Class T - First Impressions

[Erukian]

That's a really interesting point, about how some amps sound all great, but in different ways. What I mean is that I find some amps work best with certian music styles. For example, a classical music listener really listens for different content in the music itself than say a rocker. Like the classical guy might like a smooth, lush sounding amp, but one that's not overly warm because you lose a lot of detail and realism in the metallic instruments (imho).

But the rocker might want a brighter, more forward sounding amp, w/ higher wattage amp. He cares more about male vocals and guitar's. but that's generalizing. hope you get my point.

-Joe

[Mallette]

>so much for an open mind...

Either that was a joke, or you did not read the rest of the thread.

If you've read any of my posts in the past, you would know that, while I have infinite respect for and full support for those in the hobby who can detect deferences between various capacitors tubes, power cords, etc., I am completely source oriented. My references are usually my own recordings, whose original "sonic footprint" remains with me such that I know that the equipment on which I am listening to it is either reproducing it accurately or not.

One a piece or combination of equipment meets that requirement it would not be an "open mind" that suddenly rejected said equipment, but one that had changed its standards. The question of dumping my Mc 2100 has nothing to do with its suddenly becoming unable to do the excellent job of clean amplification that it has so nobly accomplished for 30 years, but that it is now egualed in ability, surpassed in functions (by 4.1 more channels), and bested in portability by over 60 pounds, and is likely to lose value dramatically in the next year or so. The reason I will keep my ST-70 has to do with the "mystery" I cannot describe of sound achieveing both accuracy and, at the same time, some quality I cannot quantify but find deeply satisfying beyond clinical accuracy. Further, when I snuggle up with my wife in the listening room and cuddle to the torch songs she loves, I find the warm glow of tubes somehow adds to the occassion much more than TTL logic.

...and that's all I've got to say about that. :-)

Dave

[Marvel]

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

On 4/21/2005 6:14:00 AM Mallette wrote:

Further, when I snuggle up with my wife in the listening room and cuddle to the torch songs she loves, I find the warm glow of tubes somehow adds to the occassion much more than TTL logic.

...and that's all I've got to say about that. :-)

Dave

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

Here, here!!!

I have a few other amps besides my (formerly) ST-70 that I am sure are better amps. But I'll keep the tube amp nonetheless.

That's also why I have more than one guitar.

Marvel

[Daddy Dee]

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

On 4/21/2005 6:14:00 AM Mallette wrote:

The reason I will keep my ST-70 has to do with the "mystery" I cannot describe of sound achieveing both accuracy and, at the same time, some quality I cannot quantify but find deeply satisfying beyond clinical accuracy. Further, when I snuggle up with my wife in the listening room and cuddle to the torch songs she loves, I find the warm glow of tubes somehow adds to the occassion much more than TTL logic.

...and that's all I've got to say about that. :-)

Dave

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

I agree. My wife has even had an occasional nickname for some of my tube amps. She called the Cary Rocket 88 "the city of lights" and was disappointed when I sold it. The fireplace appeal of glowing tubes and good music, that contributes some special ambience for a nice evening.

[Deang]

Doesn't anyone use candles anymore? They look cool and a heck of a lot cheaper.

[Erukian]

I use scented candles when i'm in the mood. I'll cut out all the lights, light up a couple scented candles in the room and close my eyes. The flickering light through my eyelids and scent helps me lose myself in the music.

-Joe

[minn_male42]

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

On 4/21/2005 8:17:06 AM DeanG wrote:

Doesn't anyone use candles anymore? They look cool and a heck of a lot cheaper.

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

lava lamps baby!

lava lamps

[Erik Mandaville]

As usual, I seem to find myself behind the times.

This Panasonic receiever seems to be a really flexible and full-featured component. I was just doing some on-line research about it, and it looks impressive!

The digital domain is just such a curious place to me, and I'm finding it much more capable and true-to-life sounding than I would have ever thought. What takes many analog and tube-based equipment pounds-worth of heavy metal, heat, and tides of electrical current and high voltage to achieve, seems to be equally met, or possibly even surpassed, by digital devices far less bulky and energy-demanding.

I know for certain that there are those who will maintain that it's all the hot metal and glass and high current demands that give music its soul, but I have found myself very unexpectedly impressed with the high quality and very life-like digital processing from Lexicon, as well as the shoebox-like 3 channel digital amplifier from Teac. It's really rather strange!

I've practiced point-to-point wiring for a long time, and constantly read advertisments proclaiming the virtues of PTP (point to point) over printed circuit boards, but doubt the validity of that now, as well. The Transcendent products I have made, as well as the very good PEACH preamp from Juicy music did not rely on exclusively PTP wiring, and they sounded superb to me.

These products from Teac and Panasonic are fascinating to me because they sound so good. The Panasonic costs roughly the price of a pair of Sovtek 2A3 output tubes, which we have always discussed in terms of being a 'great bang for the buck' current production 2A3. Trouble is, one needs hundreds of dollars worth of additional circuitry to put those Sovteks to use!

