Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.
Return to Planar Speaker Asylum
69.132.58.241
As with everyone that purchases a pair of Maggies, there is that lingering discussion about power, wattage, the fact that the Magnepan factory has a 35wpc amp driving a set in their from lobby, and amps. Is it total WPC? Is it headroom in an amp? Is it quality of the components? Every post I can find seems to take a different angle and approach. Because I have to put food on the table and buy diapers for my 2 year old, most of the recommended options are way out of my budget and price range.
Here is my dilemma - I'm about to take possession of a pair of Magnepan 3.6r speakers and am super stoked. I'm looking at amp options - Yamaha MX1000, Parasound 1200, and Proton D1200.
Looking for an amp under$500. Thoughts???
Follow Ups:
The Rotel RB1080 is a splendid amp I used with my 3.6 pre Bryston 4BSST. The difference is smaller than the price. Only lacks high treble purity when compared to the high$ stuff. Jallen
I'm using an RB-991, just back into Maggies recently with a pair of 3.3R's. I use a tube preamp in front of the Rotel. I don't think this is the ultimate amp for Maggie 3's, but for $425 I'm really pleased with it. I was looking at the GFA-555, but in that price range the Adcom would be ~10 years older than the Rotel. Same goes for the Bryston 3B/4B.
Brad:
I have a lot of egg on my face and offer you my truest apologies. I dug in and did much research on the Marantz Model 9's. You are right, they do have negative feedback, but from a rather interesting topology that is not like any other amp in that it uses both local and global negative feedback to control distortion.
The irony of this all is Steven Stone wrote the review of the VAC Marantz Model 9's in the September 1997 Edition of Stereophile Magazine....why ironic? I've known Steven from the Vintage Guitar scene for many a year.
In some ways he is a bit hard on them, but still opines it is one of the great amps of all time and is an amp that you will keep forever.
Again, I truly apologize to you.
Jim
Music is the best thing you can do legally that doesn't require a medical prescription!
Final thought, the Negative Feedback never hits the speakers and that is the big difference and I guess that is where I was confused and with that I will leave it alone and hope that morricab accepts my apology.
Jim
Music is the best thing you can do legally that doesn't require a medical prescription!
So, 1scienceguy - get an answer yet? :) We LOVE to talk about amps!
I ascribe to a non-popular thought process: namely, any decent amp, driven to non-clipping levels, will sound identical or very very nearly identical (usually slight rolloff, .1-.2db, at high frequencies). The limiting factors by far are the speakers, placement, and room interaction. The speaker will 'mangle' the source far more than the electronics.
For a little rerading on the differences between amps, I have found these articles to be very good: http://sound.westhost.com/articles.htm
under "Aplification" and also "General Information" - AB and ABX testing of amps.
In your situation, I would recommend using your existing amps for some time and enjoying them. Their limiting factor will be how loud they can go - I don't know the exact specs, but looks like at least 200w bridged? I do suggest test the DC offset of each amp while you are connecting things, make sure they are still healthy. I have to buy diapers and pay the mortgage as well, this is a hobby which cannot eat too much of my disposable income...
The good news is that quality watts have never been so cheap. There are incredible deals on hi-po (mostly pro) amps, i.e. Crown, QSC, etc. I am driving my 1.7's with a QSC GX3. Another fellow has a monster Crown driving Tymp's. Generally the only drawback is the fan - some models are noisier than others.
Best of luck and enjoy the 3.6's!!
Acroy, Please go to the link you provided, again under amps, and look at the blurb about power factor. This is really what sets amps apart.
Amps which measure the same into a resistor are pretty much the same.
However, add in reactance and even some highly regarded amps will fall down. Is that the speakers fault?
Please check out the power cube link to see how bad it can get.
So, I wouldn't exactly say the speaker will mangle the sound, but rather the amp is not capable.
Don't forget one of the highly regarded speakers off all times, the Apogee Scintilla in its low impedance version was a notorious amp destroyer. But with a capable amp? Terrific.
I'd love to see how some of the amps you reff'd would play out in the power cube test.
Now, it is certainly a matter of opinion but the kilowatt version of the W4S ICE amps is what....about 2.50$ per watt?
Too much is never enough
" the fact that the Magnepan factory has a 35wpc amp driving a set in their from lobby"
I’ve read the above comment many times – does anyone know what model is been used and what brand/model amp exactly?
Its on the Magnepan website. No make/model is listed though.
Firstly, I had a pair of Maggies & for some time used an NAD 2200 - not terribly different than the Proton D1200. Would not suggest either.
Don't know anything about the Yamaha.
I rather enjoyed an Adcom GFA-555 II, and then surpassed that experience with a Parasound HCA-2200ii. Since you can find the Parasound 2200 (and at times even the 3500) in your price range, I would bypass the 1200 and look for something with a bit more Oomph for your 3.6s.
Opus 104
I used to pick up HCA-2200ii amps in the $425 to $500 range, clean them up, and resell for $750 to $775. Probably did 5 or 6 of those back a decade or so. A quick look doesn't find too many available sub $600 or so.
Opus 104
But note, I never mentioned recapping. I bought a few with minor cosmetic issues, cleaned them up physically, set the bias per John Curl's advice, checked that they performed at least to spec, and resold them.
Will never say they are the perfect amp, but in some instances they will perform at least as well as much more pricey offerings.
When I owned Genesis loudspeakers, I was steered by that company's principals towards a used HCA 2200ii versus some much more "esteemed" names in amplification given a budget of $3500 at the time.
I've got their XPA-2 driving my 1.6s and am very happy. If you can get one 2nd hand it should be around your budget. Also, they have small monoblocks (the UPA-1) that could be had new for just a bit more than your budget.
I would save my money until I was able to afford a better amp
LOL. Waiting is not an option. I have to believe there are plenty of superb options at my price point.
I did a number of surveys of amps over the past year and a bit that you might find useful for your price point. Do a search for it
I have found a Parasound 1500. Looks like it gets great reviews. Any thoughts?
I once owned a hca1500 and it was a good amp.
Jim
Music is the best thing you can do legally that doesn't require a medical prescription!
Agreed, Solid amp for the job, considering the cost.
There is some mod potential in it too.
Im currently running dual Tandburg 3012 amps. Will this be enough juice?
As Andy mentioned, if you could find a Parasound Halo A21 for close to your budget...which would be a super bargain, go for it.
If you were reasonably lucky, there could be a Parasound HCA-1200II still around, which though older is sonically almost as good. It actually is a little more powerful than the A21. The trick here is finding one who's owner you can trust. If it has been in storage for several years, that may not be good. If is has always been in use and in working condition, great.
The 1200 (not II) could be a good purchase also but it is a bit oldish, ergo, riskier. On one of these, you would want to be able to hear it by yourself and perhaps have a chance to look inside for signs of capacitors going bad. One can't always tell by looking but it is surprising how some electrolytic caps that are clearly dying will still allow good sound for a while.
What it is is peak headroom into 4 ohms, since the peaks will challenge the amp long before the average level will. The main caveat being that tubes overload more gracefully, so don't have to be as large as a solid state amp.
The problem is, people play music at different levels, and music of different types. A 1000 watt amp plays only twice as loud, subjectively, as a 100 watt amp, so you can see that only a small difference in listening preferences can make a huge difference in amp requirements. This leads to endless, and needless, debates, because there isn't one correct answer here. If you want to listen to Mahler at a bit below Row A levels or acoustical jazz at a bit more below natural levels, you're going to need a super amp. But 100 solid state watts will likely be fine for a Mozart symphony at natural levels from a middle-of-the-hall perspective.
