|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
216.169.136.194
Just for fun, I've been doing a lot of back and forth comparing between my Sherwood S5000 II integrated tube amp (7591 power tubes), and my McCormack DNA 0.5 solid state amp, with a passive preamp. Using my Merlin monitors in a nearfield listening position for better assessment of details.
The results are pretty much opposite of what I'd expect. The Sherwood is a much more accurate uncolored sound, more transparent and clearer with better resolution than the McCormack.
The McCormack, to its credit, has a warmer fuller sound, more dynamic, but with an electronic haze that is definitely not there with the Sherwood.
Can't say which I enjoy more.. the accuracy of the Sherwood or the coloration of the McCormack. Both are very nice in their own ways.
But to me, it is surprising that a vintage tube amp would be less colored and more accurate than a far more modern solid state amplifier.
And the differences aren't subtle.
Follow Ups:
My Sherwood S5000II and S3000IV easily went head to head with my McIntosh ss system and was the beginning of the end of several decades of owning my Mc system. If I had not decided to totally get out of tubes and had known of Mike I likely would be using them today.
I was lucky in finding an excellent replacement though that drove the last nail into the Mc coffin, the 1st generation Sherwood SS amp, the S9500c and matching S3300 tuner. Few, if any seem to have keyed into these early Sherwood ss units but focus on the same period receivers. Admittedly they are rare.
Don Brian Levy, J.D.
Toronto ON Canada
I never had a SS amp outperform a reasonable quality tube amp. Tubes just do something right with audio.
Over the years we have been blessed with some very good people posting. I always appreciated hearing joe rosen rant and rave. He once told me that Sherwood tube gear had a sound that would appeal to Spock....meaning it was brutally honest.
I agree....and caution you to do a full restore. The coupling caps are very prone to leakage. The small chassis makes the resistors get hot and drift. A bit of a bear to restore but worth the effort. Very well enginered circuits....too bad they didn't use the parts quality of a fisher.
ver the years we have been blessed with some very good people posting. I always appreciated hearing joe rosen rant and rave. He once told me that Sherwood tube gear had a sound that would appeal to Spock....meaning it was brutally honest.
I agree but the things he would say about Macs and Citations were totally off base as those amps are brutally honest as well.
"
Not really surprising to me. The Sherwood is a really good amp. My guess is that it may well be pretty much stock. If you rebuild it then it will be considerably better. The power supply will be much better and the bass will be tighter. Also, your Sherwood may not be biased optimally. It may well be running fine, but if the tubes are running a little cool or not well balanced then it won't sound its best. If you run a good quality tube amp with a set of speakers that it can drive easily it will sound very alive and correct. Of course the more money you pay the better the power supply and iron and the more detail you will hear. The Sherwoods have great iron and very good circuits. Yours may well be safe to use, but if the power and bias supplies are original then you can make it sound much better....
McCormack made in the same building as CJ is a warm sounding SS amp. I am surprised the top end is "more" on the Sherwood and you feel it has more detail. Is the Sherwood stock or updated/upgrade?
ET
I really don't know the history of this particular amp. I bought it on Ebay, maybe 5 years ago, and have never opened it up to look at its innards. It just seems to be working very well.
I don't know if the top end is "more" on the Sherwood, but the presentation in general is so much more transparent than on the McCormack, that I would characterize it as clearer or brighter. Of course, with transparency, comes "detail".
But the McCormack, has its own charms.
I hope you continue to enjoy it and get many more years out of it. If you decide to do a rebuild recap it Mike Samara is good with them and will bring it to a level not before achieved.
ET
As Don said,they are a fine amp but they need to be gone thru at some point..Sherwood was always noted for their midrange which is up there with the best in the business.The 7591 amp you have is more on the correct and leaner side and less on the tubey side...You can alter that a bit with tubes if you want.
"
Just last night I did a similar comparison between my Simple 5687 tube preamp and Yamaha CX-2 SS preamp and experienced the same results.
The tube preamp was much more detailed yet "neutral" sounding.
.
Freak out...Far out...In out....
While the Yamaha is a great preamp, you are going through a lot of parts. There is an advantage to going though just one linear device, so I am not that surprised.
Dave
May I inquire what Merlins you have and what type of Speaker cable you used. I recently purchased a pair of Merlin TSM BME (newest version), and it appears that they need upgraded cables to get the most out of them.
is that the amps sound different. Different cable may make them sound different as well but his point was.........different.
ET
Sorry... I should have added that I used the same cables in testing out both amps with the Merlins.
Your description reminds me of my Eico ST-40 which sounds much more neutral, accurate and uncolored than my other amps (including Cary SLI-80). As the ST-40 is not in the stock form, I am woundering whether it should be neutral in its stock form or such neutrality is caused by modern parts (caps, etc.) inserted by the rebuilder.
What is interesting, such a neutrality is addictive...
Yes.. I have the Merlin TSM-MME speakers. I'm using the Supra Classic 6.0, which Bobby Palkovic, the designer of Merlin speakers, recommends.
They're quite affordable, available from Madisound.
I've tried quite a few different types of speaker wire, and always come back to the Supra's.
That is what I ran with my TSM-mmm's, and they sounded very good. In fact, I think that match up sounded better than with my new BME series with the Supra Classic 6.0's. So I'm looking for options that will match up better with the BME, but not cost a fortune.
The Supra Classic 6.0 is PVC jacketed 15AWG tin plated five 9's stranded copper twinax. I am not claiming that it does not sound good, because I've never heard it. I just don't understand what is special about its construction that makes it sound good. I am not criticizing. I am just puzzled.
Dave
Dave... as far as I understand, the Supra Classic 6.0 is a 9 gauge wire. It certainly is very thick, so I'm not sure why you think it's a 15 gauge cable.
Here's a statement I copied from an Audiogon thread:
Bobby Palkovic of Merlin told me to look for a 9 gauge, stranded copper wire, and this is what I found. It's unique in that each copper strand is plated with tin, to insulate the strand and reduce "skin effect." The result is a cable that is, in Bobby's words, "stupid good"....
Tin is a conductor, so unless it has been enameled as well, it does not insulate the strands. If you're quoting him accurately, it sounds like technical mumbo-jumbo. On the other hand, 9 gauge is half the resistance of 12 gauge so there is very little series impedance at lower frequencies.
Jerry
Hi Jerry,
That is why the explanation does not make sense to me. Tin is not as good a conductor as copper, but it still conducts, otherwise solder would not work. They have the sane explanation on the Madisound website, which I believe is the manufacturers explanation.
Dave
My bad! I was looking at the Classic 1.6. Below is a link to the Classic 6. So the tin plating is it. That is the major difference between it and the old Monster style cable. It is inexpensive to the point of not being much of a risk to try. I may very well do that at some point. Right now I am researching cables and trying to make some sense out of it. It is not easy!
Dave
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: