SET Asylum

Single Ended Triodes (SETs), the ultimate tube lovers dream.

Return to SET Asylum


Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

Sophia Electric 300B: 91-01 vs 91-05

203.202.234.243

Posted on May 7, 2013 at 21:03:57
Plinius_Fan
Audiophile

Posts: 422
Location: Singapore
Joined: August 4, 2006
Folks, one of my most recent thread on AA was about "SET for Turnberry". I have been doing a lot of research and trying to listen to good SETs wherever I get an opportunity. At the moment I am leaning towards the Sophia Electric 300B SET which has been highly praised by Jeff Day. He too uses Tannoy. He has upgraded from a Leben 660P which is a superb amp. In general it seems like Sophia 300B is a safe choice. But then they have 3 variants of the same amp, 91-01 (reviewed by Jeff day), 91-03 and 91-05. They even have what they call "Super Quiet" version of these models. While I can afford their expensive variant (91-05), I do not find any information about them on the internet. The most popular and raved model seems to be the 91-01. Has anyone heard their 91-03 and 91-05 models ? Are they really superior in "musical" terms or are they just more of the audiophile thing ?

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
RE: Sophia Electric 300B: 91-01 vs 91-05, posted on May 8, 2013 at 07:52:01
Chip647
Audiophile

Posts: 2795
Location: The South
Joined: December 24, 2012
"Level 3" has "Proprietary driver circuit potted in an in-house made metal case epoxy potted module."

Most likely this means that they are using an inter-stage transformer as a replacement to the cap from the "Level 1". I really hope that the "driver circuit" referred to does not include an epoxy potted tube.

Personally I hate "trust us this is the secret upgrade that does wonders" without saying what it is. Perhaps then you would be less likely to shell out the extra thousands for it. Waiting for someone to give it a "triple-nipple" review from the internet is also usually a path to sorrow.

 

Bad experience with Sophia Electric, posted on May 8, 2013 at 09:06:52
Lord Soth
Audiophile

Posts: 141
Location: Washington, D.C.
Joined: August 29, 2011
The sound may be good but when things go wrong....

More details over here ....
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=113472.0

 

Is it better to use interstage transformers ?, posted on May 8, 2013 at 16:56:45
Plinius_Fan
Audiophile

Posts: 422
Location: Singapore
Joined: August 4, 2006
I am not a techie and moreover totally new to tubes. Is it really a better implementation to use interstage transformers ? Secondly, did the original Western Electric 91 amplifier on which the Sophia is based on use interstage transformers ?

 

RE: Sophia Electric 300B: 91-01 vs 91-05, posted on May 8, 2013 at 17:11:21
RC Daniel
Audiophile

Posts: 1922
Location: Brisbane
Joined: November 3, 2002
Read my response to your previous post. Jeff's Westminsters likely have different drive requirements to your Tunberries. Don't expect his experiences to translate directly to your situation.

Personally, I leave Sophia well alone. I have read about some concerning Sophia experiences; I don't like their product marketing approach; and the photos of the amps I have seen suggest poor build quality. I also put very little stock in Jeff's review. I've no doubt he liked the amp, but considering it reads more like a marketing exercise and contains some dubious "facts", I feel that expectation effects were/are strongly at play. Anyone writing about these types of systems should also have been able to identify what I think is poor build quality.

Buyer beware.

Cheers.

Edits: Grammar; minor terminology changes; and a minor qualification.

"In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, in the expert's mind there are few." Shunryo Suzuki

 

RE: Sophia Electric 300B: 91-01 vs 91-05, posted on May 8, 2013 at 18:01:15
Gerry E.
Audiophile

Posts: 2197
Location: Saratoga Springs, NY
Joined: February 19, 2000
"I also put very little stock in Jeff's review. I've no doubt he liked the amp, but considering it reads more like a marketing exercise..."

And by extension, his rave review of the Sophia Royal Princess 300Bs. $1200/pair and (IIRC) they won't even tell you how they differ from the less expensive Sophia 300Bs.

Gerry

 

RE: Is it better to use interstage transformers ?, posted on May 8, 2013 at 20:42:44
drlowmu
Manufacturer

Posts: 9730
Location: East of Kansas City
Joined: January 10, 2005
Hello,

May I suggest :

The best way to buy an amp is to listen to it for yourself, hopefully on your system, and you, and you alone decide if it is worth using. Its called YOU LISTEN and decide.


Jeff Medwin

 

RE: Bad experience with Sophia Electric, posted on May 8, 2013 at 23:22:15
Plinius_Fan
Audiophile

Posts: 422
Location: Singapore
Joined: August 4, 2006
your experience has really put me off with this brand. It shows they do not have basic ethics, cheap people I would say. Good sound is one thing but this is almost robbery. Could you file a case or do something like that ?
What did you do with your amp finally ?

 

RE: Is it better to use interstage transformers ?, posted on May 8, 2013 at 23:23:02
Plinius_Fan
Audiophile

Posts: 422
Location: Singapore
Joined: August 4, 2006
That way I will be reduced to choosing between only 2 or 3 amps, no more.

 

RE: Is it better to use interstage transformers ?, posted on May 9, 2013 at 01:46:36
drlowmu
Manufacturer

Posts: 9730
Location: East of Kansas City
Joined: January 10, 2005
Not in "my" opinion. The best use for an interstage in audio amplifiers is to split phase in a Push Pull tube amp.

I prefer far simpler between-stage coupling.

Direct coupling sounds best to my ears, and it makes the most sense, just a short length of highest quality silver wiring between two tube stages. No phase shifting, no nasty series coupling capacitor to drive and ultra wide bandwidth.

Such direct coupled amps are not commercially available with 300Bs as far as I can tell.

To get into SE amps on an "ideal-sonics" basis, you use a 2A3 tube, which is superior ( EML mesh 2A3, or a budget JJ-2A3-40 ) or LOWER powered tubes such as Type 45s or 71As. Look up Loftin White amplifier architectures. The best use of SE amps takes 97 or 98 dB / Watt speakers or higher.

After decades of doing tube amps, nothing I hear beats the directness and transparency of a well executed two stage direct coupled SE tube amp. Its mentally involving and fun to hear.

Jeff Medwin

 

Another yes, posted on May 9, 2013 at 02:19:22
Frihed89
Audiophile

Posts: 15703
Location: Copenhagen
Joined: March 21, 2005
I've never heard their amps, but I agree with your points 100%.

 

The WE91 did not use interstage transformers, posted on May 9, 2013 at 02:40:03
Frihed89
Audiophile

Posts: 15703
Location: Copenhagen
Joined: March 21, 2005
A suggestion for an alternative place to look would be to contact Tube Audio Labs, where the proprietor builds a series of "stock" DIY models or vintage copies, including the WE91, for reasonable prices (quite a bit lower than what you paid). The reviews (not just those on his site) of his amps by owners are very strong. The majority of his amps are 300B, 2A3 and 45.