I have 85 tube watts and it puts me in row A for Mahler and I do sit in row E at the San Antonio symphony and row B with the Chicago symphony for many years so I know what that sounds like.
Alan
Back in the day, the D-76 was pretty much the standard amp on Maggies. Being a poor kid, I just had a Hafler DH-220 on my 1-D's, but twice the solid state watts probably gave you about the same subjective loudness and usually, the tweeter fuse would go before the amp gave out.
Also, RMS watts is a pretty inaccurate way of comparing amps, it isn't what limits performance and amps with a given power rating vary widely in their peak headroom and the rate at which they recover from clipping -- by at least a factor of two.
We do seem to be able to tolerate a certain amount of clipping without hearing it, particularly with tube amps that in effect start to compress rather than lop off.
On the other hand, measurements and straightforward calculatios show that most consumer speakers can't reproduce the maximum instantaneous peaks of the very loudest acoustical music, and with inefficient speakers like Maggies, you need a super amp to get up to that kind of level with an undistorted waveform. Also, most consumer systems don't have the ease at high levels that the big studio systems do. It's just about the only area in which I found the sound in the studio superior to the sound we hear at home. But I do think it's an area in which our systems fall short. We'd need to be able to cleanly reproduce 125 dB SPL peaks at the listening seat to do that in every case and we're lucky if we get 115, and that not very clean.
We'd need to be able to cleanly reproduce 125 dB SPL peaks at the listening seat
Measured quantities or not, I'll pass! :)
125db is awful loud and doesn't enhance the experience. Many speakers are incapable of producing SPL's to that level anyway. I think my KEF 104/2's lopped of at either 117db or 122db and I never wanted to find out.
Jim
Music is the best thing you can do legally that doesn't require a medical prescription!
I'd agree in the case of electrically amplified music -- in fact, those levels are illegal -- but live acoustical music? Exhilarating! (Unless you're standing next to a soprano in full voice, then it's more like a weapon of mass destruction . . . )
Honestly, the only issue I've had since switching the VAC to triode mode was a spot from the recording linked below. Celine Scheen's voice managed to send the Phi 300.1 into severe ugliness for a second (at least, I think it was the amp). Granted, I was listening at a somewhat supernatural volume level (though, not approaching the levels you mentioned), and the same passage was uneventful a few dB down. I don't remember this from any previous listening, which I'm pretty sure matched the offending volume at least once.
It's something to investigate. It was repeatable. The details are now recorded in my logbook.
Wazoo:
I think you found the clipping point in triode. It seems that female vocals are so revealing and will tell you a lot if you listen.
Jim
Music is the best thing you can do legally that doesn't require a medical prescription!
Well, that is how my original tympani mids broke.
Female vocals can be fierce. I was listening to Etta James' (MS RIP)signature "at last" and noted that she had saturated the tape or mic pre in more than a few spots.
My right hand computer speaker doesn't like that! She makes it rattle, owing, I think, to flakes of plating on the old neodynium magnets.
This is a torture test for planars and amps, it's practically steady state. I'm thinking you just plain ran out of juice.
Now it Begains....bad tube ore tubes
...when you have for the frist time the sound of the tubes low THD.... you can push the tubes to hard....Because like all of us ...you wont MORE....just get new speak wire in the 3.7 an it fix......for a min......now you start to hear this THD more an more.....You did think there was no DownSide....to your love afair...you did..hehe
Goodluck with that...
...are you just watching and waiting for any negative comment to twist into nonsense? In case you've forgotten, I switched the VAC to triode mode and proceeded to punish it - this disc is part of my torture test battery. The reason I posted 'a soprano upset my system' was to point up Josh's comment: "Unless you're standing next to a soprano in full voice, then it's more like a weapon of mass destruction." Celine's voice gets piercing, to say the least. In fact, I have a hard time tolerating that disc because of her voice, but it was sounding glorious...until it overwhelmed something for a sec, then it was right back to glorious.
For all I know at the present, I pushed the ribbon too hard. It's something for me to investigate - nothing more. it's certainly no reason to toss that amp under the bus. Frankly, I'm not surprised that I've been able to induce a misstep - I've been trying to do just that! . What's impressed me to no end is that I've been able to induce precisely one , and no more - and not for want of effort. I am shocked at what ~90W is capable of producing with this system - and it's not a small room either.
My XO point is a reasonably low 60Hz. It doesn't seem as though I need to unload any more bass from the 3.7s in order to run the Phi 300.1 in triode mode. That's impressive. The bass integration I have now is the best I've ever achieved. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the love affair continues. If this is the downside, then it's laughably insignificant.
Think what you like, but don't put your inane words in my mouth.
For years people have been posting about how with Mr Gunns mods that you can drive the older Maggys with 50watt tube Amps....But now that Magnepan has put there 6db crossover in There speakers ... there the best speakers on earth...BS ...An some were told that if you wonted to drive maggys with low-power tube amps it was BS...An if this was what you wonted to do you may wont to move off the site...now you say it a love fest...till a tube dyes..an you dont have one on hand..or you have to use diff tubes...then it well be the Pass sand amp is the way to go...that what most do here talk there self into an out of anything...goodluck with your one tube amp
1) What you're quoting relating to PG's (well, his partner's) XO mod and efficiency is a myth (at best). Such would be easily quantified, but I haven't seen it so.2) I don't think anyone ever claimed that any Magnepans were "the best speakers on earth" - only that they are damn good, and far better than anything else one can buy at their price points (IMO).
3) I'm pretty sure Magnepan designs the best XO they can for each model. They had reasons for using such a complex XO design for the 3.6 and they have reasons for going with a simple XO in the 3.7, which, by the way, have nothing to do with what Magnestand does or claims.
4) People have been using tube amps with Maggies as long as there have been Maggies, or have you forgotten about the early relationship between ARC & Magnepan?
5) I've said it before and I'll tell you once more; I wanted try a tube amp. I was curious about the pairing. I've read much from Maggie owners who are also bottleheads, and I wanted to gain some firsthand experience. I KNEW that I didn't need the power of the X350 because its meter was shouting that fact at me - subsequent to my introducing the Bryston 10B Sub XO. I decided that it was time to hear a lower power solution and I was very curious about how a different amp would sound when compared to the Pass X350. I had an opportunity to experiment, so I am. I don't give a damn what the outcome of the experiment is. I am taking this experiment seriously, but I am having FUN with it.
6) You are the one who introduced this whole 'love fest' concept. I'm just sharing simple opinions and details.
7) If I keep the VAC, I will be placing an order ($900) for a backup set of tubes (at least one), which I will keep in a cabinet in the cave. If a tube were to 'die', a replacement would be right here. Tube replacement is part and parcel of tube equipment ownership, but it's not exactly a monthly occurrence. Every tube that's in the VAC that I purchased is original and I haven't had to touch a bias pot yet.
8) If I decide to keep the Pass, it will be because I decided there isn't a 'sound' justification for the more expensive VAC (and I might have a go at a pair of class A mono blocks).
9) This isn't about 'talking myself into or out of' anything. This is about discovery (see #5). I'm listening to what each has to offer. It's up to one of them to convince me that it should be the one to stay. My logbook is an effort at impartiality. When something strikes me (either positive or negative), I make a note of it. I have some very detailed notes regarding certain passages of music - I find it's more reliable than memory.
