Dynaco Stereo 400 to drive Cornwalls?

[BigBusa]

I do not take it to seriously but I know many do. Especially those guys that spend $20k on a single tube amp. My findings were strictly my own and I reported what I felt the outcome was.

You surely don't have to take my word for it. Do your own tests, take pics an come tell us about it.

[NOSValves]

BigBusa

No one is jumping on you here. I am stating a cold hard fact a 40 year old tube amp is not going to sound worth a darn if it hasn't been completely rebuilt there not like current SS amps that can sit unused for years and them just be put back in action. Even some of them should not be treated that way. All I'm saying is your cheating yourself if your judging tube amps under these circumstances.

Craig

[mike stehr]

20k for a tube amp....I wish I knew those guys.

[TBrennan]

Craig----What, you don't think Fredo's JBLs can shake the rafters? :-)

I don't know the model of the Denon offhand, cost about $500 a few years ago, has DD and 60 or 70 watts a channel, something like that. Sounds very smooth, much better I think than the Yamaha I was using before. I don't listen to it anymore as I'm in the process of liqidating the big rig in the basement. Now I listen to my Altec 605As upstairs with an old HK tube receiver that doesn't really sound all that good but I don't much care anymore. That's with movies (which I listen to stereo, no more surround nonsense), for music I usually listen to the songs on my computer through the Yamaha speakers and "sub" hooked up to it.

I think after I sell this house and get an apartment I'll get some electrostats, Martin-Logans or maybe old Quads.

Yeah, we can get together some time, at Fredo's if he likes. Haven't talked to him in quite some time.

[Audible Nectar]

"Tell me where you going to find a $500 SS amp that will give you the sound field, warmth and generally saitsfying dynamics that you can listen to for hours on end for a $500 investment ??"

I would suggest the McIntosh MC 250 power amplifier....can be purchased in good condition for under $500, and still leave some change to start working on the preamp/phono. Craig does make a good point that the Scotts are integrated (preamp and phono included for 500-600 fully restored), but to say that there are not good SS amplifier options at $500 or less ---- not true.

I would recommend listening to the SS amplifier in question for a week or two....and see if the grating earbleed is a problem. After a week or two of solid listening, the ears will tell you if fatigue is a problem. If your ears like it, keep it.

[whell]

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

On 6/16/2003 8:32:40 PM NOSValves wrote:

Tom

As a matter of fact I'd put the Denon by itself up against your Scotts

That sounds like a challenge but who is going to be the fair panel of judges and who's speakers ?

I'm up to your challenge anytime . I think you have never heard a Scott like when I get done with them !

How about we use my Lascalas I'm been wanting to haul them over to Alfredo's place to shake the rafters !!

Craig

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

Craig -

If Tom will ship the Denon to you, I volunteer to offer my ears as a judge for this contest. I think it would be a hoot. I propose we use your LaScala's as the speakers, and swap out the amps.

[NOSValves]

dndphishin,

While you may buy a McIntosh MC 250 power amplifier for around $500 but its just a power amp for this to be fair and real this would have to be a integrated or a amp and preamp. I think my statement holds perfect water !

Tom,

I think Alfredo's speakers and system are fine but there setup for Bi-amping which would not work for a fair comparison ! Comparing one amp to the other will require a 2 or 3 way speaker system with nothing else in between. I really think you should talk to your fellow club members before you get in to deep unless they were all pulling my leg they all thought my Scott amps sounded very very good and this was with Heresy's in a awful placement situation. Heck the Scott amp was modified to produce bass that the Heresy's tried like the dickens to make but of coarse could not and it still sounded great !!

Craig

[NOSValves]

whell,

I think it would be a hoot but no contest what so ever. I can tell you right now what will happen and always happens with SS of the caliber Tom is talking about. Yes it will sounds fine, It won't be harsh, It will have the dynamics, it will have no sound field, it will have no etching or air around the instruments, It will be the type of sound you get bored with on about 2 hours unless its just background music. Been there done this many times. If the choice is tube amps to SS running full range I'll take a Scott, Fisher, Bogen, Heathkit whatever any day over any SS amp running full range costing $2000 and maybe even $3000. McIntosh could possibly be a exception to this rule.