 

RE: Is it better to use interstage transformers ?, posted on May 9, 2013 at 02:54:35
Frihed89
Audiophile

Posts: 15703
Location: Copenhagen
Joined: March 21, 2005
To my ears the 45 is a cleaner sounding tube than the 2A3. I have direct coupled amp (no cab between the driver and power tube) that uses both the 2A3 and 45. My tubes are AVVT 2A3 meash plates and EML 45 solid plates (plus a bunch of vintage tubes). My amp is optimized for the 2A3, but the 45 still sounds better to my ears.

The one thing that will generally improve any SET's sonic performance the most is better output transformers. You pay for what you get.

If you do talk with Tube Audio Lab, the proprietor is flexible about parts, esp. output transformers. Don't skimp. Magnequest, a US mfr., makes a very good basic output transformer for all 3 tubes (300B, 2A3 and 45). The price goes up on all OPTs as you add more exotic core types and/or core materials and wire.

 

RE: Sophia Electric 300B: 91-01 vs 91-05, posted on May 9, 2013 at 03:47:03
Johno
Audiophile

Posts: 399
Joined: June 9, 2002

Hi there, regarding Tannoy Turnberry do a search at this HiFi Wigwam being British there is a abundance of amp recommendations for that model. Personally I would be shooting for a PP valve amp around 20W, cheers Johno.

http://www.hifiwigwam.com/forumdisplay.php?22-2-Channel-Debate

 

RE: Is it better to use interstage transformers ?, posted on May 9, 2013 at 05:08:58
Sebrof
Audiophile

Posts: 634
Location: AusTX
Joined: July 12, 2002
I have one of Min's (Tube Audio Lab)amps, actually I got the case and parts from him and built it myself. That's another option for you to save even more money.
I had James output transformers in it for a couple of years and I thought the amp sounded pretty darn good, but maybe a little wimpy. I got a pair of ElectraPrint OPTs and the difference in sound was huge. I'm not talking about a little more of this and better that, I'm talking about a completely different amp.
So I agree, don't skimp on OPTs.
Mine is a 2A3 WE 91A clone (6C6s driving 2A3s cap coupled)

 

Tell us more about the OPTs, posted on May 9, 2013 at 07:45:02
Frihed89
Audiophile

Posts: 15703
Location: Copenhagen
Joined: March 21, 2005
I have Magnequest OPTs on my 2A3/45 monos from Don Garber, which was Don's preference at the time. He was planning to switch to Hashimotos when I last talked with him. So, EPs are a step up from James. That's interesting. What model are they? Have they any exotic materials/wire in them?

I've not heard a lot of good or bad things about EPs.

 

RE: Tell us more about the OPTs, posted on May 9, 2013 at 08:13:17
Palustris
Audiophile

Posts: 2460
Location: Cape Cod
Joined: September 12, 2008
"I've not heard a lot of good or bad things about EPs."

My bad: I have the E-P 3k 65mA 5W copper transformers on my 2 stage direct coupled SE 6N23P/2A3 amp and I find them to be OUTSTANDING.

 

RE: Tell us more about the OPTs, posted on May 9, 2013 at 10:35:00
Sebrof
Audiophile

Posts: 634
Location: AusTX
Joined: July 12, 2002
My main point was that the OPTs are important, as you mentioned. The EPs are much bigger than the James, most likely much more expensive also. So not a comparison James to EP by any stretch.

I bought the EPs from a local audio acquaintance, he had them in his Welborne Moondogs. I'm almost cetain his Moondogs were 300B, but from the quick search I just did it looks like Welborne uses Magnequest. So...??
I do know he mentioned that he had Jack at EP custom wind these, something I don't believe Jack does anymore.
I don't believe they contain any exotic materials.

 

RE: Tell us more about the OPTs, posted on May 9, 2013 at 13:07:29
RC Daniel
Audiophile

Posts: 1922
Location: Brisbane
Joined: November 3, 2002
I still have some of the components from an aborted (by me) Min Radiotron amp build on the shelf, including the EP transformers. I have replaced the chassis and many other components and accumulated roughly 12 pairs of 6C6 tubes (though a few might be dodgy). Your comments re: the EP transformers have motivated me to get to get it laid out and built.

Thank you.

"In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, in the expert's mind there are few." Shunryo Suzuki

 

RE: Tell us more about the OPTs, posted on May 9, 2013 at 13:50:38
Palustris
Audiophile

Posts: 2460
Location: Cape Cod
Joined: September 12, 2008
Evidently Jack doesn't wind power transformers any more. I think he will wind any kind of OP transformer.

 

Agreed! Nor does a "91" use cascaded 6sn7 halves., posted on May 9, 2013 at 16:00:43
RC Daniel
Audiophile

Posts: 1922
Location: Brisbane
Joined: November 3, 2002
According to Sophia:

"The original WE 91 amplifer used WE310 driver tube that is ultra expensive for what it is and difficult to find today for any meaningful quality production. Sophia Electric designers choose a driver tube to produce similar sonic characters that WE 91 is famous for"

So they chose cascaded 6sn7 halves for this purpose rather than use a suitable pentode?! The Sophia's "91" has very little resemblance to the WE91 or the more general interpretation of "91", which refers to SET amps with a pentode driving a DHT. Such BS. My guess is that they did not use a pentode driver because they don't rebrand a suitable one... but they do rebrand the 6sn7.

/rant

Cheers.

"In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, in the expert's mind there are few." Shunryo Suzuki

 

DHT comparos (OT)., posted on May 9, 2013 at 18:24:56
RC Daniel
Audiophile

Posts: 1922
Location: Brisbane
Joined: November 3, 2002
I'd be curious to hear a comparo between the 45 and 2A3 where both use a more 45-like plate current to plate voltage ratio (and ~5k load). I think much of the 45's directness and clarity come from the ~1:7 ratio with 5k load... much higher than the common 2A3 and 300B 1:4 ratio with 2k5 load.

Gordon Rankin, Thorsten and IIRC Dennis Fraker have alluded to the difference in presentation between the different ratios...

Cheers.

Edits: minor changes to improve clarity.

"In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, in the expert's mind there are few." Shunryo Suzuki

 

A suitable modern "91" circuit ..., posted on May 9, 2013 at 19:27:31
Paul Joppa
Industry Professional

Posts: 7344
Location: Seattle, WA
Joined: April 23, 2001
... was published by Joe Roberts in Sound Practices v1n1.