10) You're still on about this being my one and only tube amp. That's not exactly true. I had a Marshall guitar amp for decades and guess what it used - yep, tubes. I maintained tube equipment decades ago too, so it's not exactly my first foray into tube-land. Besides, whether you recognize it or not, this was a well considered purchase. If it were a Ferrari 458 Spider, would you wish me good luck with my one convertible sports car?
Edits: 01/25/12 01/25/12
King waz
1) What you're quoting relating to PG's (well, his partner's) XO mod and efficiency is a myth (at best). Such would be easily quantified, but I haven't seen it so.
So you now are saying that you Would have ever put a 50watt tube amp on your 3.6....Pure BS.....the only reason your [one] tube amp works at all is the 6db crossover.,.... That Magnepan got a round to after thay heard Mr Gunns Mod,ed Speakers...goodluck with the BS others no diff.
Talk too the Hand
That's inaccurate.
First of all, as PG will tell you, Magnepan has never heard his modified speakers, or at least hadn't when we discussed it here some months back, at which time PG invited Wendell to hear them.
Furthermore, Wendell was quoted in the press as saying that Magnepan's choice of a first order series crossover was determined by technical necessity. I've speculated that the reason is that a first order series crossover is intrinsically suited to a .5-way supertweeter crossover without a Zoebel network. First order series crossovers are unique in that the summed frequency response doesn't change with driver impedance variations, as inevitably occur as the tweeter narrows down to the supertweeter segment.
Also, Magnepan has used first order crossovers in many speakers, so they are well aware of how they sound. Series vs. parallel makes little difference in that. IIRC, they've used a series topology in the past.
Also, I do not see how PG's crossover could increase efficiency over its parallel equivalent. He's never even measured it. In the absence of measurements, the claim that it increases efficiency is in my opinion out of keeping with the quality of the product he manufactures, and could potentially open him to liability from a litigious client.
Fifty tube watts should be fine in most cases if the load is taken off the bass, Maggies were frequently paired with D-76's and sounded just fine. I think we've seen, based on Wazoo's experience, where the practical limits lie. I like big amps, but I'd be the first to say that the margin between a 50 watt tube amp and a 1000 watt solid state amp is very small. Unless you're some kind of ear masochist, you're going to hear the audible effects of clipping rarely, if at all.
"The specifications of the 3.7 are nearly the same as the 3.6, with a minor increase in efficiency."
I assume you are familiar with the meaning of the word 'minor'. If you don't like the smell of BS, you should stop flinging it. Magnepan used a first order series XO before PG knew what the hell a crossover was, but you think they got their XO design from PG - now, that's some seriously stinky BS!
tyu:WTF is your problem. I don't know the history of you and Wazoo and really don't want to, but I do know where the bs is coming from. How about growing up and putting on some big boy pants.
Just for the record, I have a pair of 24 year old 2.5's that while the x/o's don't appear to be original, I'm running mine in triode with 40wpc and have no problem whatsoever...maybe or maybe not that mine have a 6db slope built into the x/o's and I really don't care. What I do care about is all of the friggin hate you put out there. Again, grow up!
Jim
Music is the best thing you can do legally that doesn't require a medical prescription!
Edits: 01/26/12
Huh?
For years, the D-76 was a popular amp for driving Maggies. Using moderately powered tube amps on Maggies is nothing new. Whether that got all out of them that could be gotten probably depended on how loud you liked to listen.
People don't seem to understand that the difference between 100 and 1000 watts is, subjectively, only a doubling of loudness. People also don't seem to get that subjective loudness depends on short-term averages, *not* peaks, and that acoustical music has a 10-20 dB peak/average ratio.
A 10 watt amp will give you about 95 continuous decibels out of a pair of Maggies. That's going to sound pretty loud. It won't sound very good, though, because the peaks will be gone.
RMS figures don't tell you all that much about peak capability, or recovery from overload, or how audible clipping is. Amps with a given RMS power rating can in practice vary pretty widely.
As to talking oneself into and out of something, it seems to me that Wazoo has done quite the opposite -- he's trying it to see if he likes it. I'm sure he can decide for himself whether the sonic benefits of the amp are worth a bit of trouble and expense.
"For years, the D-76 was a popular amp for driving Maggies. Using moderately powered tube amps on Maggies is nothing new. Whether that got all out of them that could be gotten probably depended on how loud you liked to listen."
The Maggies back then were 8 ohm jobs and the D-76 could play them louder (without clipping) than anyone could possibly tolerate. Been there myself using D-76As and the Tympani 1C.
"A 10 watt amp will give you about 95 continuous decibels out of a pair of Maggies. That's going to sound pretty loud. It won't sound very good, though, because the peaks will be gone.
"
Don't worry, any music that would be that loud continuously has had the peaks removed already...by the record companies. Or you listen to white noise...same thing in some cases.
Several years ago I stumbled upon this place when a bought a pair of 1.6's. At the same time, I was getting back into tubes and tried them with a 50wpc Jolida integrated and it was decent with a pair of subs, but that amp just didn't have enough to control them. I sold the Jolida and found a nice parasound hca 1500II in a pawn shop and then bought my McIntosh MX-110 and it was pretty good, but not what I was looking for.
A well to do friend of mine at that point in time sold me my Marantz's, as well as, my tricked out Ah Troeb CDP. It really improved things, but I believed all of the rhetoric around here that I needed a zillion watts to truly appreciate the 1.6's.
My business was doing well and I went out and bought a Bryston 4B Sst and it didn't get me where I wanted to go. Sold the 1.6's and Bryston and bought a pair of clean and babied KEF 104/2's which were also a tough 4 ohm load, but the Marantz's drive them very nicely in pentode and sounded wonderful.
I lived with this setup for about 3 years, but on the back of my mind was those damn 1.6's and I was on the look for a pair of maggies again and found my 2.5's that I ended up putting new ribbons in and fixed some delaminatIons.
The 2.5's really sang pretty with my Marantz/McIntosh setup, but I was still in pentode. Wazoo helped my progress by reading his detailed accounts of this assessments of his VAC Phi 300 and that he was able to go triode and this put the burning question in my mind, could I too? The answer was yes after I set my subs at 70hz and then at 80.
The Marantz Model 9's in triode is surreal at times with the 2.5's, and just plain good all of the time and I have only a couple of times had to turn it down a bit and this is when I was really pushing some serious db's and could have just as easily flipped back into pentode.
The lesson learned by me is that not just any tube amp can drive a pair of magnepan's and subs are almost mandatory. I would have subs anyway, so that is not an issue for me.
I love what tubes do and doubt that I will ever go back to sand, but that is my preference. I'm just glad that I ventured back to a pair of magnepan's as to me, I have a very good system with them.
Jim
Music is the best thing you can do legally that doesn't require a medical prescription!
bass balanced with the rest of the spectrum. That's one of the true joys of a Magnepan setup. I have never heard a Magnepan setup using a sub that excited me. The quickness, the tautness of this bass integrated with the rest of the spectrum is where much of the excitement comes from. Unlike most other high end speakers, bass instruments sound like correct size bass instruments with correct harmonic and tonal structure. Getting subwoofer-less Magnepan systems to sing and swing should become the goal of the inmates here, not finding the right subwoofer mating as is some commonly disgust on this forum.
I can't claim a tremendous amount of experience with various models of planars, but I've never heard a pair that 'did it for me' without subs. Different strokes, as they say. You needn't feel sorry for me. I can't tell where the subs end and the Maggies begin - really just sounds like music in the room to me. Since the subs reproduce little beyond deep fundamentals, nearly all of the timbral cues are still issuing from the Maggies - from a fundamental of approximately 30Hz up, every bit of the harmonic overtone information is delivered by the 3.7s.
Back in the late 60s, a self-help book appeared, the name of which applies to our little difference here: I'm OK; you're OK. You sound happy; I don't feel sorry for you even though you have no idea what you're missing (sorry, couldn't resist ;-).
There was once a book published by the title of 'I'm OK; You not so much' that I wished I had bought just to have it on the shelf. (never read it) With the spine showing for all to see. Well... I thought it was funny.
-
Heck, I built a pair - combining MMGs with REL Q150s. I can appreciate your sensibility, even if I don't share it. Either path is difficult to get 'right'. I had a bitch of a time getting the merger as satisfactory in the big system as I did in the living room, but eventually managed to surpass it. It's good - and I already said my 'Hail Marys' and 'Our Fathers' in penance for the corruption of Maggie's purity.
What could you expect from a Zappaphile?
Yeah, Waz...I always suspected you were such a Maggie corruptor! And the real penance was just dictated from heavens. You are to mail me those 3.7s right now. : - ))
You can keep the rest, most of all your dear subs, if you promise to drop by church this Sunday...in Zappa costume...hair and all. LOL!
At the time, I wanted to write a book called I'm OK, You're Not.
'It's OK to be delusional (and vice versa).'
Delusional? That's what they said of me when I escaped from Elba, hah!
LOL! In the general spirit of things, I agree with you. Though I've been looking into - and testing - a few subwoofers, I still default to listening to my MMGs with no sub almost always.To be fair, I truly don't need the sub for most music because I was lucky to get much bass in this setup. Down to the physical limits of my MMGs, bass is very substantial AND detailed. The latter being the point, of course. Why muddle up that detail at the bottom!
Last evening it was a brass and, later, piano listening session that reminded me strongly of this subject. As I listened to the lower registers of a trombone being joined by a sousaphone, I rejoiced at the rich textures and their strengths, plus the ability to clearly tell them apart. Just for kicks, I turned on the subwoofer, which was crossed at 40hz. Sure enough, it spoiled the party right away, so off again it went. A better sub would do far less damage, I am sure.
Later, along with my wife, we ran a few Dave & Don Grusin piano pieces. I always kind of pinch myself at the richness of tone and texture with which some of the low register passages manage to reproduce at such strengths. With usable SPL strength that reaches 40hz, most of the piano fundamantals are well covered, and the textures belie what this kind of Maggie is supposed to do. And then there are the larger Maggies, which can do even better, as we know.
In any event, a subwoofer may easily add extension. Yet, detail & texture, requires a hard-to-achieve superb integration. Which is where I am in less agreement with you. A challenge is a challenge and we all enjoy having some. Don't shy away from it just because it is hard to achieve. It certainly is not impossible. My approach is that, for now, the sub-woofer has a lower priority than other opportunities; a rolling horizon kind of thing.
For all the substantial music enjoyment that we can have with Maggies, there is no way that we can get everything down below with them only. For example, I am -- for now -- barred from enjoying the best of what organ music can offer down at the bottom. I want this back and no Maggies alone will give it to me...but I can wait.
After all, in the general spirit of things, you are right. There is a ton of good music that plain Maggies can deliver quite richly if we prevent the wrong subwoofer from spoiling it.
Edits: 01/26/12
To each their own. I tried a pair of 1.6's with a Bryston 4B Sst without subs and there was nothing going on in the lower octaves that was interesting to my ears and it certainly wasn't the proper amount of bass.
My 2.5's are said to have more bass than the 1.6's and maybe I will give them a go in pentode and see if there is anything worth it in the bass.
I have all the respect in the world for those who enjoy their Maggie's without subs, maybe someday I will too.
Jim
Music is the best thing you can do legally that doesn't require a medical prescription!
I'm intrigued by all the talk about triodes. Doesn't seem like too much trouble to switch your amp to pentode mode on the rare occasions it's required.
switch off power
flip both triode/ultralinear switches
switch power on (it's already warm)in my amp's case, the bias shifts ever so slightly downward with the switch to triode mode (still well within spec)
Edits: 01/25/12
Wazoo:
When I got my Marantz's, I was told when I replaced the original tubes, which were still very strong, to set the bias a little shy of the preset point on the meter. I did and haven't looked back.
When I got my Dynaco ST70 (when I was building my B Sytem), the bias point is 1.57mv and I played around with it for about a month to find the "sweet spot", and it turned out to be 1.48mv. Everything just seemed to bloom right there. Understand, I put NOS Mullards in and even though they were new tubes, after several hundred hours later and having burned in, I still find that between 1.45 and 1.50 is where they sparkle and just seem more relaxed.
I don't need to use a multimeter to bias the Marantz's, but I suspect they too are about 5% under the recommended bias point.
If you get the inclination, try biasing your VAC a bit cooler and see if you get more love out of it.
Jim
Music is the best thing you can do legally that doesn't require a medical prescription!
When I flipped the switches to put it in triode mode, I checked the bias (at 10 minutes, 30 minutes and two hours) and it had shifted slightly to the cooler side. It's funny; not since my first time turning it on has the bias meter given a different reading after 10 minutes - started cold and leveled off 'on the mark' for each tube by the one hour point.
I can't give exact bias voltage data because this amp doesn't have accessible test points. It just has a bias meter. Flip the mute switch, then hold each of the eight output tube metering switches while viewing the meter - adjust the adjacent potentiometer as necessary. It's rather ergonomic, if a little less romantic.
Waz:
Nice, on my model 9's, I warm them up for about 30 minutes with the gains turned all the way down. They also don't have metering that shows the exact bias, just turn the knob to the selected tube to be biased and bias. Before I do bias the output tubes, I make sure that the AC balance has been adjusted.
Even though you're biasing each tube individually, there're still push/pull and you might need to go through each tube a couple of times to really pinpoint them
I agree not to romantic, but very practical and one advantage is that if one tube does go bad or doesn't hold bias, you don't need to drop in a full set or pair when you have the ability to individually bias.
If you can find one or can get access to a TV-7 tube tester, you will be able to check your tubes. There are other less expensive tube testers, and it is a good thing to have if you do plan on buying vintage tubes. Don't be afraid to buy used vintage tubes as you can really save enough to more than pay for a good tube tester and verify the tubes you are buying.
It appears to me that you have a real good ear and you should be able to hear the difference from the 6SN7's that currently reside in there to some from the 1950's. The 6SN7 sort of went by the wayside around 1954 when the newer twin triode miniature 12AX7, and the rest of the "12" family of preamp tubes came into being. This doesn't mean that they totally disappeared and some of the best were made well into the early 1960's.
I put in NOS Mullard EL34's (xf2 production codes) in my amps and it did make a nice upgrade from what was in there. However, replacing the 6DJ7's with 6922 PQ's ( PQ= Premium Quality) , was even a bigger improvement in the soundstage. I eventually moved in some 7308's that are the cat's meow.
My point is, upgrade the 6SN7's first as they will will provide the most improvement.
You can mix or match your 6SN7's as they don't need to be biased and only need to be within normal limits for the tube itself. I mention this to let you know if you see a couple of nice or even an individual one, go for it/them until you build a full set for your amp.