Craig

[dodger]

My two cents:

I have McIntosh Tube (C-20, 60's, 2 240s, 30s, MX-110) and I have Solid State (Yamaha CR-1000, McIntosh 2120, Adcom, Sony V-FET Integrated, Technics (yeah), and NAD).

All but the Adcom have been hooked to LaScalas, Cornwall IIs, Heresys, Chorus IIs and Paradidigm mini-monitors.

With the exception of the Heresys and the Mini-Monitors, I can peg a calibrated 140 db Sound Level Meter - advantage of being with the Crime Analysis Unit - now medical retired, 6/10. A big factor no matter what - hearing loss or Tinnitus (constant ringing in your ears.) Former Sound Tech, Sound and Recording Engineer (live and Studio.) It does not take that much exposure to high levels to cause problems later in life. British thought that ringing, muffled hearing, shut-down,etc., was ear protecting itself - '60s & '70s theory. Wife works at Hearing & Speech Center, they do audio testing, hearing aid dispensing. Non-Profit Agency with over 200 employees PLUS you have Miracle Ear and others. End Lecture.

Yamaha CR-1000 sounds great, McIntosh Solid State sounds great, same with NAD, Adcom, etc.. Sony V-fet sounds VERY close to tube. Use tube 90% of the time. Tube I own now (getting 299C) sounds to me to be closer to reality. I played bass guitar, autoharp. Come from family: Mother played Violin, Viola had perfect pitch. Father played Trumpet, Harmonica. Both Eastman School Graduates, Mother had full scholarship.

What would I recommend? whatever sounds good to you - your hearing curve, your perception of instruments.

Both Tube and SS sides are valid. I'm glad I bought my tube gear in '70s, before it was "in" and prices went high and new tube amps with price tags from $800.00 to $100,000.00 came out.

New Jolida with good tubes isn't bad to me.

Listen with your ears AND your wallet

and remember sound is logarithmic - ear hears usual minimum 3db change. If 1 watt gives you 3db, you need 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128 watts to notice change. Otherwise you are adding headroom before clipping/distortion. And even 2 watts can produce 120 watts of distortion at a single tone.

[Deang]

Besides, you won't get the best in dynamics with a tube amp..."

"... 60dB of DR (dynamic range) is 1000X. So if you figure it is plus/minus 30dB from some nominal level that means +31X and -31X above and below. Listening at 5W (nom) then, you need about 150W to cover the top of the DR ... if I listen at 4m and 100dB SPL, that requires nominally 8W of power. Allowing for say, 20dB headroom (and that ain't much) I am at 80W..."

Mark and Tom, with all due respect, I'm going to disagree with you. What, you guys actually think people generally listen at 100+ db? Even me, Mr. Headbanger himself, though prone to some self abuse from time to time -- will rarely do the 100db thing. This is extemely loud, and though I have my system tweaked to do it in a pain free manner -- might only do a song or two like this on rare occasion.

Even a modestly powered tube amp has ample headroom for most 'normal' listening, or should I say - normal listeners. The funny thing here is that once you start hitting those really high db levels -- driver compression comes into play, and most of the extra power is wasted in heat, without giving any additional output -- so what's the point in having 200 wpc on horns?

Looking at the math above, I say what's wrong with giving up 10 db of dynamic range in exchange for a harmonically richer and fatter sound? You say 20db of dynamic range isn't much -- but It's really quite a bit if just talking about amplifier headroom. So, if you have a set of Scalas, Belles, or K-horns being pushed by a Scott integrated, and decide to juice things to 90 db (which is actually pretty loud) -- you're cruising at a 1/4 of a watt nominal.