 

RE: DHT comparos (OT)., posted on May 9, 2013 at 19:29:17
drummerwill
Audiophile

Posts: 965
Location: St Louis Mo.
Joined: January 7, 2003

I like the sound of a 2A3 running at 45 O.P's. and you get a little more power too !

Willie

 

Yep - that is the one that..., posted on May 9, 2013 at 20:20:44
RC Daniel
Audiophile

Posts: 1922
Location: Brisbane
Joined: November 3, 2002
sparked a lot of interest back in the day. I have it saved to my pentode_drives_DHT folder! I have a few others I have accumulated: one from a French mag, Thorsten's work (including is monkeyed type 45, Legacy, and DIYHIFI era), the Radiotron and a few randoms...

Cheers.

"In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, in the expert's mind there are few." Shunryo Suzuki

 

RE: Yep - that is the one that..., posted on May 9, 2013 at 20:56:57
Paul Joppa
Industry Professional

Posts: 7344
Location: Seattle, WA
Joined: April 23, 2001
I drafted a derivative version for Mike at Magnequest, to use some of his iron in parafeed. I never built it, nor do I know anyone who has, but I'll share the circuit and notes if anyone is interested.

 

Interested? Hell's yes..., posted on May 9, 2013 at 22:09:52
RC Daniel
Audiophile

Posts: 1922
Location: Brisbane
Joined: November 3, 2002
...I'd be really interested in taking a look and consider building it as my second project... if Mikey still has the transformers available.

Share it to where you think best... just let us know the location!

Thanks Paul.

"In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, in the expert's mind there are few." Shunryo Suzuki

 

RE: DHT comparos (OT)., posted on May 9, 2013 at 22:14:52
RC Daniel
Audiophile

Posts: 1922
Location: Brisbane
Joined: November 3, 2002
Hey Willie - thanks for that. I am not at all surprised.

I am tossing up what output I use for my 2nd amp build... this helpful.

Cheers.

"In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, in the expert's mind there are few." Shunryo Suzuki

 

Don Garber's approach seems to be different, posted on May 10, 2013 at 02:51:27
Frihed89
Audiophile

Posts: 15703
Location: Copenhagen
Joined: March 21, 2005
Look at the URL i have posted and how Don makes the conversion (pages 2 and 3). With this set-up the 2A3 delivers less power than the 45.

Don did tell me that the optimized 45 version of his 2A3 monos doesn't sound much different than the optimized 45 version of these monos.

I wonder what the difference is between his result and yours?

 

RE: Don Garber's approach seems to be different, posted on May 10, 2013 at 03:30:57
RC Daniel
Audiophile

Posts: 1922
Location: Brisbane
Joined: November 3, 2002
Yep, the 45 seems to be the rare tube that retains it's sonics irrespective of operating points and load.

My thinking though is that current 2A3s (mostly 2.5v 300B) and 300B at the 1:6 to 1:7 mA:volt operating point with 5k load can also sound much like (but not same) a 45... with more power.

I hope to be able to experience this first hand with my upcoming builds. Man, do I need to get cracking! The perfectionist in me is very resistant though... what, my first build is merely a learning experience and a bit of a shoehorning exercise of some parts I hve laying around... not good enough!

Cheers.

"In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, in the expert's mind there are few." Shunryo Suzuki

 

RE: Joppa M91 PF Derivative, posted on May 10, 2013 at 05:28:17
awsjr
Audiophile

Posts: 240
Location: Austin, Tejas
Joined: November 30, 2006
Hi Paul... my build of your design is well on it's way.... all Magnequest iron, PGP 8.1 PS, TFA-2004 OPT (cobalt), EXO-003 plate choke and BCP-16 Ni grid chokes.... with Paul's permission, I would be happy to supply a parts list if anyone is interested....


 

RE: Tell us more about the OPTs, posted on May 10, 2013 at 05:39:02
awsjr
Audiophile

Posts: 240
Location: Austin, Tejas
Joined: November 30, 2006
Moondogs use the 2A3... very few early Welborne Moondogs and Laurels (300B) were built with Magnequest OPT's.... after 1998 Electra-Print OPT's were used.... very good iron...

 

Listening to the Allnic T1500 at the moment, posted on May 10, 2013 at 06:43:22
Plinius_Fan
Audiophile

Posts: 422
Location: Singapore
Joined: August 4, 2006
Called for a home demo, it is driving the Turnberry with ease. It is a neat sounding amp, good presence, good staging (which I care a bit less), very good speed and timing, not very lush, sounds more like a superb SS amp but still there is a certain directness and wholeness which I have come associate with SETs. Tone colours are good but I would have liked it to be a little more colourful and saturated. Possibly could have been a little more sweet also. I would not call it a very soulful presentation but still very enjoyble.

 

RE: Don Garber's approach seems to be different, posted on May 10, 2013 at 08:15:12
drummerwill
Audiophile

Posts: 965
Location: St Louis Mo.
Joined: January 7, 2003


I've built several IT coupled 45PP amps, for filaments I use Hammonds 6A 2.5vct trannies. For the SET 45 amps I've built I use a 3A 2.5vgt tranny.

Both SET and PP 45 amps use 45 O.P.'s .....My experience is when I replace a 45 with a 2A3 in those amps ..... the music is louder .....
JMHO !

Have fun !
Willie

 

SET 801A, posted on May 10, 2013 at 13:01:06
Roli


 
You should try 801A with driver of 801A

Better then 300B or 45 SET

 

RE: Joppa M91 PF Derivative, posted on May 10, 2013 at 13:39:58
RC Daniel
Audiophile

Posts: 1922
Location: Brisbane
Joined: November 3, 2002
Consider me interested.

Cheers.

"In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, in the expert's mind there are few." Shunryo Suzuki

 

M91 derivative - long!, posted on May 10, 2013 at 13:47:14
Paul Joppa
Industry Professional

Posts: 7344
Location: Seattle, WA
Joined: April 23, 2001



Here's the details. OK to build for personal use, keep Joe Robert's name and mine on it, all the usual.

Notes on the M91 derivative

by Paul Joppa, September 2012

In the first issue of Sound Practices magazine, v.1n.1 dated "Summer 1992," Joe Roberts presented a version of the Western Electric Model 91 amplifier, modernized and simplified for use as a hifi amplifier. This circuit is a slight modification of Joe's version, to use Magnequest transformers in parallel feed. A few other changes, based on Bottlehead's experience with 300B amplifiers, have also been incorporated, notably the use of DC for the 300B filament.

This design has not yet been constructed or tested, but is only a small deviation from similar designs that have considerable experience behind them. No guarantees are offered!

Component notes

R1 - this is the power supply bleeder, 50K ohms at 25 watts, wirewound.