Sorry for the ramble and hope some of it was worthwhile.
Jim
Music is the best thing you can do legally that doesn't require a medical prescription!
I can remember tubes, like some Raytheons, that one could tap and see no disturbance on the scope. Hell, they were made for equipment that was operated in a moving jeep. They were built . There are lots of options. I should imagine that one must be very careful, however, when negotiating the NOS waters. There be pirates looking to hornswaggle you with their counterfeits - arr.
A proper tester is an absolute must (remember when they were in all Radio Shacks?), unless one limits himself to buying tubes which have been thoroughly qualified by a responsible party. VAC warrants 'their' tubes and the output tubes are available in matched octets ($780). Kevin does state that he designs his products for neutrality, and that neutrality is achieved with the tubes he chose. He doesn't discourage experimentation, but he does remind the tinkerer that he is redesigning the product - not that there's anything inherently wrong with that.
Modifying is just one of the services we inmates provide.
I have to admit that the Raytheons were at the top of my list for my preamp. I got a nice high grade pair that are, well, upscale 6SN7WGTs.
But even within a specific type from a specific manufacturer they are not all created equal. Having a dealer who is able to grade the tubes properly, that you trust, is priceless.
I've never heard anything but good about VAC, I think you made a good choice.
BTW that price is fair for a matched octet of KT88s, I think. What 6SN7s is that amp using?
esande:
Granted, not all tubes are created equal even from the same mfg. Milspec tubes are also not a guarantee that they will be any better than for public consumption. In fact, some of the primo tubes are not military.
There really isn't any per se grading, other than checking for mutual conductance (how much life is left in the tube). A used tube can often test well within the NOS (new old stock) range. Next, what is the ma (milliamperes). Next one tests for gas leaks and shorts. Finally tapping the tube to check for microphonics.
I've stashed away some 6SN7's for some of my vintage guitar amps. I might just go through my stash and see what I have. I would gladly send Wazoo a pair or a quad if I have that many to give him a try out.
They will be used tubes, but I only hoarded the good shit.
Jim
Music is the best thing you can do legally that doesn't require a medical prescription!
Turns out that I only had three in my stash...most guitar amps used the 6SL7. Anyway, I have a nice pair of mixed matched RCA's, one a Smoke Glass from the late 40's and the other from the mid 50's. Both are of the same construction and test within 5% (a tight match).
Waz, I'm not kidding, I will send them to you try out before you start spending money on a set for your amp.
Jim
Music is the best thing you can do legally that doesn't require a medical prescription!
Waz:
For the most part, JAN or USN tubes are more ruggedized and such and less microphonic. Kevin makes a good point in that he can voice his amps based on how current production tubes spec and sound. This why I had to go with tube's from the 60's to get that neutrality. However, with line stage or preamp tubes, there is less effect on the tone, but more on the spaciality.
Jim
Music is the best thing you can do legally that doesn't require a medical prescription!
I replaced the 12AX7's in my CD player with NOS JAN5751's. Can't say if they are counterfit, but they way outperform the 12AX7's that were in there. More of the rich "tube sound" (don't start...). Ditching the tube covers and adding dampers made a noticeable positive difference too.
Regards,
Steve
5751's are a lower gain version of the 12AX7 and will be a little warmer than a 12AX7 as a general rule.
Jim
Music is the best thing you can do legally that doesn't require a medical prescription!
Josh:
Without using all the buzz words, Triode is a bit sweeter and allows for all of the harmonics to be present. Things are more in focus and the soundstage is maybe a bit bigger.
Jim
Music is the best thing you can do legally that doesn't require a medical prescription!
You guys should try REAL triode amps. Antique sound lab makes a nice pair of push pull 845 based monos...good for 60 watts Class A.
Jolida makes a nice 211 based mono with 150 watts (Class AB)
KR Audio makes a 50 watt SET hybrid (Kronzilla SX)
VAC makes a very nice sounding 70 watt PP with 300B tubes (Renaissance and PHI 70)
Canary makes a nice 50 watt PP mono with 300B tubes.
BAT makes nice sounding 75 watt amp with the Russian 6C33C triode
LAMM makes a nice sounding 90 watt PP amp with the 6C33C triode
Although the 845 is a very linear tube, the requisite drive voltage often results in more overall distortion. The 211 is even worse, as it draws grid current when pushed - grid current regions tend to be rather nonlinear. Both the 845 and 211 require rather high plate voltages as well as a higher load impedance, which complicates output transformer design/behavior. The 300B is probably the better valve for Class A2 operation. SET has its own suite of issues - no natural mechanism by which to cancel even order harmonic distortions, significantly more transformer distortion and, obviously, less power delivery.Hey, I bought a bloody valve amp to try
a hell of a big change for a high-power, solid-state guy.I like what I bought; I like it a lot.
But, every design on earth I cannot buy.
;-)
Edits: 01/27/12 01/27/12 01/27/12
Hmmm...for someone who has admittedly almost no valve experience you sure seem to know what they will sound like in advance. All those POSSIBLE flaws. You will notice that I was rather selective with my advice and not saying try any old 845 or 211 amp. There is one I forgot though that is really good, the Wyetech Labs amps (all models). They might be a tad underpowered but the big monoblocks have enough umph.
Oh, and there are several quite powerful beasts from NAT and having heard one of them I can tell you that they play at as high or higher level than VAC...which is quite good.
The well designed amps I listed don't suffer most of the problems you list. So what if they are high voltage? The best ones have excellent linearity, especially as a function of frequency...something most SS amps cannot claim.
Go listen and prepare to be further amazed...
The behaviors of these tube designs were defined decades ago. My only point in mentioning them (and prefacing with a non-declarative expression) is to note that everything is flawed.I have nearly no valve experience as a listener, but I did work on equipment built with tubes - radios, transmitters, tape recorders and such. That seems like a lifetime ago - over 30 years, but it is a part of my life. As Joni Mitchell might say, I've looked at tubes from both sides now (I've been witness to the good and the bad).
As far as the details as they pertain to home audio amplifiers, well, I can read. As I mentioned, the information is old. Before someone declares that information flawed because it is old, I'd like to point out the general preference for the tubes of old among the bottleheads. This is one of those mutually exclusive situations: Either they knew what they were doing, hence built quality tubes - OR - They had no idea how this stuff worked, but somehow managed to craft the best tubes ever made. There is a third possibility: The quality of NOS tubes is just romantic fiction. Okay, one more: They knew how to build great tubes, but weren't so swift when it came to implementing them in audio amplifiers.
My point here is not to demean or be a contrarian. Every amplifier is built around imperfect technology. Refinements to amplifier designs surely exist - I'm not completely nuts. Those refinements exist precisely because there is an engineering challenge. Without the warts, engineering is dead simple.
In deference to your far greater experience, I can only admit that I have no idea what the future holds. My journey may yet give you as much satisfaction as it has thus far given me. Two of the amps you mentioned were on my short list - VAC 70/70 and the 90W Lamm (the former are very rarely offered and the latter cost a bit too much). I thought very hard about the Cary 805AE as well - in my price range and available.
I made a choice. My choice was driven by a number of factors that made it feel right for me. The first is the described character - by all who described it. I was not looking for a big change and I didn't get one - a good thing to my ears. I preferred a stereo amp to mono blocks because of the way I built my cabinet. I could go on and on, but the gist of it is that I made the choice that seemed to best meet my desires.