Erik

edit: I want to pose a question: Regarding tube amplification, is there the possibility that what we have been thinking to be the truest, and most accurate reproduction of real-live music may be related to the manner in which tube amplifiers 'color' a recorded signal in a fashion that is pleasing to the ear? I have read countless reviews of equipment that describe a component (not just tube, but transistor products, as well)as being 'true to the source' or 'most like the original recorded event,' but I wonder how that can be possible if the reviewer had not been present at the place and time when the recording in question had been made. I would be most interested in hearing impressions or comparisons of recorded material vs the sound of the actual event -- from the same person. To me, it gives greater validity to descriptions and impressions of the sound 'imposed' by the playback equipment. There is a known baseline that can be used for comparison.

edit#2: ....and in the end, what does it matter if what we like about ANY component is its coloration and characteristic distortion? I think it does not, and we absolutely MUST choose what makes us feel the best and most fulfilled in how we listen to and enjoy music. I heard very recently from another forum member who has been a very good friend, although we have never met in person. From a system point of view, he has arrived at a point to where music can simply be enjoyed without the unsettling concerns about a new type of capacitor, resistor, or other part. His amps have an army's worth of tubes standing at attention, although none of them is fulfilling the duty of Sgt. Rectifier!

[Daddy Dee]

I hate when reality challenges my beliefs.

[Deang]

This Panasonic receiver seems to be a really flexible and full-featured component. I was just doing some on-line research about it, and it looks impressive!

I recently had a phone conversation with someone that's been doing this audio thing for longer than most of us have been around. He uses the Panasonic, and says it just plain sounds as good or better then anything he's ever used before.

The digital domain is just such a curious place to me, and I'm finding it much more capable and true-to-life sounding than I would have ever thought. What takes many analog and tube-based equipment pounds-worth of heavy metal, heat, and tides of electrical current and high voltage to achieve, seems to be equally met, or possibly even surpassed, by digital devices far less bulky and energy-demanding.

On the amp side of things, I would have to say easily meets, and does surpass, IF you like something that sounds "neutral", or maybe a bit on the cooler side of neutral. It's such a clean, rich sound, and every day I turn the stupid thing on wondering if this is the day I notice something not noticed before - showing the whole thing to be simple smoke and mirrors used to mask distortion. But the amp goes on, it sounds good, and I just sit and listen.

I know for certain that there are those who will maintain that it's all the hot metal and glass and high current demands that give music its soul, but I have found myself very unexpectedly impressed with the high quality and very life-like digital processing from Lexicon, as well as the shoebox-like 3 channel digital amplifier from Teac. It's really rather strange!

I don't know what I would think, or know if I would like the sound of what I'm using with a solid state front end. I know it sounds great with The Peach, and I guess to me that's all that matters. I'm sure I'll evetually get around to trying a digital processing preamp, but there's only so much money one can dedicate to this hobby at one time, and right now I have to dump it into the speaker side of things. I can't make network recommendations to people unless I have a very good handle on what they're hearing.

...Regarding tube amplification, is there the possibility that what we have been thinking to be the truest, and most accurate reproduction of real-live music may be related to the manner in which tube amplifiers 'color' a recorded signal in a fashion that is pleasing to the ear?

I think most accept this as a fact. However, I contend that regardless of whether something is tube, solid state, or solid state/digital -- everything imparts its own unique signature that "colors" the sound. I've been saying for a long time that the thing that matters most is simply how clean it is, and up until recently would simply say tube amps sound cleaner and more natural, and that's why I use them. However, now there is something else that sounds just as "clean", and so it sounds really good to me. I still think a good tube amp is important to have around simply from the standpoint that they sound really good in their own way, and since I'm so prone to boredom, will always like the idea of having more than one thing on hand to play with and listen too. I think the obvious thing here though is that this approach is simply cost prohibitive for most, and if a person is really trying to stretch those dollars, $300-$600 gets some incredible sound into the house. Something that is really awful for these folks is being put in the position of trying to choose between a rebuilt Scott integrated from Craig, or one of these new digital receivers. Let's face it, tubes are really cool, and DO sound really good!

...I heard very recently from another forum member who has been a very good friend, although we have never met in person. From a system point of view, he has arrived at a point to where music can simply be enjoyed without the unsettling concerns about a new type of capacitor, resistor, or other part. His amps have an army's worth of tubes standing at attention, although none of them is fulfilling the duty of Sgt. Rectifier!

No comment!!

[Mallette]

See the new thread. "Ah, there ain't no Sanity Clause..."

Dave

[Erik Mandaville]

Please don't laugh, but I don't know how to find that. Seriously!

I just learned how to copy and paste on the computer last year, if you can believe that....

[Mallette]

You're not technologically challenged, Erik. It wasn't there until just now.

Dave

[JewishAMerPrince]

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

On 4/24/2005 9:37:17 AM DeanG wrote:

I recently had a phone conversation with someone that's been doing this audio thing for longer than most of us have been around. He uses the Panasonic, and says it just plain sounds as good or better then anything he's ever used before.

Dean

I use the little Panny XR25 in my MBR to power 2 RB25s, 1 RCX4 and 2 RS25s. I have often been astonished by the sound quality of this mighty midget. I didn't purchase it for it's SQ, but for it's size. It needs to sit on a tiny glass shelf under my Hitachi 46" RPTV and look invisable. The outrageous sound quality was serendipitious. I've often thought about pulling this "baby" out of the rack and hooking it up to my 7 series theater and see how it does in place of $6K of Rotel separates.

Jerry R