R2, R3 - these were a voltage divider for the driver heater; the present arrangement uses the 300B bias to provide this function instead.

R4 - Joe used the original WE 880 ohm resistor, which is not an easy value to find. I show a 1K resistor, which is what we use in the Paramount and works very well with a 3K output transformer. This reduces the 300B current about 10%, keeping the PGP8.1 slightly cooler, too. The 50W rating is overkill but that's what Joe used and it does make it highly reliable.

Rstop - I use these 220 ohm grid stoppers on all tubes, though it's especially important on the 300B which has a high transconductance. Quality carbon composition is recommended.

R5 is the input resistor. You can substitute a 100K level control if you like; I'd recommend the PEC mil-spec carbon composition pots as being most in keeping with the intent of this design.

R6 is the driver bias resistor, 1200 ohms nominally. You may need to experiment with this to obtain the desired 170vDC at the plate - you want to be within +/-20v. Joe used carbon composition but I would avoid that here; metal film or wirewound would be good. The dissipation is tiny so anything ¼ watt or larger is fine.

R7, R8 are the screen power voltage divider. Joe chose 5-watt wirewound; the 30K R7 can be 3 watts but the 75K R8 must be 5-watt rated.

R9 is the driver plate resistor. Joe used carbon composition but in this position I would strongly recommend metal film or non-inductive wirewound. Minimum power rating is 2 watts.

R10 is the 300B grid resistor; Joe used carbon composition. I would use a smaller value of 250K, to allow for more grid leakage than original WE 300Bs.

R11 is the driver power filter, 27K 1 watt minimum. Again I would avoid carbon composition in favor of metal film or wirewound (does not need to be non-inductive).

C1, C2, C8 are power supply filter capacitors, all 15uF, 600v minimum. Joe used 1000v PIO caps that he had on hand, but suitable rated motor run caps should be equally good. Film caps will work well but might change the sound a bit. In my opinion, 15uF is the minimum capacitance but up to 27uF should work well without changing the character of the sound.

C4, C5 are cathode bypass caps; Joe used 16uF 75v or 100v oil or film. I would use a larger cap on the 300B, preferably 30-50uF, and a 150v rating, for better bass and greater reliability. The driver cap needs only a few volts rating. In my opinion, oil caps are likely to give the more traditional sound.

C6 - 8uF, 200v (minimum) again, PIO will likely give the more traditional sound. This screen bypass is sonically significant.

C7 - Joe specified a 0.1uF 600v Vitamin Q PIO, which is an excellent choice. A teflon V-cap might be another good choice.

Cpf - the parafeed capacitor should be between 4.5 and 18uF, I recommend the middle value of 8.2uF for the best compromise between deep bass and bass power handling. A 600v rating is the minimum, 800v or 1000v are preferred. My experience is almost entirely with polypropylene film caps, but PIO and motor run caps are worth exploring.

D1, D2, D3, D4 - I have specifieded these 8-amp Schottky rectifiers, type 80SQ045N, for their very low voltage drop, which makes is possible to obtain enough voltage from a 6.3v winding and a choke-input filter.

L1 - 10 henries, filter choke, 80mA or greater. The Triad C7-X is widely available and inexpensive. If you can find an older one that is layer wound, that would be more in keeping, but the modern bobbin-wound (made, I believe by Hammond now) will work just fine.

L2 - I chose the Magnequest EXO-003 plate choke for its high inductance. It is only rated 60mA but we have used it at 70mA with great success; the rating is quite conservative. For complete overkill, you can ask Mike about a BAC-80.

L3, L4 - 6mH 2A 0.3 ohm filament chokes, Hammond 155B. These provide choke-only filtering of the 300B filament power. An alternative is the Bottlehead FC-1 which has dual windings, so only one choke is needed per channel.

T1 - Magnequest PGP8.1 power transformer (PGP8.2 is the 240v version). This was a workhorse for Bottlehead for many years. The twin 2.5v windings were derived from a 5v rectifier winding on the classic original design, and I have returned them to that function here.

T2 - Magnequest TFA-2004 parafeed output transformer, 3000:VC. Extremely good-sounding transformer, this is a parafeed version of the TFA-204 which was sold by Peerless as a replacement for the WE91 original. Parafeed allows significantly deeper bass and freedom from saturation. It is available in a variety of core materials, though plain M6 or M4 will likely give the more traditional and expected sonic. Consider nickel if you are using the V-cap for coupling - a different sound, but cleaner.

Other notes

I chose a 6SJ7GT, which is quite similar to the original WE310A without the grid cap or 10-volt heater. It's not identical, so some adjustment of the bias may be needed to obtain the correct plate voltage (see note on R6). I retained Joe's 5AR4/GZ34 rectifier. Maximum rectifier filament current is 2 amps; do NOT use a 5U4!

Joe used a center-tapped AC winding for filament power. With the modern 300Bs I have tested, hum is much worse than with a hum pot, and even a hum pot still gives around 5mV hum which is too much for many speakers. So I suggest this choke-filtered DC filament supply with hum pot. The PGP8.1 can be wired to give a center-tapped 5v winding for the tube rectifier.

By using the same winding for filament power and the driver heater, the driver is biased up to about +70vDC. This is rather close to the maximum specification of 90vDC, and thus much more than the original +30v, but the simplification seems worthwhile to me.

 

Thanks Paul., posted on May 10, 2013 at 23:28:33
RC Daniel
Audiophile

Posts: 1922
Location: Brisbane
Joined: November 3, 2002
I have retained a copy of this page on my HD. There are a couple of neat tips/ advice I have noted also.

Thanks again for your efforts and contributions - they are highly valued.

Cheers.

"In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, in the expert's mind there are few." Shunryo Suzuki

 

RE: Thanks Paul., posted on May 10, 2013 at 23:58:07
Paul Joppa
Industry Professional

Posts: 7344
Location: Seattle, WA
Joined: April 23, 2001
Thanks! Or you're welcome! Take your pick :^)

The essence of a creative community is "each one teach one". I hang out at these forums because I learn stuff, so I try to share what I've learned on the forums as well.

 

I can't believe this didn't cause more outrage, posted on May 11, 2013 at 09:35:43
Tre'
Industry Professional

Posts: 17967
Location: So. Cal.
Joined: February 9, 2002
I wouldn't leave a tube amp on 24/7 because tubes are expensive but that shouldn't cause the power transformer to short out.

When Sue said that the amp must be turned off after 5 hours I was shocked.

In emails back and forth between Sue and I, she claims that no tube amplifier was ever made to run 24/7.

I pointed out that there are many tube amps that were meant to run 24/7 (the Altec 1568a being one of them) and that Dwight got a defective power transformer and since the manual says nothing about "resting" the amp after 5 hours she should fix Dwight's amp under warranty.