Things may be different some day. I'm certainly open to trying another option. I paid my Visa bill. I'm pretty sure I'm keeping this VAC - for a while, anyway. My wife and I went out and bought all new appliances for the kitchen yesterday and I'm taking next week off to mount an overhaul. This will end up costing more than the amp did. I'm definitely 'off the hook' (wasn't really on it anyway) now, but I'd rather not spend any more money on upgrades this year ;-).
Does it not look like I designed my cabinet specifically for this amp?
Edits: 01/29/12
Some points to consider: A true triode is STILL the most linear amplification device that exists. It is only because they are close(ish) to being linear in amplification that relatively simple circuits are possible. It seems that FET transistors can also be used rather simply as well but they are still not as linear to begin with.
A tube amp with output transform is only as good as that transformer. If the sound is "tubey" it is most likely distortion from the output transformer. The better it is and the less distortion it makes the more "neutral" a tube amp will sound and the better it will control the bass. Developments in transformers did not stop and the best audio transformers are available today, not 50 years ago.
There are now some tube amps (even single ended) that avoid transformer core saturation and therefore have quite linear bass. There is nothing inherently tubey sounding with a tube amp. Listen to a good OTL (Einstein for example) and you will understand this clearly. BTW, the Cary amps has exactly the problems with the output transformer I have described (core saturation leading to a bloated souding bass), the Lamm does not (the VAC does to some extent but not as bad as the Cary) nor does the KR Audio.
A couple of modern tube manufacturers make NEW design tubes (KR Audio and EAT for example) and use extremely hard glass to give 10,000 + hours of life from power tubes (normally only get that from small signal tubes).
It has been realized that the driver stage is another large source of tube amp distortion...something that wasn't widely realized before and led to many so-so designs. Thus the use of larger driver tubes, interstage transformers and the use of power MOSFETs in the driver stage of some of the best amps.
I am not sure where you get your information about tube guys but most don't want overtly warm or distorted sounding amps. They also don't want sterile, flat sounding amps.
The VAC is a good sounding amp but I haven't heard an amp that is triode switched that is QUITE as good as the best true triode. Another one that is quite good that is not a true triode is the CAT JL2.
A final point, when the amp is relative simple the parts quality is VERY important. Especially with no feedback amps. The best parts are available NOW, not in the past. The best sounding tube amps, EVER are now...especially using tubes out of eastern Europe.
I have no debate to bring against your first point: the triode tube is still the most linear amplifying device in existence . That comment, however, does not encompass the full and proper context of the system of which it is a part - including not only the complete amplifier, but also the speakers with which it interacts.I also did not intend to initiate a debate regarding the development of the supporting technologies - improvements in output transformer design and manufacture, for instance. I recognize these and am enthusiastic about them. Modern state of the art is truly state of the art. Indeed, the Cary does exhibit transformer behavior issues that turn me away from the output tubes it supports - 300B/845/211.
I'm not saying those issues cannot be overcome, but to suggest that they can, but often aren't, is to declare that their utilization in the system (as defined earlier in this post) presents an engineering challenge. That is the sum total of my point. Furthermore, I am not asserting that the 6550/KT88 output tubes aren't without their issues either.
---
Human perception is a funny thing. Measured perfection is not my objective. I prefer what sounds good to my brain, but that's a tricky thing to find. I've pushed the switches back into ultralinear mode and re-adjusted the level of my subs. I can't quite get the perfection of the bass that I can in triode mode, but I've changed my mind about which of the two modes sounds better in the mid and upper regions - with this amp, in this setup, ultralinear is a little cleaner. Although, for reduced volume listening, triode mode edges back into the lead.
I appreciate your input and I've saved it for possible re-visitation in the future. I really do like the sound of this VAC, and it's amazingly similar to the sound of the Pass. In terms of build quality and design philosophy, I find nothing to fault in this VAC product. I'm glad we can still proudly build a quality product right here in the US - and VAC does a lot of things (like prepare and pot transformers) in-house.
Edits: 01/31/12
"That comment, however, does not encompass the full and proper context of the system of which it is a part - including not only the complete amplifier, but also the speakers with which it interacts"
Ah but Waz it does effect the whole because the more linear the amplification device is to begin with the simler and more direct the design can be. The corollary is that the simpler the design is the more important parts quality has to be.
As to speaker interactions, you do realize that an amp WITHOUT negative feedback has less interaction with the speakers? Do you see why? For non-reactive speakers with flat impedance (Apogee for example) it is not so critical (neither is damping factor) but for a reactive speaker it is quite important (but damping factor above 5 is not so important). Read Otalla and there is a good article on Audioholics about damping factor.
"I recognize these and am enthusiastic about them. Modern state of the art is truly state of the art. "
I know this and your choice of the VAC reflects this attitude.
"Measured perfection is not my objective"
Measured perfection according to a scope is not audible perfection... until a truly linear amplification device is invented it never will be.
BTW. Did you try without the subs yet? I am not surprised that you like UL mode better at high volume and triode at lower volumes. Triode IS cleaner but not when the amps power supply is pushed really hard.
morricab:
Points of clarification and I will move on:
1. I don't take what you have said personal;
2. It was you who turned this into a debate when no one wanted one;
3. It was you that made a bold statement in either this or another thread that your system has "zero" distortion, which we all know is impossible;
4. You stated that you have heard a pair of VAC Reissue Marantz Model 9's and said they have a lot of character. Since there was only 250 pairs ever made, I would really like to know the when and where you heard them, and with what other items in the signal chain?
5. You state that the absence of Negative Feedback is bad, when by all accounts, Negative Feedback is a method that makers use as it allows them to make their products at less expensive price point;
6. I told you that I hear no audible distortion and provided the spec's to support that contention. Yet, you still insist that I'm wrong and there's more to it than just the spec's...but it was you who directly linked distortion with character;
7. I noted a well known and respected critic and you said, who's he, with reference to the quality of SS amplification and that it has even had a trickle down in price point to attain the same attributes of a well made Tube Amp;
8. I posted a thread from the Vintage Section wherein there was a very accurate accounting of the VAC Reissue Marantz Model 9's, but I can only assume that you chose not to even open up the link and read any of it.
I got my Marantz's from a guy who can basically afford whatever he wants and he only had them available as he replaced them with a pair of originals. More to the point, he replaced his fancy pants 6 watt SET monoblocks with the VAC Reissue Marantz Model 9's to drive his Avantgarde Trio's...the trio's are 107db efficient for the record, so it wasn't a case of wanting more to drive them.
I see that you have a pair of KR Audio VA350's here's the spec's directly from KR Audio:
SPECIFICATIONS
Single-Ended Tube Amplifier - Pure Class A, Zero Feedback
Remote Control - Volume & channel selector
Output Tubes 2 x T100
Output Power 2 x 30 Watts RMS (THD=3%)
Bandwidth 20 Hz-20 kHz (-3dB)
Output Impedance 4, 8 Ohms
Input 4 x 0.75V RMS / 47k Ohms at 30 W
Dimensions (w/h/d) 53.5 x 30.5 x 41.5 cm
Weight Approx. 37kg
What I'm seeing is 3% of Total Harmonic Distortion, talk about character! Wait, the spec's don't tell the whole story. I know that they get great reviews and probably are great sounding, so why is it so important for you to try to diminish what others have, I just don't get it.
Hey, it's all good.
Jim
Music is the best thing you can do legally that doesn't require a medical prescription!