I've owned some very nice solid state. Yeah, dynamite stuff if you need to fill a big room with big sound -- which is about the only time it sounds good. In small to average size listening rooms at average listening levels -- the soundstage doesn't project or hang anything more than a couple of feet off the front baffles.

Having been down both roads -- I think the key is sufficient power (which won't be the same for everyone), and the best sound available for the power level deemed necessary. That being said, I believe 60 to 80 good tube watts will sound better, and get just as loud without restricting dynamics as any 200 watt SS amp (because of driver compression) -- especially that damn Dynaco 400. I'm no stranger to that amp. I was around it daily for 10 years, and compared to most modern fare -- it's harsh as hell.

"Even the most efficient speakers run out of gas with tubes."

All speakers run out of gas and it doesn't matter what your pushing them with -- ya think?

"I used to run my Dyna ballsout into the LSs sometimes, clipping lamps flashing. That's what it took to get realistic reproduction of some music."

I wonder what that sounded like? Pushing over 200 watts at 20% clipping through speakers rated at 100 watts.

"Interesting differences but IMO not startling or really significant. The tube amp sounds smooth and non edgey like most tube users said it would. IMO that smooth and non-edgey sound equates to the music sounding slightly muffled and overly colored The highs are less obvious but (surprisingly) at the same SPL level as the stereo 400 the bass is much more powerful and punchy. The stereo 400 SS amp sounds egdey, the highs are much more pronounced and the whole sound is totally unmuffled. Compared to the 60w tube amp the soild state sound is indeed more "cutting" and precise. It does boarder on harsh but I like that precise uncolored musical sound."

Let me make sure I understand this:

Smooth and free from hash = muffled and colored

Edgey, cutting, and borderline harsh = precise and musical

I'm trying to understand -- really. What this sounds like to me is that you like the sound of SS transistor crossover distortion over the sound of an old tube amp with bad electrolytics.

[NOSValves]

Dean

I do love you man well said !!

Craig

[TBrennan]

Dean----What did 200 watts into LaScalas sound like? Well actually it was pretty clean and very loud. It would sound like a stack of Marshalls or Sunns was in the room with me. It sounded alot more like what bands like UFO, Rush, Mountain and The Ramones sounded like live than you can do with a tube amp and "Klipschettes" :-) I used to play in bands Dean and I know what that stuff sounds like in the room with you, I want to reproduce that.

Now perhaps it's not wise to listen like that but that's not the point as I see it, the point is what do you need for realistic reproduction of certain forms of music. Lots of power AND horns, that's what you need.

I used to be a bouncer for Jam Productions at Rock and Roll shows and I usually worked by the board. The techs would run SPL reading and routinely run over 115db. And it was louder at the stage, especially in the early 70s when guys were still cranking their amps on stage big-time.

The last band that I recall running their amps full-blast on stage was The Ramones. This was at The Aragon Ballroom in Chicago, 1977, I was in the front row. Johnny Ramone had 2 or 3 Marshalls and was cranking; the sound was the biggest, crunchiest, ballsiest sound I ever heard except for Leslie West maybe. You could feel the body of the blast off his wall of amps---chunk-a, chunk-a, chunk-a. And "air", "soundstage" and "image" didn't have a goddam thing to do with it Dean. If you want to get something close to that sound in your living room you need big power.

What I'm arguing here is that SETs and tube amps are not the be-all and end-all as many of their proponents claim. They have limitations that will effect dynamics and output. Thay are a compromise. Most things are. But I think many are unaware that tubes, especially SETs and low power tube amps, are compromised in this fashion. So you know your compromises and you make your choices. But you gotta know them.

[NOSValves]

Tom,

The post you just made is very much accurate to a point and very true a 3 watt Set or 20 watt push pull is not going to blast a 115 Db and I can not think of anyone that said it would !