What say you?

Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"

 

Western Electric 91A SET by Tube Audio Labs , posted on May 11, 2013 at 10:20:23
Plinius_Fan
Audiophile

Posts: 422
Location: Singapore
Joined: August 4, 2006
I have spoken to Min at Tube Audio Labs and he has offered to build me a Western Electric 91A amp. But before I could proceed with this I would like to get an idea about the signature sound of a WE91A amp. I know it has legendary reputation but I am not really looking for rolled off highs and lows like some of the old school tube gears have, hence I need some help from compatriots here to explain me the sonics I could expect from a well built copy of a Western Electric 91A amp. Kindly !!

 

100% agree with you Tre., posted on May 11, 2013 at 14:15:07
RC Daniel
Audiophile

Posts: 1922
Location: Brisbane
Joined: November 3, 2002
I was also rather shocked.

Sue's response re: resting the amp after hours was so odd that when the owner posted her response, I misinterpreted his post and assumed the odd 5 hour limit WAS in the manual. The poster mentioned "page" or some such, which assumed referred to the manual; however, the poster was referring to the forum thread. How can an amp's warranty be voided by breaching some obscure condition that was not even stated in the manual?!

And irrespective of whether she thinks tube in amps in general are not designed to run for 24 hours (BS, to my mind!), there is a general expectation they should be able to run for more than 5 hours without rest.

Very, very poor form on behalf of Sophia.

Cheers.

"In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, in the expert's mind there are few." Shunryo Suzuki

 

RE: Western Electric 91A SET by Tube Audio Labs , posted on May 11, 2013 at 23:46:41
Paul Joppa
Industry Professional

Posts: 7344
Location: Seattle, WA
Joined: April 23, 2001
IMHO, you don't want a copy. You may or may not want a good derivative.

Historically, the Model 91 acquired a cult following and reputation in the earliest days of the SET revival, when there were no commercial SETs, and the M91s were available because they were being pulled out of theaters all over the country - late fifties? sixties? I'm no historian, but collectors (mostly in Japan I believe) were able to acquire them and modify them to work as home hifi amps. I suspect that was a big player in reviving interest in the 300B, which was still in production at the time.

So its reputation is based on the "SET magic", often perceived as a "magic midrange". Whether that's caused by single-ended or directly heated or no feedback or whatever, there is a sonic integrity to SETs which is the reason there is this forum. But the M91 was built for theaters back when 80Hz to 10kHz was a very wideband amplifier indeed, and a 50dB signal to noise ratio was outstanding. Simply put, there's no reason to think the M91 is an exceptional SET, it got famous by being the only SET around.

Naturally there are many amps around of similar design topology but with modern transformers, power supplies, and other parts, which are competitive with other modern designs in terms of sound quality. I've posted my thoughts on an approach below, for example. So I'm not saying there's anything wrong with a good modern derivative. But there's nothing special about it either, beyond the nostalgic associations.

 

I burn in all new tube amps 24 hrs all the time, posted on May 12, 2013 at 01:35:27
Lord Soth
Audiophile

Posts: 141
Location: Washington, D.C.
Joined: August 29, 2011
Yes, Sophia Electric was really pulling a fast one here.

So far, I've always burned in new tube amp equipment for 24hrs straight.

Just something I learnt from the electronics manufacturing sector.
If new electronics equipment (SS too) can survive a 24 hr initial burn in, chances are the said equipment will be able last the whole of the usual 1 or 2 year standard manufacturer's warranty.

Anything that can't do that is just a poorly manufactured piece of electronics equipment.

 

RE: Joppa M91 PF Derivative, posted on May 12, 2013 at 02:56:30
mach1
Audiophile

Posts: 399
Location: Brisvegas
Joined: April 24, 2005
I'm not sure if it would be a good idea to use grid choke on the 300B with a high plate resistance driver like a 6SJ7.

 

Tube Audio Lab WE91A , posted on May 12, 2013 at 06:27:53
Sebrof
Audiophile

Posts: 634
Location: AusTX
Joined: July 12, 2002
You may want to confirm with Min at TAL, but the link shows the schematic for what Min will build (scroll down for the final version).
Paul and others may want to comment on it specifically (I'd sure like to read comments since this is what I'm listening to as I type)

 

RE: Tube Audio Lab WE91A , posted on May 12, 2013 at 13:01:54
drlowmu
Manufacturer

Posts: 9730
Location: East of Kansas City
Joined: January 10, 2005






Hi Sebrof:

You wrote this :

"Paul and others may want to comment on it specifically (I'd sure like to read comments since this is what I'm listening to as I type)".

I will offer you my own thoughts of this amp you are listening to.

I would rebuild the supply. I have redesigned it as follows:

As it stands now, it uses a cap input filter, 10 uF, with a single 65 Ohm choke, and a power transformer whose secondary is 72 Ohms DCR ( either end to center tap ) and whose primary DCR is 2.8 Ohms ( Hammond 272DX, 123 VA ). All these power supply DCRs are certainly too high.

I have found, in more than thirty years of A-Bing such things, that choke DCRs to the Finals stage need to be in the order of 20 Ohms or less to get acceptable audio performance, the "line in the sand" so to speak.

Also, the 5R4 is a nice sounding directly heated tube rectifier, but it is TOO HIGH in Z for any audio amp, it may be OK for a preamp. Its a whimp for a amplifier. Use a 5V3A instead, also a directly heated rectifier. Some people like Sylvania brand 5V3s.

When I PSUD2 simulate your power supply to the Final 2A3 tube, and subject it to a 15% current step at 4.1 seconds, is seems to fully settle in 150 mS. and it drops 10.2 VDC in B+ with a current step of 18.7 mA. So, applying Ohms' Law, "I" express this above as 545 Ohm dynamic Z, powering the 2A3. ( 10.2 VDC divided by 0.0187 A. equals 545 Ohms )

My suggestion settles fully in 90 mS. and drops only 3 VDC with the same current step, which "I" will express as 160 Ohms. ( 3 VDC divided by .0187 A. equals 160 Ohms ) A 160 Ohms filter to 2A3 Finals will sound a HELL of a lot better in music play-back than a 545 Ohms one !! Its a reduction to one third !!

The power transformer becomes a Hammond 270HX, which is 176 VA. That transformer is rated 275-0-275 at 230 mA. and has a DCR for one half of its high voltage winding of 30 Ohms, and a primary DCR of only 1 Ohm. This is better, way better, and you will hear it as so !!

In place of one choke, you will use three smaller and much lower DCR chokes, placed below-deck. In every DIY amplifier I have built since 1982, I exclusively use two chokes in series to the Finals, rather than a single choke. This always sounds to me as a more "refined" audio presentation. I'll have it no other way, thank you !

