edwinr Posted September 6, 2006 Share Posted September 6, 2006 Now there's no reason why a properly designed tube amplifier should sound that much different from a s/s model. I've purchased my latest amplifiers based on sound quality and facilities. Not because they were tube or solid state. As an aside, my preamplifer just happens to be tube. My power amplifer is solid state. But I didn't buy it for that reason. I bought it because it was the best sounding, dynamic and at the same time, sweet sounding amplifier I could afford. Punching out 200 plus watts per channel, my power amplifer is sensational. It cruises along without effort, reproducing every nuance and detail that I could wish for, with a tonality that some may say, is tube like. Here's a pic... Looks like a serious amp, for sure, and too heavy for any stand to support, I bet [] How about posting a pic of your preamp? You've twisted my arm, Paul. Here it is. An Audio Research LS 25 MkII. I bought the preamp a couple of months ago brand new. ARC have since replaced this preamp by the LS 26. My CEC Belt Drive CD Player, the LS 25 and my Classe power amplifier are all configured for balanced operation. So to take advantage of this feature, all three are connected via Nordost Heimdall 'micro mono-filament' XLR interconnects. Now I'm not a 'cable' man as such. But I thought that the Nordost was reasonably priced and I believe running my system in balanced mode offers superior sound to single ended operation. The power amp is VERY heavy. I tried placing it on my sideboard, but the groans of complaint from the sideboard forced me to place it on the floor instead.... The overall sound from my system is more 'accurate' than 'really nice sounding'. So warm sounding it's not. Really well recorded discs are reproduced with stunning reality. Well, what the recording engineer thinks is reality - who am I to argue? Poorly recorded or just average discs sound like you're listening to FM. There's no attempt by my system to sanitise the reality. But in saying that, my system is not a warts and all effort. I can still listen to poorly recorded discs, but I just don't enjoy them as much. I couldn't point to any one component in my system that influences the sound more than the other. To talk about tubes being 'accurate, or just really nice sounding' is probably a gross over simplification of the topic. I suppose we shouldn't really just talk about how, say, a tube preamplifier sounds in isolation. We need to consider what other components the preamplifier is going to be used with. Preferably the components should be heard together. Only then can a determination be made about the 'sound'. Anyhow.. here's my tube preamp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldbuckster Posted September 6, 2006 Share Posted September 6, 2006 Very nice set-up...............another Lucky Man.........200 watts per.....Ya'.........I don't know about accurate, or just nice sounding......bet it has "Headroom"......though.......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwinr Posted September 6, 2006 Share Posted September 6, 2006 Thanks, buddy. My system can even make Diana Krall boogie... [] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Spinner Posted September 6, 2006 Share Posted September 6, 2006 Oooohhhh......Jeff ......[] all I can say, is that the difference between my 3 Carver/ Yamaha CDP, a Rega Planet.. and the JD-100......... was very noticable.......... not that the Jolida is a purist grade component, but it is a fantastic sounding , < $1000 CDP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryC Posted September 6, 2006 Share Posted September 6, 2006 An Audio Research LS 25 MkII...The overall sound from my system is more 'accurate' than 'really nice sounding'. So warm sounding it's not. Really well recorded discs are reproduced with stunning reality.... I couldn't point to any one component in my system that influences the sound more than the other. I don't know about now, but in the past (a decade or more ago), ARC pres were known for their lean sound. I had a couple of them in the late '80's-early 90's, and definitely thought my system sounded on the lean side, though accurate, as you say. Larry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted September 6, 2006 Share Posted September 6, 2006 In fact, the never-ending argument/debate itself is proof that this whole thing must be a myth. I thought you were a lawyer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SET12 Posted September 6, 2006 Share Posted September 6, 2006 Hey Duke! Thanks for asking! I use the Hammond 1642 SE I love this transformer! They are currently 500$ a pair. It's wieght is 28lbs for my 811-10 output tube running just about 100ma 1/3 of the 1642's capacity, I just had a 4 hr listening session it was great spent most of my time with the Rippingtons Wild Card, And Russ Freemans Drive CD Talk about Bass Geez it was good! SET12 is this configured like a Berning Siegfried, or you got some other trick up yer sleeve ...?? Duke, You have a PM. Berning Siegfried I am not familiar with the design. SET12, Thanks for the message. THAT was some interesting reading...looks like you have some really interesting developments of ideas borrowed from some of the best. I've only heard the 811 in a Wavac design and it didn't really light my fire. I would very much like to hear your amps some day. Thanks for reading my thoughts on my work! I just read the review of the Wavac at positive feedback the reviewer basicly never liked SET's till he heard them with Horn's The amp looks small next to my Monos and yet the Wavac has some 15 watts of power ! I am curious as to what speakers you heard the Wavac with and how efficient were they! It would be interesting for you to contrast mine to the Wavac or any other SE for that matter! I would be Honnored if you did! Especially in contrast to a company like Wavac. Just what was your thoughts on the Wavac! Remember I would certainly put you up for a night comfortly if you had an interest in hearing mine and certainly would not be offened by any of your opinions. As a designer I like to listen to opinions. Good or bad! SET12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted September 6, 2006 Share Posted September 6, 2006 Max, I don't claim my system cannot be beaten. I do claim that between mine and another with VRD's, a Scott tube pre (I said Fisher earlier, but it was Scott) and a Jolida CD, the notable difference, which was there but not huge, was the Scott pre of all things. There was no noticeable difference between the other components. There might be others you can suggest, but I was lead to believe, during this never-ending debate, that comparing to VRD's and Jolida would tell me all I needed to hear. In a way it did, but not as I expected. Duke, I don't know what to say. I forgot what model Jolida CD was being compared to. Have you ever tried to compare to an HK CD like mine? I don't claim it to be "great," except if the Jolida I compared to was "great," then, I guess I do.... Dean, you are correct. Also, if you look closely, you will begin to know how the law is clouded by a myth that it is logic driven. The laws are so full of gaps and holes, it is not funny. Chris can tell you.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverSport Posted September 6, 2006 Share Posted September 6, 2006 Hey Mark, ...I thought it was the stuff the other guy has is the right stuff to have...