The fact of the matter is your original post was over the top and very inaccurate or maybe incomplete would be a better word. We really don't care to be called Jaspers just because you disagree or have a different opinion. Playing music at 115db and having it sound like Live Bar band music that was only good if you were 3 sheets into the wind is not my Idea of quality sound ! Its funny that a good portion of those guitars your trumpeting that sounded so good are doing it with tubes by the way !

Oh and also I was a rock bar bouncer at "JC's Rock Saloon" in Detriot and in a northern Michigan resort town for almost 5 years and have heard tons and tons of Bar bands. They all sound much better when toasted LOL !! Most of them are using very questionable equipment because very few of them really make any money playing the Bar circuit at least in the late 70's and early 80's.

Craig

[TBrennan]

Craig---You're taking umbrage at being called a jasper? That's a Gary Cooper western movie term, from the 1930s and such. "Say, there's some jaspers out there rustlin' our cattle". :-)

The tubes used in some guitar amps are for music production, that has nothing to do with music reproduction. Otherwise we'd have to hook our record players up to Fender Dual Showmen and such. Well, actually we did that once, hooked up a record player to a pair of Fender Dual Showman amps. No RIAA EQ, we didn't know about that then. It still sounded pretty good. Tubes you know. :-)

[Deang]

Busa -- I guess you posted the same comparison at the Asylum.

You used THIS to come to a conclusion about tube sound?

"It`s nice that you`ve taken the time produce this *experiment*. You`re entitled to your opinion. I'm sure you`re hearing things as you say. Let`s look at the facts though:

(1) That amp isn't a Fisher 200 anymore.

(2) The driver circuit is designed aroung EL34s.You have KT88s in there.

(3) I don't see any 6CL6s where they belong and from you're auction pic the coupling transformer is missing (driver circuit ?)

(4) There's a Dyna output tranny instead of the Fisher part.

(5) God knows what kind of Kluge you've ended up with.

Tube amps with high current dual tube rectified power supplies are usually very clear and clean top to bottom. An *actual* 200, while a tad darker than 55As(EL34 version) or Quicksilver 8417s, is fast and clean.They're also amongst the most dynamic vintage amps made. I have friends that think they're too bright on their horn systems.

Still,your Dyna 400 will probably always sound more edgy than any tube amp, or solid state amp for that matter. In the end you have to like what you own. But your experiment could use some refinement."

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/vintage/messages/42642.html

[sunnysal]

I, for one, am not a parrot, nor subscribe to any orthodoxy of tubes. I have tried many tube and SS amps and have settled on a relatively low powered tube rig with my k-horn. why? not due to relgious fervor for tubes or dumb parroting, but because tubes sound better TO ME in my system, with my music. they please me more than my other (McIntosh SS, Adcom SS or Dynaco tube) amps I own and other amps (Cary tube, Audio Research tube and SS, Pass labs SS, Denon SS, Musical Fidelity SS) that friends have brought over to listen to in my system. YMMV, IMHO, blah, blah, blah. I too did not like Tbrennan's post about us tube zealots. I give advice to people on the board as a kindness, with the intention of helping others dealing with similar issues, not to engage with a counter low powered tube zealot about being a low powered tube zealot. regards, tony

[dodger]

Okay we have the tube end - after working with Marshalls, Fenders, Hiwatts, Orange, Sunn etc., those were and still are a vast portion of what was used. Some complain that when Marshall went to auto-production they lost their "sound." Funny, the hand wired had a sound - all alike to some, the auto wired had no sound but a lot of guitarists continued to use them, they were still tube.

The Solid State end: some Marshalls, Acoustic, Kustom.

Live in Concert - up to the point where P.A.'s were given enough power, you had the musical amplifiers doing their brunt and the vocals and drums handled by P.A. systems. Three or four stacks of Marshalls, Fender Super Showman. Keep in mind the difference in tone and sound of a Gibson ES 330 Hollow Body, a Les Paul or the Fenders mainly the Stratocaster, some Telecasters were the mains. If you know it you can hear it, you can pick out a Fender from a Gibson. The plastic pickguard on the Fender gives a different sound. Now add the P.A. - when P.A.s started getting megawatts they were mostly solid state. Bands figured put everything through the P.A. - mic all amps run them through the Solid State mixers and SS P.A.s.

