neo33 Posted November 9, 2003 Author Share Posted November 9, 2003 "But serously the new Welbourne DRD are suppose to be better amps !" Craig, you haven't even listen to SET amps so how do you know the DRDs are better then the Moondogs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leok Posted November 9, 2003 Share Posted November 9, 2003 I'll try to give you some idea of what a 3.5W SET will do with RF-7s: A string quartet & piano (Brahms Quintet in F minor) in a 25' x 50' room w/ 13' ceilings was, at times, just a little too loud for me. I was near the back of the room. Same quintet in a 45' x 90' auditorium for small ensembles w/ 40' ceiling, sound was just right. I was 2/3 back. The moondogs will easily do what I heard in the auditorium. They will do maybe 2x as loud, but my hearing won't take that much volume. ---------------- A very large concert organ in a hall that is small for it: about 60' x 75' w/ 60' ceiling. the organ can get too loud for me. The moondogs will produce most of what I can tolerate from that organ (I have recordings from that hall). However, If I use an alternate, 8 w amp, I can push the organ amplitudes right up to the limit of what my hearing will take (which is still, now and then, not quite as loud as the real thing. I swap out the 8 w amps (pp or pwm) when I listen to anything but material that is both broad spectrum and loud at the same time, because I find the SET simply does a better job, in general presentation. In low level detail, the SET is way ahead of the other 2 amps. leo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunnysal Posted November 9, 2003 Share Posted November 9, 2003 thanks Leo for relating that first hand experience. I think Neo has decided on low powered SET. If it turns out that he does not like the compression at 3/4 max output he can always sell it. tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neo33 Posted November 9, 2003 Author Share Posted November 9, 2003 "I think the $1000 price for Erik's Moondogs sounds like a good deal. They've had alot of TLC!" But he said his Moondogs don't have the ultimate upgrade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leok Posted November 9, 2003 Share Posted November 9, 2003 $1K is a good deal. The amps will get you to a good place to listen and learn .. you may find that's all you want. From that point on it's more a matter of tweaking to your personal taste, which is going to change anyway after a few months with good speakers and a good amp. That's the way it is with a lot of the other options too: 300B amps, DRD, Wright 2A3, etc. Based on the offer, you may have a few days to think about it. Eric will probably give you some time to think. leo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted November 9, 2003 Share Posted November 9, 2003 Neo, Craig's statement was in the context of what he has heard about the two, that's why he used the word "supposed". Craig, of course you don't have any distortion. It's because you're a perfectionist freak like me. It sure is nice having a bias adjustment for each tube isn't it? Leo, sometimes I understand you perfectly, and sometimes I don't understand what you are saying at all. "...can push the organ amplitudes right up to the limit of what my hearing will take (which is still, now and then, not quite as loud as the real thing." You have said this before, and if you wouldn't mind, could you elaborate a little bit? It's confusing. "A string quartet & piano (Brahms Quintet in F minor) in a 25' x 50' room w/ 13' ceilings was, at times, just a little too loud for me. I was near the back of the room." This is completely incomprehensible. Neither of two statements even remotely line up with my experiences. How can that be? Are you that sensitive to loudness? How do you know you just aren't going into clipping, and the sound is just plain annoying your ears? Do you have a SPL meter? My experience is that the cleaner the music, the louder I can go without "cringing". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnalOg Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 My experience is that the cleaner the music, the louder I can go without "cringing". That's what it's all about in a nutshell! AMEN!! Tom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leok Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 Dean, My hearing begins to distort at high volumes that others appear to tolerate. However, depending on program material, there are times my 3.5W SET through 101dB speakers at about 10' listening distance gives up before my hearing does. If the program material is broad spectrum (many different notes and instruments, or pipes, playing at once) then the amp tends to give out first. If the program material is simpler (as in the quintet I mentioned) then the amp can deliver more than my hearing can tolerate. So, with a little more power, I can clean up the full organ/orchestra stuff and bring them to actual concert level. 3.5W will handle concert level for the quintet just fine. By the way, I believe any acoustic instrument played back at higher than its natural loudness is likely to become unpleasant. The instrument designer and player are trying to make the best use of the human dynamic range. If you pust that, there may be peaks, that they had intended to be at the max the listener can comfortably tolerate, that are pushed over the comfortable level (this happens for me at a somewhat reduced level). The violin is a perfect example. The top string can be extremely piercing, in actual concert. Louder than that simply makes no sense to me at all. leo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 I remember you discussing the latter before. That does make sense. Playback at a volume consistent with the sound level of the original performance is important, and is certainly a factor in recreating the realism aspect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neo33 Posted November 10, 2003 Author Share Posted November 10, 2003 "How much of a different in sound quality between the 2A3 DRDs and 2A3 Moondogs?" Does anyone want to answer this? Why should I get the DRDs over the Moondogs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 Who really knows how much different they sound? I don't think anyone has done direct comparisons except Ron Welborne, and he prefers the DRDs. Of course, his job is to sell amps. Good reasons to buy the DRDs: Affordable, very well received within the SET listening community, and probably a warranty from Weborne if you have them build the pair (you should check on this). The best reason of all is that since you want a set of Moondogs with ultimate upgrades -- it will probably be a cold day in hell before a set show up used on Audiogon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neo33 Posted November 10, 2003 Author Share Posted November 10, 2003 Thanks, Dean. Anyone else? can I also please get an opinion regarding "tube versus solid-state rectification." I know Kelly preferred tube; however, with solid-state you get more dynamics on the low end. And Welborne seems to like solid-state on the DRDs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile homeless Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 