neo33 Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 "I clipped my hair yesterday....got a "gladiator" cut....one must be very careful when clipping ones hair..." LOL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 ---------------- On 7/27/2004 3:51:07 PM Guy Landau wrote: Let's just say that we probably have different standards of evaluating sound . Although my amps don't use the standard and rare 8045G tubes but the highly regarded Gold Lion KT88's. From what I've read there's no absolute opinion of which sounds best. Even tough they don't sound bad, I'll be experimenting with Julius Futterman's 6LF6 mod soon enough and hope that the amps will sound better to my ears (unless someone whishes to buy the beasts and save me all this trouble ) ---------------- What is it about the sound of the Luxmans you don't like? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artto Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 ---------------- On 7/27/2004 3:51:07 PM Guy Landau wrote: ---------------- On 7/27/2004 3:11:53 PM Klipschfoot wrote: ---------------- On 7/27/2004 2:53:33 PM artto wrote: I'm glad I have amplification no one has choosen to argue about That in itself says something ---------------- It says that no one else has even been near those Japanese dinosaurs of yours to compare them to anything. Let alone having a treated dedicated room to house one's gear. ---------------- Well, I have a pair of these beasts. Let's just say that we probably have different standards of evaluating sound . Although my amps don't use the standard and rare 8045G tubes but the highly regarded Gold Lion KT88's. From what I've read there's no absolute opinion of which sounds best. Even tough they don't sound bad, I'll be experimenting with Julius Futterman's 6LF6 mod soon enough and hope that the amps will sound better to my ears (unless someone whishes to buy the beasts and save me all this trouble ) ---------------- Like I said before, on here and in email with Guy, the KT88 does not do the MB3045 amp any justice. It has less than 1/3 the peak current capacity of 8045G. It is no where near as linear (low distortion), even when operated as a triode (and I mean not even close). To be quite frank, I (and probably Guy as well) have no idea to what extent and how his amps were modified. One of Guy's amps is not even using the proper driver tube. As Tony (sunnysal) mentioned, the quadrafillar trans on these amps were wound specifically for the 8045G/6240G combination. And as I informed him, these amps do not have the traditional "tubey" sound that so many audiophiles seem to go for, which is IMO, distortion and a form of coloration. So until Guy gets these amps back into original condition and performance it doesn't surprise me that he probably doesn't like what he hears. I wouldn't either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Landau Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 ---------------- On 7/27/2004 5:33:33 PM paulparrot wrote: What is it about the sound of the Luxmans you don't like? ---------------- Overall they sound pretty good and quite neutral but they're just face a taugh competition. My Wavelength Geminis PF with cobalt transformers have deeper and wider sound stage, image better and sound less colored. The bass reproduction is about the same. Let's not forget that the WL cost few times more. The Luxmans remind me too much of the EAR 509 amps. I've had some better sounding amps since I've sold the EAR and for me it was like going backwards but they do a great job with the Epos ES14's. In my tiny living room sitting 7-8' away from the 100DB efficient Altecs, I don't need more power than their 2.5 watts (5 watts with 2A3's). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 ---------------- On 7/27/2004 5:55:49 PM artto wrote: Like I said before, on here and in email with Guy, the KT88 does not do the MB3045 amp any justice. It has less than 1/3 the peak current capacity of 8045G. It is no where near as linear (low distortion), even when operated as a triode (and I mean not even close). To be quite frank, I (and probably Guy as well) have no idea to what extent and how his amps were modified. One of Guy's amps is not even using the proper driver tube. As Tony (sunnysal) mentioned, the quadrafillar trans on these amps were wound specifically for the 8045G/6240G combination. And as I informed him, these amps do not have the traditional "tubey" sound that so many audiophiles seem to go for, which is IMO, distortion and a form of coloration. So until Guy gets these amps back into original condition and performance it doesn't surprise me that he probably doesn't like what he hears. I wouldn't either. ---------------- Yes, it sounds like a pointless comparison when you explain it like that. Sure, it's a different circuit and I'm using the wrong tubes, but other than those little details . . . LOL! Good point about a certain kind of sound many audiophiles seem to go for. I think that is why most everything I have heard at high-end salons and audiophile shows is so lacking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 ---------------- On 7/27/2004 6:00:58 PM Guy Landau wrote: Overall they sound pretty good and quite neutral but they're just face a taugh competition. My Wavelength Geminis PF with cobalt transformers have deeper and wider sound stage, image better