"It was you that made a bold statement in either this or another thread that your system has "zero" distortion, which we all know is impossible"
Now you are getting ridiculous, really. I said my system has no negative feedback, not no distortion. Big difference.
I did hear the reissues driving a pair of B&W Silver Seven monitor speakers.
"You state that the absence of Negative Feedback is bad, when by all accounts, Negative Feedback is a method that makers use as it allows them to make their products at less expensive price point;
"
No, I state that the USE of Negative feedback is bad, which is why my system is feedback free. You are seriously confused about what I am saying. ABSENCE of negative feedback is generally good if the design and parts are of very high standard.
"I told you that I hear no audible distortion and provided the spec's to support that contention. Yet, you still insist that I'm wrong and there's more to it than just the spec's...but it was you who directly linked distortion with character;
"
The point is that those specs DO NOT support your contention. As I have heard your amps and many other EL34 based amps with similar design, I know they have "character" that is rather typical for the type. Obviously distortion is responsible for an amp's sound but it is not what is reported by specs...one has to dig much deeper to understand...clearly you have not because you think showing me specs supports your case.
"I noted a well known and respected critic"
I was a reviewer for many years but I have never heard of that guy. Now, if you told me HP or Martin Colloms said it I would take it more seriously. So, he is basically an opinion that I don't take seriously.
"I posted a thread from the Vintage Section wherein there was a very accurate accounting of the VAC Reissue Marantz Model 9's, but I can only assume that you chose not to even open up the link and read any of it.
"
Oh, I read it...and?
"What I'm seeing is 3% of Total Harmonic Distortion, talk about character! Wait, the spec's don't tell the whole story. I know that they get great reviews and probably are great sounding, so why is it so important for you to try to diminish what others have, I just don't get it.
"
Hmmm...it doesn't occur to you that 3%THD is at FULL POWER did it? Funny thing about no feedback amps is that they have distortion that changes with power output. That means at lower power they have much lower distortion. At 1 watt the distortion is well under 1% (more like 0.1%) and at 100mW it is probably less than 0.01%. The S/N ratio is 96db...much higher than most other amps (even hooked to 100+db/watt horns you hear almost nothing). Of more importance though is the monotonic distortion character, which drops dramatically with increasing order. Most of what distortion there is is 2nd order, which has been shown to be inaudible up to several %. Finally, bass distortion is very low due to excellent transformers, which is a major cause of "tubey" character. Listen to a good OTL amp and you will understand. Does my amp have no character? Of course it does but far less than most...and I have heard most.
BTW., I never said your amps sound bad...but I am sure they could be made to sound better.
morricab,
I love the name calling and innuendo, very civil. The reviewer I noted is on the staff of The Absolute Sound, sorry that you don't know of him. There are many SS amps that rival or even surpass Tube Amps these days, it is a truly wonderful time to be an audiophile, in all price brackets.
On thing that is evident to me, is that you have a bias towards SET amplification, more power to you (pun intended). As well, you have a disregard for the 6CA7/EL34 tube, which I don't.
Given your rhetoric, how much distortion does an amp with 1/10th the rated distortion yours has at less than full power?
Oh BTW, the Marantz Model 9 has "No Negative Feedback", maybe you overlooked that in your zest to criticize, so would it be the same thing with your amps, and that it isn't the same as all the other EL34 based amps...It is the fact that it has no negative feedback that sets it apart from the crowd. Saul Marantz knew what he was doing even back then.
To whom could my amps sound better to, me or you?
It would take a lot of striction to move you and I don't have the time or energy to do so, nor want to.
Jim
Music is the best thing you can do legally that doesn't require a medical prescription!
"Damping Factor: 17. Damping factor may be changed internally by adding current feedback."
Oh the Marantz has feedback for sure.
BTW. I have owned three different EL34 based amps in the past. Jolida JD501A, Golden Tube Audio SE100, Cary CAD-280SA V12. I know what this tube sounds like in UL and triode mode.
Name me 10 SS amps that are as good, especially for soundstage realism and tone, as top tube amps.
I can give you a head start: Edge NL reference (presumably the other NL range amps can as well), darTZeel NHB108. That's about it. Not Pass (maybe his new firstwatt amps though but they are designed like tube amps), Not Soulution, not Krell, Levinson etc. There is a strange one from the east called Technical Brain that has a chance.
"Given your rhetoric, how much distortion does an amp with 1/10th the rated distortion yours has at less than full power? "
Illogical statement as it depends on the circuit design. Amps with feedback have very different distortion vs. power curves from amps without feedback.
Again, you seem to think that I am saying your amps are crap but that is not the case.
morricab:
You are absolutely wrong, the Marantz Model 9 does not have a negative feedback loop, or any feedback of any kind feeding back to it.
Jim
Music is the best thing you can do legally that doesn't require a medical prescription!
Sorry Jim it has negative feedback. Look at the damping factor. A damping factor of around 20 is not very high by SS standards but for a tube amp it is quite high. A typical no feedback amp will have a damping factor of less than 10 and usually closer to 3. 20 is only achieved through the use of feedback, that's physics. Also, the low spec on distortion can ONLY come from the use of feedback, again its physics.
Brad:
Sorry, but you are wrong on this, it is one of the major differences between McIntosh and Marantz and their respective amp designs. The other is that McIntosh uses the output tubes grid to attain the wattage they do and this means they can only run in Pentode.
You can disagree all you want, but what is, is and there isn't any feedback loop in the schematics or application of a Marantz Model 9, end of discussion about it.
Many opine that it is the scarcity of the Marantz Model 9's that drive the price, over McIntosh, but the truth lies in the design and neutrality of the Marantz. It is one of the only amps that was reissued where the price went up and not down and was sold out immediately. Not because of collectibility, but because of quality and a timeless design and build.
No doubt, I'm a bit defensive against the mis-truth's and misstatement's of fact. Even worse those who pan something based on bias or misconception.
One thing is for certain, we are proud knuckleheads, who go our own path. I thought I was loopy for pairing a 70watt tube thing with Magnepan's that rate at only 84db (I think they're closer to 87 with the upgraded x/o) and you a 30watt SET on a pair of Apogee's.
When I think back to when I was 17, as that was the first time I got goose bumps listening to a stereo and then almost 40 years later and I still do, it's pretty amazing, don't you think?
Jim
Music is the best thing you can do legally that doesn't require a medical prescription!
"Even worse those who pan something based on bias or misconception"
For the last time...I didn't say it was a bad amp. So, you are getting defensive over nothing in fact!!
30 watts with the Apogees...that was easy. 30 watts with an electrostat is a whole other kettle of fish...unless that amp is a tube amp.
Perhaps you have a schematic of the Model 9? I am almost sure that you cannot get a damping factor of 17 in a more or less conventional design without some negative feedback. The fact is that they also mention the application of current feedback in the literature.
Morricab:
Please, I have nothing to be defensive about. Your question asking for the schematics is two-fold, one it conveys that you don't know if it does or doesn't and your asking me to prove or disprove your allegations.
Jim
Music is the best thing you can do legally that doesn't require a medical prescription!
Found the schematic and unfortunately for you it has feedback. In the schematic there is even a comment about two resistors called Ra and Rb where the value can be changed to adjust the damping factor. This can ONLY happen if they are in a feedback loop, which they they have.
I can send it to you if you want and you will see if you know how or know someone who can read it for you.
