sunnysal Posted February 3, 2004 Share Posted February 3, 2004 you are similar to my situation. be safe and go for the extra wattage. a big room, RF-7s, some rock and blues....be safe. I went with PP 2A3 which gives me about 12watss/channel downwind witha breeze and I am quite happy, even in those few moments when I like to crank it. I have k-horns which are somewhat more efficient than your RF-7s though. other brands than wright? new; think quicksilver, C&J, VAC. vintage; think rebuilt marantz 8b, some tweaked dynaco mkIVs (or even IIIs lol!), McIntosh mc225 or 240, pilot. best of luck, tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Painful Reality Posted February 3, 2004 Share Posted February 3, 2004 ---------------- On 2/3/2004 3:41:30 AM Tom Mobley wrote: that project has been slow due to lack of spendable funds. I'm ready to order the boxes and sockets and hardware stuff. I've determined that I can get good PS trannies for alittle over $100 per, so that's the next significant payout. Erik is just plain busy, I gather he's doing some email with other amp guys and teaching full time. He still has the chokes AFAIK. I don't have them. I guess I need to ping him on them since possesion of them makes a difference in which design/schematic to use. I've recently become interested in the Rankin design shown here. Has a nice layout done by Don Garber, but doesn't use a choke there. There's several variations on the 6SN7 driven 2A3 also, some are very nice. I could end up building a faux Monndog, those are what the OPT I have came from. ---------------- I think you might better go with the "Faux" Moondog and replace the grid resistors by the BCP16-NiGc grid chokes. The Baby O is a nice amp but ultimately, I've prefered the cascade configuration of the Moondog or Horus over the Baby-O. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted February 3, 2004 Share Posted February 3, 2004 Shoe11, Are you really age 4 like your profile says? I wonder about career advancement at such a tender age. Is there anybody near you that could bring over a low power SET to your house so you could actually hear it before purchase? That way you could know whether such a purchase would make you happy or not. IMHO and Klipsch's humble opinion, you shouldn't consider anything under 20 watts. It's not that you are going to need 20 watts pumping out for your average level. Maybe you're going to be using only 5 watts of the amp a lot of the time. But when you need more power for dynamic peaks, the extra power will make sure they really are dynamic peaks, and not compressed and mushy peaks. And you never want to be running an amp all-out at average levels. That would mean you'd have absolutely no available extra power when the music required it, and it would clip. No speaker is 100% efficient, not even Klipsch. In Klipsch's example, with a three speaker array of two Klipschorns and a Belle, with each speaker individually powered by a 20 watt amp, they figure 5 acoustic watts are available into the room. That is a lot louder than you would want to listen to as an average level, but it's conservative for handling peaks, the kind that provide "goosebumps instead of yawns." P.S. This is not a topology issue to me. I would not want any kind of amp that was low-powered, even in a medium-sized room. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piranha Posted February 3, 2004 Share Posted February 3, 2004 Uh oh. I smell an attack by the SET brigade coming?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted February 3, 2004 Share Posted February 3, 2004 Shoe pretty much talked himself out of the lowest power option. But I still think he should try it, as long as he can audition it for free. Otherwise he may always wonder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Mobley Posted February 3, 2004 Share Posted February 3, 2004 Thanks, Jeff. Thanks for taking time to post. Do you see any real benefit to running half of each of two 6SN7's instead of using both halves of one? Using two adds a load to the 6-volt section of the PS. the Hammond 302AX shows to be capable of producing 6A at 6 V, but it's confusing to me because the closest tube data sheet I found, for a 6SN7GT, only calls for .6A at 6.3V. not close to the 6A claimed to be available. Why would they make it so over-specc'd? Hammond is a big company and not likely to be accidentally over-speccing their stuff. Do you know if that PS is meant to be used in a stereo amp rather than a monobloc? It doesn't really say anywhere. I'm hinky on assuming much of anything on this since I don't have deep background. There's also the added expense and complexity of running an extra tube. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoe11 Posted February 3, 2004 Author Share Posted February 3, 2004 Paul, Typo on the age field, 32 actually. I live in Northern Virginia and from what I've been able to gather I don't think there are any SET memebers on here from the area, but I could be wrong. As for talking myself out of this amp or that amp, I haven't really done anything like that as I'm not in a hurry. I think I have a concern regarding whether or not any of the Wright amps could really work with my speakers, though there appears to be ample documentation and sentiment that they would. There are several members who think it would work fine and several who think it wouldn't work (or at least as well as it could). The topic is such that there is never going to be consensus one way or the other and as this is a subjective hobby to begin with neither point of view to me is wrong. My bottom line is that I'm looking to move up to a more high end pre/power be it tubed or even SS which for around $2500 which will pair very well with my 7's and their sound characteristics. With so much discussion back and forth regarding the optimal minimum amount of power, the only real way for me to find out if any of them work for me is to order some in and give them a listen. That was I guess more of the original premise of my post. If you were to pick one to try with the 7's which would you take and why. ~shoe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Painful Reality Posted February 3, 2004 Share Posted February 3, 2004 Tom, I don't see much benefit about using two different 6SN7 beside giving you the opportunity of doing some tube rolling to see wich tube do you prefer as the votage amplifier or which one will make the best driver. Tube sellers will definitively see a benefit though. The ONLY reason Ole Ron went for using two 6SN7 when one could have been OK was that he could use the same top plate for the Moondog or for the Laurel. I would use the Hammond 374 BX instead of the 302AX. By doing so you'll be able to convert your amp to a 300B amp if ever you feel like it. The 302AX with its 300-0-300V rating won't give you the sufficient voltage to do so if ever you feel like doing this swap. To answer you question, I think the 302AX is designed to provide everything you need to build a stereo 2A3 amp. That means, you'll have two 2.5 V/2.5A filaments (for the 2A3), one 5V/2A or 3A (for the tube rectifier), one 6.3V (plenty for 4 6SN7 if you insist on flexibility...) and the 300-0-300V for the HT. Anyway, based on my experience with the 300BX, it should be like this. But if I were you I'd use one 374BX and two separate 166L2 2.5V/2.5A for a stereo amp or two 374BX plus two 166L2 for monoblocks. Edit: Don't worry about the 6A rating of the 6.3V filament. In the worst case, you'll have to put a small voltage dropping resistor to get the required 6.3V if ever you draw a lot less current than 6A. No big deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garymd Posted February 3, 2004 Share Posted February 3, 2004 Shoe, While I don't have a SET amp, I am in your area. I have 3 amps at home, the lowest wattage being the fisher X-100-C which I believe is about 17 watts total. I also don't have reference speakers. My limited experience with SET amps, depending upon the type of music, wattage comes into play even at lower volumes. Maybe what I listened to was not of the quality some of you own but I did not hear the same punch I do with my PP. These were with cornwalls which also may be a factor as they are slightly less efficient. I'd be happy to let you listen to a rebuilt PP. If you're interested, pm me and we can set something up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Landau Posted February 3, 2004 Share Posted February 3, 2004 ---------------- On 2/3/2004 1:41:13 PM Piranha wrote: Uh oh. I smell an attack by the SET brigade coming?? ---------------- I'll reply behalf of the SET guys. We are so ****ing tired of all this sh*t, especially when it was only meant to cause provocations by people that never heared a proper SET amp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile homeless Posted February 3, 2004 Share Posted February 3, 2004 Lessard Laments: "I don't see much benefit about using two different 6SN7 beside giving you the opportunity of doing some tube rolling to see wich tube do you prefer as the votage amplifier or which one will make the best driver. Tube sellers will definitively see a benefit though. The ONLY reason Ole Ron went for using two 6SN7 when one could have been OK was that he could use the same top plate for the Moondog or for the Laurel." Tom, Jeff and I have discussed this many a time and I find myself not agreeing here on some points. He is probably right about the Laurel to Moondog top plate. And ultimately, you really ONLY need ONE 6SN7 as you can use each half just as stated. Yet in my time with the Moondogs which involved an extensive tube rolling 6SN7/5692 testing spree several years ago, I found some different results. In almost ALL occasions, I preferred the use of TWO DIFFERENT types of 5692/6SN7s in my Moondogs. I had matching pairs of many types from 5692, 6SN7W, 6SN7WGT, VT-231, 6SN7WGTA, 6SN7GTB, 6SN7GTY, Mullard, Valvo, Brimar, Sylvania, CBS, RCA, National, JAN Philips, etc. I spent almost two months going through these tubes trying to find the rigth combination. Again, not ONCE did I prefer two of the same 5692 or 6SN7. Interestingly enough, I latter found others that preferred two differing types when running in this fashion