and sound less colored. The bass reproduction is about the same. Let's not forget that the WL cost few times more. The Luxmans remind me too much of the EAR 509 amps. I've had some better sounding amps since I've sold the EAR and for me it was like going backwards but they do a great job with the Epos ES14's. In my tiny living room sitting 7-8' away from the 100DB efficient Altecs, I don't need more power than their 2.5 watts (5 watts with 2A3's). ---------------- Thanks for the excellent response. I don't fault your opinion at all; just that apparently yours don't sound like Art's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artto Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 As you can see, KT88 is not in the same league with the 8045G designed specifically for the MB3045 output trans. And yes, these amps were designed to be very 'neutral', a Tim De Paravicini trademark, and something I adhere to as well. And besides, we all know that acoustics are far more important (don't we?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Landau Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 Artto, I've corresponded with a few owners of the Lux amps. Some have said the there was a difference rather than an improvement with the 8045G's and a few prefered the sound of the KT88's. If the KT88 isn't compatible, why did Lux recommend this change when there were more suitable tubes out there (6LF6, EL509) ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Landau Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 ---------------- On 7/27/2004 6:04:59 PM paulparrot wrote: Thanks for the excellent response. I don't fault your opinion at all; just that apparently yours don't sound like Art's. ---------------- Who knows, they might even sound better . I'm sure that they sound different, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artto Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 ---------------- On 7/27/2004 6:08:51 PM Guy Landau wrote: Artto, I've corresponded with a few owners of the Lux amps. Some have said the there was a difference rather than an improvement with the 8045G's and a few prefered the sound of the KT88's. If the KT88 isn't compatible, why did Lux recommend this change when there were more suitable tubes out there (6LF6, EL509) ? ---------------- Probably because that was the most widely available "closest match". As I explained to you in email, I wanted to try Gold Lion KT88 in this amp long before the mod was published and was informed by a Lux engineer how and why this would not do the amp any justice. Lets not forget that when this amp was made, tubes in general were at an all time low and eventually, apparently Luxman had no plans to make more of these or the tubes to support them, hence the KT88 mod as "next best choice", albeit a poor one. The 6LF6 and the EL509 are somewhat taller and require different tube sockets, ones which are deeper and barely fit into the 'thinline' chassis. Their taller height also did not allow the cage covers to be used which obviously presents a poential hazzard condition in some personal situations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben. Posted July 27, 2004 Author Share Posted July 27, 2004 ---------------- On 7/27/2004 3:32:17 PM paulparrot wrote: ---------------- On 7/27/2004 3:30:04 PM bclarke421 wrote: They'd been modified to use different output tubes. ---------------- Did I say otherwise? As usual, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. ---------------- Either that, or I'm absolutely correct. Isn't that nice, though - having your direct questions answered rather than dodged. Hmmmm.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artto Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 ---------------- On 7/27/2004 6:00:58 PM Guy Landau wrote: In my tiny living room sitting 7-8' away from the 100DB efficient Altecs, I don't need more power than their 2.5 watts (5 watts with 2A3's). ---------------- This is probably another issue. The Altecs. Not my fav. The throw on those are much different than Khorns. Not to mention my acoustically tuned room is much larger. I already have a very large soundstage with the speakers 28' apart. And I'm sure the acoustics of my room are allowing everything to work at a more optimum level. I think Guy's situation is more one of trying to match components to adapt to the situation at hand whereas I started at ground zero with a room designed around the speakers. As the room gets better and better it becomes obvious how much room acoustics influence the 'sound' of various components and recordings, or combinations thereof. You're actually listening to the room, not the components. And hey, we all probably prefer the 'live sound' of one concert hall over another and I'm sure we'll get no complete agreement there either. At this level of performance, thats probably the kind of thing we're perceiving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxg Posted July 28, 2004 Share Posted July 28, 2004 "As the room gets better and better it becomes obvious how much room acoustics influence the 'sound' of various components and recordings, or combinations thereof" Never a truer word said on this forum IMHO. Some might argue room accoustics are rather more important to the overall sound than amp topology. Or to put it another way - the room largely