L1 input choke is a Triad C-56U, which at just 0.8 Ohms DCR with a 2 A. current rating, so it will loaf. C1 is 20 uF. Next, the filter splits ( as a "Y" ) to a separate L2 / C2 for each 2A3. Use the EDCOR XC87-2HY-300 mA. 21 DCR chokes, with 50 uF for C2s, a L2 / C2 feeding each 2A3.

The 14K series resistors feeding the Input stage should likely provide adequate ripple reduction to the Input tube's B+ rail. Five hundred mVAC of ripple to the 2A3 finals will be of no consequence, and the trade off you have reaped in gaining speed and dynamic renderings of the music, will easily offset inaudible ripple "numbers" to the Finals when you listen.

If you build this supply, please let me know how it sounds to you. These changes will transform your amplifier and be on the par of what you heard when you went from the James to the custom EP output transformers. Actually it MAY well be a far greater improvement, and it will spoil you forever, like it has me. But you have to experience it directly to comprehend it and appreciate it. Enjoy.

Jeff Medwin

 

Uber Supply, posted on May 12, 2013 at 19:39:59
Sebrof
Audiophile

Posts: 634
Location: AusTX
Joined: July 12, 2002
Thanks Jeff. This sounds like a great project, not too big and not too small. If I build it I'll post here.
My interpretation of the graphs you supplied is that my Power Supply will only supply 281 mA with the load you modeled, and your uber supply would supply in the neighborhood of 308 mA. I'll need some time to digest what you wrote.

Incedently, the Power Transformer I have (supplied by TAL) is a 272FX and not the 272DX as in the schematic I linked to.

 

RE: Uber Supply, posted on May 12, 2013 at 22:30:40
drlowmu
Manufacturer

Posts: 9730
Location: East of Kansas City
Joined: January 10, 2005
Hi Sebrof,

Nice try !! I don't know where you are getting the 281 mA. and 308 mA. numbers, but I think you are thinking in steady-state terms, and have partially missed the gist of my post.

The supply I showed you is DYNAMICALLY about three times superior.

Pulse either supply with a 18.7 mA. of a stepped current increase, and the stock supply drops 10.2 VDC in B+, and takes about 150 mS. to fully settle.

Pulse the suggested supply with a same 18.7 mA. current step, and the B+ only drops about 3.0 VDC, and fully resettles in about 90 mS.

Music is all transient in nature, odd waves, not sinusoidal, and for music playback in realistic terms, the suggested supply will readily out-perform the stock supply.

The DX is 123 VA rated, the FX you now use is 146 VA and 150 mA. rated, close to your total load. The transformer I suggested is 176 VA and 230 mA. rated - about two times your load amp's load.

I always find it best to go two times load, or more, for high performance.

The amp in my living room right now has a power transformer that is eight times rated higher than its load. You've not heard what a 2A3 can do yet, you are only receiving "hints". :-)


Jeff Medwin

 

RE: Western Electric 91A SET by Tube Audio Labs , posted on May 13, 2013 at 04:22:01
RC Daniel
Audiophile

Posts: 1922
Location: Brisbane
Joined: November 3, 2002
Sebrof asked for opinions/ comments; I have posted them here because they are relevant to your enquiry.

A lot of people own these amps and most love them; I’ll not argue with them. However, I feel that I should share my experiences and opinions and will try to be brief, balanced and reasonable.. but don't take this as fact.

Caveats: I only have experience with one of his kits and am yet to hear one of his amps. I have viewed closely his photos of builds and have been looking into these types of amps for a while. Make of that what you will.

I was well aware that the “kit” was collection of parts and contained minimal instructions; no problem. The chassis had badly burred and out-of-shape holes but more importantly had what I consider a rather sub-standard layout. I was not expecting boutique parts, but reliable tube sockets and appropriate selection of parts that are documented to be important to the overall performance should have been the minimum. Further, some hardware and wire were absent. For me, important requirements were simply not met, to the point I was questioning the long term safety of the amp. I aborted the build and now consider it to have been a great learning experience; I learned a lot and it has forced me to learn more!

I don’t know why Min supplied the kit like this. Many people claim to like the build and sonics of his amps. My guess is that he was busy and took less care than perhaps he should. Still, some of the mistakes would have been obvious to a competent DIYer. Min has performed a lot of builds; perhaps mine was an isolated experience? Perhaps my experience with this kit does not extend to his builds? It is a while since I have looked at the images of Min's builds on his site, but I recall thinking that his earlier builds are "better" than his more recent builds. That said, the photos generally show layouts and build quality I’d not be satisfied with and his component selection often leaves much to be desired. Thankfully, Min allows you to specify the components to be used and if he is building.

Which brings me to the things I would ask for if I were requesting a build from him. For simple reliability and safety: do not use the nasty Chinese-made ceramic tube sockets (I like the phenolic UX4 and UX6 that are available for a few bucks each); use grommets around the holes through which wires are routed; de-burr and cleanly finish all holes; and use a suitable location and method for attaching the safety earth-chassis connection (it needs to be a dedicated connection!). Layout and grounding are well beyond the scope of this post, but I’d ask him to use a larger chassis than absolutely required and to lay it out as optimally as he knows how, paying particular care to the grounding (rather than just “making it fit”). Components I would specify include a 2uF or greater PIO capacitor for screen-ground bypass; a coupling capacitor that voices the amp to your liking; spend the extra $ on Yamamoto grid caps for the 6C6; ElectraPrint 3K (primary load) output transformers (or the pricier Hashimotos); and a higher spec Hammond power PSU (for cooler running). If you wanted to go further, I’d suggest film caps for the PSU and cathode bypasses (you could get away with a cathode bypass of ~ 16 to 33uF for the 6C6, I think).

I have likely missed a few things, but that should get you a reliable and nice-sounding amp, if built well. There is a heap more that could be done to “improve” the circuit, but then it would not be the same amp.

Cheers.

Edits: vastly cleaned up to improve intelligibility.

"In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, in the expert's mind there are few." Shunryo Suzuki

 

RE: Sophia Electric 300B: neither., posted on May 14, 2013 at 08:51:02
Jamesbmay


 
Sophia has to be the most overrated and overhyped product on the market. I just don't get it personally. Did you see the link with the construction photos and lack of support? This amp dhould be no more than $1000 max! I heard one that was passed around my audio group. A real head scratcher as to why its so popular. Not sure why people believe the Hype so easily.