[] [] Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted September 6, 2006 Share Posted September 6, 2006 Kudos, Mark and Bill! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverSport Posted September 6, 2006 Share Posted September 6, 2006 ...I agree...fun is what it should be...giving advice is dangerous if it bothers you to help others spend their money only to not have the same amount of enjoyment as you do with yours...I spouted off here how much I preferred the Cambridge Audio Azur 640C v1...another bought it using my description to help him make a decision...my feeling is that he is not nearly as impressed with it as I am...I feel horrible... I listened to others here about VRDs...turned out to be a satisfying decision...listened again about my JMA BlueBerry...another satisfying purchase...picked up the Toshiba 3950s...again...worth the cash...same with the Cambridge...same with many of the speakers...but...I have had some strikeouts too...bought several items off the anecdotal responses and have been disappointed...did these items sound great to the reviewer??? I don't doubt for a minute...does the reviewer and I have the same exact taste in music, ears, etcetera??? Nope...so... Everything with a grain of salt...listen to what you like...try to "taste the varying flavors" of equipment out there...everything is a learning experience...do you choose to learn??? I try to...sometimes kicking and screaming...you??? [] [] Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pauln Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 Well, it appears this thread needs my input, so lets see if I may help <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> First of all, music is art. Lets look at a different mode of art for a moment to see if it tells us something about accurate. I take photographs with a real camera with a lens, film, no auto anything. I have to select the exposure by picking a shutter speed and aperture. Now let us assume that my subject of the photo is something nice like a beautiful nude woman. Now that I have your attention, lets consider two places to take the picture, one being an operating theater where the lights are very bright to ensure accuracy, the other, my breakfast room in the morning with light diffuse ambience. Although the operating theater may provide the most accurate rendition, I think the soft morning light with a bit more red color in it will come out more pleasing. Now think as a photographer attempting to capture her image there are many ways to light the subject. Some of these will be very effective, others to dark, too harsh, to clinical, etc. Now the big question is there a particular light setting that is correct? No, we are speaking of art. What does this tell us about music reproduction and accuracy? I submit that there is no objective reproduction that could rightly be called accurate. Some systems might be more like the clinical harsh overly bright light in an operating theater, others more like my breakfast room in the morning. Is this a fair consideration? Is it possible to establish that there is no absolute correct and accurate standard? Pauln Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 To carry on with your analogy Paul....would the exact same methods of photography apply to all types of photos that can be taken? What comes to mind is the newage modern / surreal art with the sharp edges and very sharp contrasting lines and colors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwinr Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 There's a fine line between the harsh spotlight of the stage and what most of us would accept in the home. I guess many of us would find a true studio monitor or a dedicated studio amplifier a little painful to listen to long-term. The domestic variations of studio monitors seem to be voiced differently to the proper studio versions. Is this to make them more acceptable to our ears? Or is there another reason? Maybe the 'doc' or the 'duke' have something to say about this. But if we don't make some concession to musical accuracy, then we can't exploit the potential of our discs. If this is the case we might as well all go out and buy Bose... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pauln Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 Anyone remember the Altec Lancing speaker adds in the 70's? They claimed that almost all studios were using them for monitors... the unstated inference was that they were 'accurate'. A competing manufacutrer (don't recall which) did a survey of studios and indeed they did find a lot of them in service, but when they asked the studio folks how come, their answer was, "Because those speakers color the sound and exaggerate the instruments - makes it much easier to monitor over long periods of time...". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-MAN Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 Source material aside, my opinion is that the PREAMP is the most influential device in the food chain. Tubes pre's seem to be pretty forgiving of impedance variance compared to SS pre's, at least with what I've played with over the years. Second in line is the source device. Warning: [Rant Start] I can't believe the CD players that are used these days by some people with otherwise what I would consider pretty nice systems. Does the word C-R-A-P mean anything? Take a perfectly good system, put a cheap POS CD player on it, and there goes the fidelity - right out the window! So for most, it doesn't matter whether they use tubes or not - they might even prefer "old" sloppy-soft sounding tube gear to take the edge off the cheap CD players they are using! [End Rant] DM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwinr Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 Warning: [Rant Start] I can't believe the CD players that are used these days by some people with otherwise what I would consider pretty nice systems. Does the word C-R-A-P mean anything? Take a perfectly good system, put a cheap POS CD player on it, and there goes the fidelity - right out the window! So for most, it doesn't matter whether they use tubes or not - they might even prefer "old" sloppy-soft sounding tube gear to take the edge off the cheap CD players they are using! [End Rant] If we ignore the emotive comments in your post, there is some merit in what you say. I agree there's an awful lot of potential in the bog standard CD that many cheaper players can't tap. One of the best upgrades we can make is the CD player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rcarlton Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 Roger Russell had a comment on CD players that is worth reading. I sure agree with him about imaging. When I compared a Toshiba SD-2107 to the Cambridge Audio Azur 640C...the CA had a much wider image. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverSport Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 interesting read rcarlton...thanks, Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Spinner Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 well......Edwinr as regards studio monitors the 4430's aren't unpleasent to listen to......... tho, maybe the word is a little "dry", or "cold" they dredge up ton's of detail that my various Klipsch speakers gloss over the biggest offender being the KH in the 3-400 hz range te 4430 crosses over to the CD horn at 1200 hz, so the compression driver does the most 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.