dictates the amp choices you have in getting to the sound you want. I therefore declare all amp discussions null and void unless accompanied by detail descriptions of the environment in which they are claimed to either work or not. In fact, to go a step further - a detailed analysis of the source material is also essential. And as a final caveat - all descriptions of preferences and conclusions better be accompanied by hosts of YMMV and IMHO because we all hear differently it seems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnWhite Posted July 28, 2004 Share Posted July 28, 2004 ---------------- On 7/27/2004 3:32:29 PM bclarke421 wrote: Then why such a hard-on aginst low powered amps? I can't honestly believe that you're trying to educate them and "save them from themselves". I still fail to understand why you insist on applying such rigid limitations to subjectively evaluated properties such as "good sound". ---------------- Good question, still waiting for the answer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-MAN Posted July 28, 2004 Share Posted July 28, 2004 Boy, you guys are right on the money! I have one other thought, may or may not be true, of course... I think that the TYPE of music (and all of its attendent technical details, such as recording techniques, "style", equipment employed, recording environment, etc.) influences the choice of gear that we choose. For example, if one listens most to large orchestral pieces for instance, one tends to lean towards a higher powered amp to better reproduce the dynamic range involved. Whether this amp is tube or solid state doesn't really matter IMO as long as it is high enough quality to accurately reproduce it. Rockers would tend to go with the heavy-metal SS amps the higher the wattage, the better. Smooth jazz towards lower powered tube-types or medium SS gear as they may or may not be "serious" audiophiles. Small ensemble work (leaning towards the acoustic) would tend towards the flea-powered tube amps, I imagine. These folks could be serious. A fea-amp indicates the degree of serious audiphile-ness in such a case. (I'm kidding! sort of) The ECLECTICS would go for a medium wattage amp, I would imagine, but, having wider musical tastes would also exhibit this tendency in their respective amp choices. Wow, I should probably apply for a gov. grant to further explore this conjecture...There could be money in this. DM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artto Posted July 28, 2004 Share Posted July 28, 2004 ---------------- On 7/28/2004 12:48:36 PM D-MAN wrote: I have one other thought, may or may not be true, of course... I think that the TYPE of music (and all of its attendent technical details, such as recording techniques, "style", equipment employed, recording environment, etc.) influences the choice of gear that we choose. ---------------- This is true. In my case, I listen to many different types of music. And I want a system that excels no matter what is put to it. Contrary to what some believe, this is possible. Of course, all of this comes with a price, in my case, 20+ years in the making. (so I'm a little slow, big deal, LOL) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-MAN Posted July 28, 2004 Share Posted July 28, 2004 Artto, you've got it! I wholeheartedly agree with your view; I've always thought that good gear should do it all. By the way, thank you for your posts on diffusers. Very useful stuff. DM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebes Posted July 28, 2004 Share Posted July 28, 2004 D-Man great statement. Also the comments on room acoustics. In a perfect world our mansions would have several listening rooms, one for each type of music we prefer. I'm sure Forum members would be willing to chip in to build me such a place, and of, course they'd be able to stop in anytime for a listen BYOB, of course). I'm sure this is heresy here but at some point you do the best you can building up a system, and then step back and listen. Hopefully most of us don't listen to just one type of musics and enjoy the various offerings and flavors that are out there. Sure it involves compromises, but doesn't everything? IMO there's nothing inherently "wrong" or "misguided" about anyones reasoned approach to building a system. Good luck and good listening to all of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tillmbil Posted July 28, 2004 Share Posted July 28, 2004 Hey Artto, I think Luxmans suck. Never heatd them, never seen them, but I am sure they do. At least thats my opinion. Now McIntosh, Scott, Dynaco, Blueberry, VRD good American made products. THey rock of course. Of course I own them, have heard them, but that doesn't matter. Its your room acoustics that makes you think the Luxmans are good, nothing else? I get it now. Sell the expensive gear, build a new acoustical room and all my problems are over...Well it is a thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colterphoto1 Posted July 28, 2004 Share Posted July 28, 2004 On 7/27/2004 3:32:17 PM paulparrot wrote: Did I say otherwise? As usual, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. This isn't an argument, it's mere the naysaying of the opposing point of view... Couldn't help the obvious Python reference- Hello Polly Parrott, I've got a nice fishy for you... 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.