Recording studios: used some tube mics into SS boards into sometimes tubed Reel to Reels.

With peaks and valleys in all of our hearing curves, amplifiers, tube or SS, Speakers - Differences in Cartridges - Ortofon, Grado, A-T, Blue Point and all of the above (Don't forget that bands increase their volumes a good bit for the last few songs - louder is better, more fun at concert) Is there any wonder why we have these discussions?

PWK used a 10 watt amplifier with K-Horns in a concert hall, tube amp I believe. Bob Dylan's last 2 tours had sound techs that kept most levels at one point in the place at 105db, no louder. Sound is subjective, except for watts needed for volume increases and dynamics and lol, smooth plate vs ribbed Telefunkens.

I had my C-20 components upgraded to me it sounds a bit sterile now. We get used to the breakdown of components we use until they're so far out of whack....

Tubes or Solid State usually boils to a disagreement, but the individual that is listening must like the sound, no matter the source - they know and choose. Last the psychology: some cannot accept concert volume from anything but a Heritage, because so many P.A.s are large horn. Yes I sold my LaScalas I needed the room and it is strange to see the Chorus IIs and think concert volume. We all agree to disagree. How much actual dynamic range do records or cds use, most push the limit on all passages. Sorry I wandered - I started carrying amps for groups in '68, took The Eastman School of Music Recording session and worked for many groups, toured with them and worked in studios before a 2nd career in Criminal Justice. BTW don't forget the type of mic used.

The sound of an Orchestra or Leslie West live goes through many channels before we hear it on any medium.

There is no right or wrong answer, except 200 watts into a LaScala. I wouldn't even push my MC 60 full into one of mine.

BTW: Are we using RMS, peak, federal standard, IPP or any of the other standards for measuring amp output?

[ben.]

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

On 6/17/2003 4:10:30 PM mdeneen wrote:

On the other hand, the vast overwhelming majority of source material on all formats is highly "companded" (squeezed from top and bottom - just like the audio on car commercials on TV) into a smaller DR of about 20dB or so, in spite of the capability of the media to go to 60dB or higher. So, for the purpose of listening to the music we actually LIKE it probably makes little difference. it's more of a techno-nerd thing.

mdeneen

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

I'm not trying to bust your stones, but you are referring to compression, not companding. Companding is a two step process used for noise reduction. (ie Dolby) The signal is compressed during the mastering or recording stage, then expanded upon playback. This reduces the noise floor by the amount of compansion. Later generations would apply sliding filters and got much more complex. Broadcasters have from the early days used compression (sometimes at extreme ratios) to either fit program material into a limited DR of the medium (AM has very limited DR) or, as is more common now, to increase apparent loudness of their channel. Incidentally, some of those old program limiters sound absolutely fantastic as sound-shaping tools in the recording process.

Again, I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but I'm a big fan of precise language when it comes to technical descriptions. It's much harder to learn if there is not a common language. (I screw up, too, and for future reference, I welcome corrections.)

[Triode Pete]

When you want to hear MUSIC, close to the real thing, but still an illusion, head over to my place.

When you want to hear special effects, that incredible hi-fi sound (that imitates PA sounds) & shakes the foundations and damages your eardrums, go over to your friend's house with his 200 watt SS amp and horn speakers (any brand of horn speakers, it won't matter at that point, anyway!).

To each, his own (set of preferences).

Have fun & enjoy,

Pete

[TBrennan]

Pete--- You imply that your way is the only way, that using SS and horns cannot give a musical or high fidelity experience but only an artificially sounding one. You imply that you are more refined and sophisticated than SS users. I think you're wrong on both accounts.