within a setup. As currently wired in the schematic, this makes NO sense as you end up buring one half of your triode while the other side stays new as rain. The only way for this to be remotely feasible is to wire one monoblock using the opposite side of the triodes. This way, you could switch amps and burn the other half. Seems like a lot to go through in addition to the four tubes over the two, but in my system, this has proved the best sounding. I run a 6SN7 into a 5692. Out of all the many combinations, this came in #1. I even narrowed it down to the tubes. It's an option. Regardless, ANYONE HERE with Moondogs wanting to keep the two tube setup, needs to rewire ONE MONOBLOCK to use the opposite side of the triodes. Otherwise, you are throwing away the unused side. kh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garymd Posted February 3, 2004 Share Posted February 3, 2004 ---------------- On 2/3/2004 3:20:36 PM Guy Landau wrote: ---------------- On 2/3/2004 1:41:13 PM Piranha wrote: Uh oh. I smell an attack by the SET brigade coming?? ---------------- I'll reply behalf of the SET guys. We are so ****ing tired of all this sh*t, especially when it was only meant to cause provocations by people that never heared a proper SET amp. ---------------- Guy, I hope you weren't referring to me. I made it perfectly clear that the SET amp/cornwall set-ups (2 to be exact) that I heard may not have been of the quality that some folks here use and could likely be the reason for what I experienced but I did want to share that experience. I wasn't trying to provoke. I'd love to hear a good SET system so I can hear what you guys are talking about. I don't doubt for a minute that it can be as magical as you say. I don't listen to music very loud either most of the time but my system sounded better at all volumes then his IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3dzapper Posted February 3, 2004 Share Posted February 3, 2004 Gary, you know that it is because of the zebrawood!! Rick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garymd Posted February 3, 2004 Share Posted February 3, 2004 ---------------- On 2/3/2004 3:52:00 PM 3dzapper wrote: Gary, you know that it is because of the zebrawood!! Rick ---------------- That's right Rick! I forgot! Nevermind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Landau Posted February 3, 2004 Share Posted February 3, 2004 Gary, I wasn't referring to you. I hope that this would be my last post in the birds Vs SET war. Hell, I hope that it would be my last post ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheltie dave Posted February 3, 2004 Share Posted February 3, 2004 Guy, I'm puzzled by your response. I read through the thread, and I didn't see any fertilizer being spread. I referenced the inverse square law, and recommended Wrights. Paul referenced his favorite "20 watts," and recommended Wrights for a listening demo. Gary offered to bring over his equipment to demo. Dee offered that he was pleased with his Wrights. Everything seems to be going Wright, and then you chime in with a churlish comment about provocation. Who is being provoked? The prospective buyer, who is getting some good information. The PP conglomerate, which, believe it or not, likes many aspects of SET? Or , the SET brigade, which actually does exist, judging by posting patterns and to much to its postulants' detriment? Or have you purchased stock in Bottlehead? Shoe obviously has a clue on how to get information, and he will increase his knowledge of tube amps and topologies a thousandfold over the next month. Try to make his journey a pleasant one; don't pick up your marbles and go storming off because you want to have the loudest voice in his decision. It lessens your stature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
howard Posted March 7, 2004 Share Posted March 7, 2004 I run the Mono 10's through a pair of La Scala's, and I can tell you these amps do it all--very well. They have a sound that approaches the true sweet warmth of SET, and they rock. I listen to a very wide range of music (Miles Davis to Metallica), and once I played around with the tubes and cabling, I have been astounded with the absolute perfect timing and clarity of these amps. I am getting some 3.5's for the pure SET sound, but for the type of music you like, I would highly recommend the Mono 10's. If you are anywhere near the Sacramento area, you are welcome to come have a listen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
howard Posted March 7, 2004 Share Posted March 7, 2004 I should mention also that I've had the Jolida 502B (an excellent amp, though lazy sounding compared with the Mono 10's), and have auditioned numerous other tube amps, from CJ to Quicksilver to Audio Note. The Wright's are completely neutral and accurate. No coloring to the music. I've heard the RF-7's as well, mated with four different amps, three of them SET. There are some more musical speakers out there IMO, the classic Klipsch's coming first to mind. I cannot recommend the Mono 10's highly enough. 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.