will make a decision regarding the Quicksilvers. Depending on what I find when I pull the bottom plate off, I may opt for modding them. I have already talked to Craig, who has agreed to step me through the process of converting them to triode.

I looked at the several other amps: A nice CV-55, but the seller would not respond to my emails. I had a bee-line on a CV-60 as well, but the bidding went over my affordibility level. Horn Monos were there as well, but sold before I could jump on them.

At any rate, after this round with the DQ's -- the amp situation will be up in the air again. I will in all probablily lean towards modding the Quicksilvers. It's time I learn a thing or two about amps, and I think I might fling some solder around these. Of course, if they sound disappointing -- they'll be drop kicked by UPS as soon as I can sell them.

[mobile homeless]

Interesting response in the Tube DIY. Post the same thing at Gun World and you wil get a whole different reponse. Besides, the SET guys probably didnt open the post. In addition, dont tell this to a lover of SET amps. Running multiple tubes in parallel has never been a favorite of mine, this coming from someone that greatly admires the sound of a SINGLE tube. I have never preferred the parallel running of tubes (even in SET). WHY?

1. It sounds like more "there" to me. Not as transparent. Same thing with multiple transistors. I tend to like LESS. SS amps with less transistors sound better to me. Ditto wit htubes.

2. The idea of buying EIGHT output tubes and trying to match them seems insane. The ONLY reason I would do this is if I needed a lot of power.

3. Going to efficient speakers in the 100dB area is supposed to make it so you dont need to resort to this solution. The option of running FOUR TUBES per monoblock seems to be overkill since you will ultimately be running them on the RF-7. I do see the need for the DQ testing. But I would have kept a big old Class A SS bruiser for that. 50w Threshold Class A does amazing things with those DQ-10.

4. I would personally opt for true triodes running in PP such as the 2A3 at 15w which will probably sound a hell of a lot more low end grunt then the 4 EL-34 in triode. The 2A3 triode has excellent damping on its own and will bring some nice low end.

Still, I have always liked Quicksilver amps. The older models do tend to be more soft sounding than modern amps. To me, this will not bode well for your taste depending on which model you take.

kh

[Deang]

What you say, I for the most part know.

Don't laugh, but I REALLY want to hear these amps on the DQ's.

I still haven't discounted the Joplin -- I will probably wait till late spring or early summer before I make any other decisions. No money for a while.