James

 

RE: Joppa M91 PF Derivative, posted on May 14, 2013 at 15:06:58
RC Daniel
Audiophile

Posts: 1922
Location: Brisbane
Joined: November 3, 2002
That was my thought as well, but recall having been corrected on that assumption in past. My guess is that Paul knows what he is doing... but I'd want to try it both ways (grid L and R) before I recommended one approach over the other.

Cheers.

"In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, in the expert's mind there are few." Shunryo Suzuki

 

RE: Joppa M91 PF Derivative, posted on May 14, 2013 at 19:18:05
Paul Joppa
Industry Professional

Posts: 7344
Location: Seattle, WA
Joined: April 23, 2001
As long as the grid choke inductance is high enough and the capacitance is low enough, it should be OK. At AC, the driver's high impedance is shunted by its plate resistor (91K), so it's maybe 10 times the resistance of a triode. Mike is not specific but says "thousands" of henries (!) for his grid chokes... I haven't used them myself due to magnetic hum pickup issues, but as long as you're patient and willing to move things around if necessary, give it a try.

 

Thanks a lot , posted on May 14, 2013 at 22:39:40
Plinius_Fan
Audiophile

Posts: 422
Location: Singapore
Joined: August 4, 2006
nt

 

Dynamic contrasts lacking with 300B SETs, posted on May 14, 2013 at 23:08:28
Plinius_Fan
Audiophile

Posts: 422
Location: Singapore
Joined: August 4, 2006
Friends, I am almost using this thread like a personal blog, updating all my findings on this subject of 300B SETs.

As mentioned in another post I have been listening to an Allnic T1500 300B SET for the last few days, it is on a home demo. Before this I had a Trafomatic Audio 300B SET for the demo. In both the cases I noticed one thing in common, I do not hear a lot of dynamic contrasts in the music. In a crowded piece of music, there are instruments which play more silently in the background and there are instruments which are in the foreground playing the lead. Generally your focus remains on the lead instruments because it plays distinctly louder and seperated while still enjoying the subtleties of the background artists who do their trick in a more silent way. To enjoy this the system has to present them with enough dynamic contrast so that subtle and loud are well differentiated, this I am missing on both the 300B SETs I tried at home. This is more evident with crowded music. It is just not effortless in this act. In fact I do not remember hearing a dynamic peak that made me take notice, let alone getting overwhelmed.

My question is, is it a limitation of 300B tube ? I agree that they are very transparent but are they dynamically restrained ? Or is it a particular case that 8 watts SET is not working with 93db Tannoys ? The point is, dynamic shadings and contrasts is not something that one hears only in a big band or large orchestral music. It is something that is present in all forms of music and is evident even when played at low volume levels. The variety in the loudness of different instruments in a music is something very fundamental, this variety was missing in these 300B amps. My simple Naim Nait 5i immediately revealed what was missing. If it was only a lack of power then why could'nt I hear the dynamics when I was playing at soft levels ?

 

Here is the thing, posted on May 15, 2013 at 00:18:46
Michael Samra
Dealer

Posts: 36118
Location: saginaw michigan
Joined: January 30, 2005
The optical sound track of the 40s was typically maxed about 10k in upper response as you had mentioned however,the amplifier was typically capable of much more but they limited specs to what source material they were using of the day.
I have a pair of RCA 811 amps and those were rated to 7k I think...I did rebuild them and did a sweep and I managed to sweep to 18k at 1 db down..The limitation is in the output transformer but I think I could work with the FB and get an honest 19k flat.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong" H. L. Mencken

 

RE: Dynamic contrasts lacking with 300B SETs, posted on May 15, 2013 at 03:59:50
RC Daniel
Audiophile

Posts: 1922
Location: Brisbane
Joined: November 3, 2002
What you describe has been attributed to the 300B tube in the past. Frankly, I think it is more a function of the amp-speaker system than the characteristics of the 300B tube itself. That is, the amp design/build, tube manufacturer, speaker type etc. all matter. To repeat myself and others: the Tunberries are not well suited to SET amps; they would perform "better" with more control than most SET amps provide. What you are experiencing is a common complaint of poorly matched SET systems, even if they do other things well.

Dynamic contrasts are something a well-sorted SET & high efficiency system can do well.

Cheers.

"In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, in the expert's mind there are few." Shunryo Suzuki

 

RE: Dynamic contrasts lacking with 300B SETs, posted on May 15, 2013 at 05:43:08
Larry I
Audiophile

Posts: 2266
Location: No. Va.
Joined: June 28, 2000
Either or both could be the cause of what you describe. If a tube is pushed a bit too hard, loss of dynamics would be one of the early signs. Also, the 300b is a little pushed up in the lower midrange or upper bass frequencies, compared to something like the 2a3 or 45, and that also contributes to the impression of obscuring detail and instruments playing softly a little higher up in frequency.

I know this is a SET forum, and I do like SET amps myself, but, I think you should also explore pushpull amps as well, particularly lower-powered triode amps. If power turns out not to be an issue, it may be the case that you prefer a different sounding tube than the 300b and a pushpull 2A3 or 45 amp could do the trick.

If more power, and if dynamics is a big priority to you, you should also check out pushpull OTL amps.

There is a LOT of territory to explore.

 

RE: Dynamic contrasts lacking with 300B SETs, posted on May 15, 2013 at 11:34:41
Paul Joppa
Industry Professional

Posts: 7344
Location: Seattle, WA
Joined: April 23, 2001
You have described well what I have heard with Tannoy coaxial speakers using lower-power amps. Tannoys just seem to need 2 to 3 times as much power as you would expect from the numbers.

Masking of inner voices is often attributed to intermodulation distortion, and it may well be that, while both speaker and amp have acceptable levels, the two in combination become audible. In that case, I would look to push-pull amps, preferably triodes, with little or no feedback. The alternative is higher-powered amps, because distortion reduces when the amp is running well below its maximum output (assuming class-A operation).

 

Nice tip in helping recognise IMD; noted! nt., posted on May 15, 2013 at 15:24:53
RC Daniel
Audiophile

Posts: 1922
Location: Brisbane
Joined: November 3, 2002
.
"In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, in the expert's mind there are few." Shunryo Suzuki

 

RE: Nice tip in helping recognise IMD; noted! nt., posted on May 17, 2013 at 21:36:34
charles1dad
Audiophile

Posts: 157
Location: michigan
Joined: January 2, 2009
The Tannoy Turnberry just is not an ideal speaker for a 300b SET,that`s all. In my system dynamic contrast,inner detail,clearly reproduced volume gradients etc. are done exceptionally well with an 8 watt 300b SET.The Turnberry needs a different type of amp.