Actually, there has really been very little full discourse written on the DRD Welborne amps, especially the 2A3. Contrary to the Moondogs, these things havent been picked up by the press yet for a review and the amateur forum reviews have not been particularly articulate and well thought out. The most praise I have seen is for the DRD 45. Yes, people like their new amps, but this is VERY common for new buyers and even MORE so for NEW PROUD papas of their self-built pride and joy. The DRD 45 have gotten some serious high praise from a few, however. Time will bring more detailed comments and comparisons. I might be selling my Moondogs and the only thing separating them from the Ultimate Upgrade is Elna Cerafine at 220uf vs the Black Gate 100/100uf. Mine have a few things that very few Moondogs have that go fo sale (actually ZERO since I bought mine). First, the MagneQuest DS-025 output iron, which was the iron used in most of the raves early on. And Audio Note TANTALUM resistors, which are an insanely priced $8 a pop (I actually have all the Caddock "Ultimate Upgrade" resistors as well). The Audio Note Tantalums are supposed to be in a class all their own regarding smoothness and lack of harshness. My Moondogs have the Audio Note Copper foil oils. I actually dont know anyone personally, including email, that does have the MagneQuest Moondogs besides Thom Mackris. I do believe he has the Hovland film foil coupling caps instead of the Copper Oils. So which models sound the best? To this day, I have never read a single comparison between the earlier and later Moondogs. I do know which one that Mike LaFevre prefers! heh... One chap loves his 45 DRD over the 2A3 Moondog but the 45 tube is always the hot number by the tube forum crowd. I am willing to bet that you cant go wrong really with either amp topologies. Of course, we all have our different tastes and opinions on what constitutes the best virtues of an amp. I want musicality over all options but it has to be very transparent and open without sounding artificial in any way. This is a very thin dividing line and one that SET amplification seems to have a handle on like no other I have heard. kh ps- Dont be so sure about more dynamics on the low end with SS rectification either. I think the low end might also be where proper tube rectification sounds more natural in my view. IT was one of the areas where the Pantheon outdid my Cary even though the Cary had some SERIOUS low end wallop. The Pantheon was more natural with more realistic tone down low, with less impact but more of the REAL sound and resonsance of the bass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neo33 Posted November 10, 2003 Author Share Posted November 10, 2003 "I might be selling my Moondogs" Kelly, please send them my way . "I want musicality over all options but it has to be very transparent and open without sounding artificial in any way. This is a very thin dividing line and one that SET amplification seems to have a handle on like no other I have heard." Don't we all want the same thing? And 'tis the reason why so many audiophiles are going after SET. Unless Dean thinks otherwise . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leok Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 Moondog: A really great 6SN7 is getting hard to find. Moondog uses two, with rewiring, it uses only one (long story). I use NOS 6SN7s. New ones are OK, but not great. I don't like the cap on the first 6SN7 stage, and it's easily removed. A big upgrade is to install an "Ultrapath" cap .. not cheap. If the ultrapath cap is added, most of the "Ultimate Upgrade" doesn't matter. DRD: I have never heard one. I don't like the cathode cap on the first gain stage, but it looks necessary .. there are work-arounds, and maybe it's just fine. I worry about no output tube cathode cap. In a perfect world one wouldn't be necessary .. maybe this is a perfect world. I'm an electrical engineer, and if I don't like something, I change it to what I like. If I'm correct, things get better. If I'm wrong, I change it back. Either design is very good, and for me, a great starting point. leo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 ---------------- On 11/10/2003 6:15:33 PM neo33 wrote: Don't we all want the same thing? ---------------- Most assuredly not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clipped and Shorn Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 and about how much expense to keep them supplied with NOS 45? about how long would a good 45 last? tubes last longer than most think, right? C&S Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile homeless Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 I really dont think we all want the same thing, to be honest. That is one thing that is VERY clear on this forum and in most of the others as well. I think the move in the audiophile section from the 80s thru the 90s was DETAIL, DETAIL, and MORE DETAIL with the hi-end mags really driving this point home from reviewers with "audiophile approved" recordings that were little more than sonic dreck musically speaking. There is a big departure in my view between the "finger on fretboard scrapes, spittle in mic" crowd that believes this is ultimate fidelity and the sect that is looking for the system to actually serve the music, not focusing on this cues as much, as more often than not, this is HYPED detail that would not be audible OUTSIDE the plane of the music which is how many audiophile systems present this detail. Dont get me wrong, I want realistic transparency so sound real with the air and ambient space of the hall and live performance instact. But I left the "I heard her turn the page of music at 1:34 seconds" type of audio listening years ago. I was mired in that stage all through the 80s looking for detail over all other. Yet I didnt find my systems I set up for this MUSICALLY ENGAGING and wondered why. Then I started realizing that this was not really PART of what made music and a recording special. I am looking for the essence of the music to arrive intact and whole, emotions there and not stripped away, laid bare like so many uber resolving systems can do. I used to attend get togethers of other audio nuts and found the banter almost painful after awhile as the music was secondary to the show. Most listen to the SYSTEM and not the music. The foot needs to be tapping... I think there is a difference here and it comes across in the equipment and choices one makes in setting up the gear. Again, it IS hard to resist this, however. The draw of the gear sometimes takes over and the playing of taps for the music sometimes is not far behind. kh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheltie dave Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 Paul, out of curiousity, are you the same Paul Parrot I served with aboard the USS Greenpig in Uncle Sam's Canoe Club back in the 80's? You seem to have the same speech patterns, although anyone who talks these days could be construed to be similar. Too much nocturnal medication, you know! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 Sheltie, No that must've been a different Parrot. 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.