Re: SETs: 300B compared with 572.

203.124.2.70

Posted by Johann E on April 16, 2000 at 23:28:55

In Reply to: Re: SETs: 300B compared with 572. posted by MTL on April 16, 2000 at 12:37:50:

MTL offered:
"You are right in that the 572/811 will give you more power than the 300B but they are different tubes and they sound different altho they still have the SET magic."

=Would you say the 572/811 tube SE amps sound generally closer to 845, 300B *or* 2a3s?

(I have heard AudioNOTe U.K. 300B amps that resemble tonally 2a3 amps more than Audion and Cary 300B amps do(!)You know,
dryer, smaller tonalities, slightly grainy highs and bompish bass rather than voice-rich, bloomy, expansive...)

"You seem to have a certain sound that you prefer so I'd suggest that you actually listen to the tube/amp before you decide.What speakers are you using?"

Right now, ProAc Response 2s...around 86dB. I used to use the Cary 300SE monos, but had to sell them. The current prices for Cary300SEs
places them out of my budget unless I max out and don't replace the ProAcs with another higher dB speaker, don't upgrade wires, etc. Frankly, I d be absolutely broke if I now buy the current Cary 300Bs :(

I do prefer the classic 300B sound as far as I have heard. To my ears, the micro-dynamics, shimmering highs, transparency,speed and immediacy of *non-AudioNote* 300B amps, while my current amp, the GTA SE 40 has about 70% of, are musical qualities I most desire from a playback system, you know?

I m looking for a higher powered SET amp within my (US)$1,500-2000max budget that retain these characteristics.

Am I barking up the wrong tree with the Cary 572 amps?

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Follow Ups Full Thread

Topic - SETs: 300B compared with 572. - Johann E 18:24:00 04/15/00 (22)

Re: SETs: 300B compared with 572. - Dave 16:35:24 04/19/00 (0)

Re: SETs: 300B compared with 572. - M Vidal 08:08:02 04/18/00 (0)

Re: SETs: 300B compared with 572. - Thorsten 07:24:14 04/17/00 (9)

Re: SETs: 300B compared with 572. - Mitch 17:36:36 04/26/00 (1)

Re: SETs: 300B compared with 572. - Johann E 03:42:36 04/27/00 (0)

Re: SETs: 300B /572. Thank you! - Johann E 07:43:49 04/17/00 (6)

Re: SETs: 300B /572. Thank you! - Thorsten 08:42:22 04/17/00 (5)

the answer is within you - Alex 19:00:38 04/18/00 (4)

Re: the answer is within you - Johann E 23:26:29 04/18/00 (3)

Re: the answer is within you - Dave 16:56:00 04/19/00 (2)

Re: the answer is within you - llammers 05:56:14 04/20/00 (1)

Re: the answer is within you - Dave 19:45:40 04/20/00 (0)

Re: SETs: 300B compared with 572. - rich 07:24:50 04/16/00 (8)

Re: SETs: 300B compared with 572. - Johann E 08:35:45 04/16/00 (7)

Re: SETs: 300B compared with 572. - MTL 12:37:50 04/16/00 (6)

Re: SETs: 300B compared with 572. - Johann E 23:28:55 04/16/00 (4)

Re: SETs: 300B compared with 572. - MTL 10:04:32 04/17/00 (3)

Re: SETs: 300B compared with 572. - llammers 16:00:41 04/17/00 (2)

Amp or speakers first? - andy evans 02:59:29 04/19/00 (1)

Re: Amp or speakers first? - llammers 15:56:36 04/20/00 (0)

disengage automatic piolet - Alex 14:42:26 04/16/00 (0)

Cary 572 - Alex 00:10:42 04/16/00 (0)

Follow Ups

Re: SETs: 300B compared with 572. - Johann E 23:28:55 04/16/00 (4)

Re: SETs: 300B compared with 572. - MTL 10:04:32 04/17/00 (3)

Re: SETs: 300B compared with 572. - llammers 16:00:41 04/17/00 (2)

Amp or speakers first? - andy evans 02:59:29 04/19/00 (1)

Re: Amp or speakers first? - llammers 15:56:36 04/20/00 (0)

You can not post to an archived thread.