 

Shouting in agreement! nt., posted on May 18, 2013 at 17:46:06
RC Daniel
Audiophile

Posts: 1922
Location: Brisbane
Joined: November 3, 2002
.
"In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, in the expert's mind there are few." Shunryo Suzuki

 

RE: Dynamic contrasts lacking with 300B SETs, posted on May 20, 2013 at 11:50:17
drlowmu
Manufacturer

Posts: 9730
Location: East of Kansas City
Joined: January 10, 2005
Hey hey hey, the Emperor has NO clothes on.

What Plinius needs to do is sell his Tannoy speakers and get a high efficiency speaker, that can play well with a well executed flea powered amp.

The lack of dynamics is most likely due to amplifier implementation. It is primarily caused by poor power supply design and very poor internal transfer efficiency, ( which has to do with layout, length of wiring, and the types of wire used in the amp's construction. )

Cheers.

Jeff Medwin

 

RE: Dynamic contrasts lacking with 300B SETs, posted on May 20, 2013 at 13:16:29
cpotl
Audiophile

Posts: 1002
Location: Texas
Joined: December 6, 2009
"The lack of dynamics is most likely due to amplifier implementation. It is primarily caused by poor power supply design and very poor internal transfer efficiency, ( which has to do with layout, length of wiring, and the types of wire used in the amp's construction. )"

Please try making some order of magnitude estimates of the "transfer inefficiencies" associated with inter-stage wire couplings before yet again making your implausible claims. These are not subtle issues; if you really were correct in your claims, they would be easily demonstrable by measurements, and they would be easily demonstrable by comparing the impedance of the connecting wire versus the impedance of the load it was connecting into. What you are claiming makes no sense.

Chris

 

RE: Dynamic contrasts lacking with 300B SETs, posted on May 24, 2013 at 23:26:08
Thorsten
Manufacturer

Posts: 4209
Location: Somewhere nice on planet dirt
Joined: September 25, 1999
Hi,

I personally would suggest the following calculation to establish what level of power a given speaker needs or how much speaker efficiency a given power amplifier needs.

First convert the power (at 1...3%) THD to dB/W:

A 10 Watt Amp (which is optimistic for the Allnic) is 10*LOG(10) or 10dB/W

Second, obtain the REAL efficiency of the Speaker, many manufacturers numbers tend to be high. Another issue is that often 4 ohm Speakers are rated at 2.83V, which is effectively 2W power for the given SPL. If you cannot get independent numbers, deduct 2-3dB from the manufacturers number.

So in your case I would consider the speaker at 90dB/1W/1m.

For decent rendering of large scale symphonic material you want 105dB (+) undistorted peaks at your listening position. With well recorded classical music you often find a crest factor (peak to average ratio) of 20dB, so 105dB peaks at 20dB crest factor translate to 85dB average SPL, as would be measured for example using a radio shack SPL meter and music.

With most stereo material the SPL from the two speakers will have a significant amount of coherent (mono) energy, so two speakers will normally raise the overall SPL by 4-5dB.

Each time you double the distance to the speaker you loose 6dB SPL. For the fairly common distance of 3m I would suggest you loose ~8dB SPL compared to a 1m Measurement.

Finally, the room reverberant field adds around 2dB SPL overall, unless the room is heavily damped or very large, in which case the gain is much less.

So with these numbers in hand we can get a feel how much of the SPL produced at 1m, arrives at our listening position.


Speaker SPL @ 1m/1W = 90dB/W
Amplifier Power = + 10dB/W
-------

Max SPL @ 1m = 100dB

Stereo pair gain = + 4dB
3m distance loss = - 8dB
reverberant field = + 2dB
-------

Max SPL @ list. Pos = 98dB

required SPL = 105dB
-------
Surplus/Shortfall = - 7dB


This suggest you need either 7dB more power from the Amplifier (17dB/W is 50W) or 7dB more SPL from the Speakers (so speakers rated around 100dB/2.83V/1m).

This shortfall is substantial.

As for "listening at soft levels", did you try the Naim Amp at equally soft levels?

I used to use Tannoy Corner Yorks with Monitor Red 15" drivers in a 4 X 5m
room. I measured 97dB/2.83V/1m myself and as the speakers are 15 Ohm, they in effect become 100dB/1W/1m efficient and thus with a 300B amplifier fulfilled (just about) the 105dB peak requirement.

Using a 300B Amplifier this system has all the dynamic contrast one could wish for both for ffff and pppp, but 2A3 was already marginal to my ears.

Driving a competently designed and genuine 90dB/1W/1m Speaker in the same space using the same amplifier was very unsatisfying and basically "did not work" at all, yet driving this speaker with an 80W solid state amp or a 50W Push-Pull Tube Amp worked very well...

Thor

At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to intolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?

 

PS, maybe I am being obtuse..., posted on May 25, 2013 at 08:10:36
Thorsten
Manufacturer

Posts: 4209
Location: Somewhere nice on planet dirt
Joined: September 25, 1999
Hi,

To make it clear, with your speakers you need a much higher power Amp.

A nice one to try would be the Luxman SQ-38 reissue. Someone I know in passing has good success driving the recent JBL reimagining of the 4312/L100, which has similar drive requirements as the Turnbery.

Or you need a higher efficiency speaker.

If you like Tannoys, the Westminster Royal would be "it", or the Japan only reissue of the GRF Autograph, or if you can, a pair of Vintage Monitor Red (or Gold, no later than Gold) in a Replica GRF Autograph.

Incidentally, I was thinking about this and remembered I heard Turnberry HE's and Westminster Royal's at Walrus in London a few years back, driven by the same "Super 300B Amp" (Horning Satie rated 18 Watt IIRC) and it was challenged on the Turnberry HE but did rather well on the Westminsters Royal's.

Thor

At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to intolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?

 

Dadgummit! SHHHhhhhh..... ~nT, posted on May 27, 2013 at 13:52:19
Cleantimestream
Audiophile

Posts: 7613
Location: Kentucky
Joined: June 30, 2005
~!
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.

 

RE: Joppa M91 PF Derivative, posted on June 27, 2015 at 07:13:39
anystereo
Audiophile

Posts: 15
Joined: November 7, 2000
awsjr,

I am working on the same build, -- PJ's all sound practices WE91 with magnequest iron. I like your layout, can you share with me the CAD file? Have you completed it? How does it sound? hows the hum, quiet?

David

 

RE: Joppa M91 PF Derivative, posted on June 29, 2015 at 05:49:17
awsjr
Audiophile

Posts: 240
Location: Austin, Tejas
Joined: November 30, 2006
hi David..
yes , finished the build in Dec 2014...

http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/vt.mpl?f=magnequest&m=11464

how something sounds is always subjective... to me they are excellent... minimal hum...

as far as cad files, they are in NX... attached jpg of the top plate... if you would like some others message me... thanks -Al




 

Page processed in 0.066 seconds.