Brad:Not only are you obsessed, you're wrong. I have discussed this matter with a couple of well known amp builders and they both agree with me. Both say that a dampening factor of 17 is very plausible without a negative feedback circuit. Moreover, increasing the current feed can also affect the dampening factor, as indicated by Marantz.
The key was for them was:
Gain Control: Isolated by cathode-follower / phase-reversal circuit.
Please move on...Jim
Music is the best thing you can do legally that doesn't require a medical prescription!
Edits: 02/09/12 02/09/12
No, their words are "current feedback" not feed. Feedback. Its clear from the schematic, which you can download from the website hifi engine.
"Gain Control: Isolated by cathode-follower / phase-reversal circuit.
Who is talking about gain control? We are talking about varying damping factor and this is done with negative feedback...its really the only way without changing transformer taps and they explicity discuss resistors and current feedback.
Brad:
I don't care anymore, I don't care if they spit while the music is playing, I don't care what you think, get it!
Jim
Music is the best thing you can do legally that doesn't require a medical prescription!
morricab:
The key is "feedback may be added internally", this would be done aftermarket, and I really don't know of anyone who would...
Jim
Music is the best thing you can do legally that doesn't require a medical prescription!
morricab:
The only thing that really bothered me was your insistence that the Model 9 has a feedback loop, when it doesn't, nor does it have lots of character, it doesn't. It is one of the most neutral amps ever made and has stood up to the test of time, pretty remarkable considering all of the changes in design and technology advancements.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if you heard a newer and not as well built reissue model 9, that are not as desirable.
Some will argue that they're overpriced and that I could have gotten more for my money. I disagree as there just isn't another pair of tube mono's or for that matter, SS out there in the 10-12k range that does it for me. For the record, cost has no bearing on what I buy or like, if it was the case, I would have never bought the Magnepan 2.5's, but I liked them better than the other speakers I've auditioned in the last 4 years.
Some say that the 2.5's and 2.6's were the best dollar for dollar speaker ever made by Magnepan, and I tend to believe that. I would have loved to get a pair of speakers that were more efficient, but again, I really love the 2.5's and with a pair of well placed and integrated subs, I have gained a few db's that allows me to go in Triode for classical and jazz, and when I don't want to damage my hearing....and can go in UL/Pentode, which actually sound better for Rock, Fusion and for listening above 95db.
Have I auditioned as many amps as you, no...but that really doesn't matter as there was a love at first listen thing with my amps and 4 years later, the honeymoon is still there.
SET is great if you listen to classical, opera, old school jazz, and if I had a set of high-end high-eff speakers, I would build a pair of Bottlehead SET mono's with some upgrades as I already have a nice Bottlehead Foreplay Preamp.
To be totally honest, it was a bit of arrogance on your part that got me, usually I would just ignore it and move on and in the future I will do just that.
Hopefully we will part as friends...
Jim
Music is the best thing you can do legally that doesn't require a medical prescription!
Here's a review of the KR VA350i from 6 moons (see link below):I get that it is only from one reviewer, but it clearly shows that two different sets of ears can hear different things. If we all had the same ears, we would all buy the same thing I suppose....
What it interesting, is that it seems that morricab is the satellite dealer in Switzerland for KR Audio.
Jim
Music is the best thing you can do legally that doesn't require a medical prescription!
Edits: 02/02/12
WAS the dealer...still own the amp. Srajan did a hachette job. Read his earlier reviews on the VA320. Same basic description of the sound but with a very positive slant. What you dont know is that when I brought the amp there he started complaining about the company and his inability to get their 300B tubes, presumably at a "good" price. He had an axe to grind that I was unaware of until after...
Morriscab said:
"I am not sure where you get your information about tube guys but most don't want overtly warm or distorted sounding amps. They also don't want sterile, flat sounding amps."
I couldn't agree more with your statement, what many don't realize, the distortion for the most part is not audible to the human ear in a high-end tube amp, rather it adds character.
Morriscab also noted:
"A tube amp with output transform is only as good as that transformer. If the sound is "tubey" it is most likely distortion from the output transformer. The better it is and the less distortion it makes the more "neutral" a tube amp will sound and the better it will control the bass. Developments in transformers did not stop and the best audio transformers are available today, not 50 years ago."
I disagree with your last sentence and would in most instances, take a 50 or 60 year old hunk of iron over what it being made today. There is magic in some of those old transformers that cannot be manufactured today. But that is my opinion and may not be steeped in quantitative data, just my ears.
Morriscab, I need to make a comment about Single Ended Triode, while it is the purest form of triode, most if not all high-end tube amps that allow the owner/user to switch into triode have actually designed their amp to sound best in triode, not that running in pentode will suffer the consequences and most and the emphasis is on most, could not discern the difference between triode and pentode in a blind listening test.
I also wouldn't be as harsh to say that there aren't some SS amps that can produce the soundstage of a good tube...I might have to go to the upcoming Audio Show in Newport Beach and listen for myself before I make such a bold statement one way or the other. I only posted what one observer found to be what he heard.
The trained human ear can outperform any test gear IMHO and we need to trust our ears more than test data.
Jim
Music is the best thing you can do legally that doesn't require a medical prescription!
"audible to the human ear in a high-end tube amp, rather it adds character. "
Got to disagree with you there, Jim. Either its inaudible or it adds character. Can't see how it could be both. It is the absence of audible character that allows top high end tube and hybrid amps to shine. So called "neutral" amps that are flat, grey, lifeless sounding things have AUDIBLE "character", which we hear as NOT lifelike.
"take a 50 or 60 year old hunk of iron over what it being made today. There is magic in some of those old transformers that cannot be manufactured today. But that is my opinion and may not be steeped in quantitative data, just my ears.
"
Most of them have measureable and audible distortion...at least in the application they were used. It is more of a design awareness.
"I need to make a comment about Single Ended Triode, while it is the purest form of triode, most if not all high-end tube amps that allow the owner/user to switch into triode have actually designed their amp to sound best in triode, not that running in pentode will suffer the consequences and most and the emphasis is on most, could not discern the difference between triode and pentode in a blind listening test.
"
I am also talking about PP true triode and not just SET. Often true triode PP can be run without negative feedback and often the other ones cannot.
"I also wouldn't be as harsh to say that there aren't some SS amps that can produce the soundstage of a good tube"
I have only heard one: Edge NL reference.
Morriscab:Since I hear no audible distortion, what do I have? The transformers in my 1998 Reissue Marantz 9's are exact in every detail to the originals and were made by the same company. It is neutral, yet not sterile, there is that beautiful bloom and soundstage and again, no audible distortion. There are many tube amps that one can say the same about.
This passage is from VAC:
"In 1995 VAC entered into an agreement with Marantz Japan to recreate the legendary Model 7 Preamplifier, Model 8B Stereo Amplifier, and Model 9 Monoblock. These models were made variously between 1958 and 1967, and have been sought after by collectors world-wide as the finest examples of the audio engineering art of their day.
Unlike the McIntosh and other modern "reissues", the Marantz Classics were exacting recreations of the original models. Labor intensive point-to-point wiring was retained - no printed circuit boards here. Extensive archeology by the VAC engineers uncovered original vendors and designs for virtually all key components. Except for a few changes mandated by international safety regulations, these models are as if straight from a 1960 showroom.
Given the nostalgic nature of these components, it was truly amazing to discover that they still can beat many modern audio products, as attested to in several reviews in the late 1990's."
And the spec's for an original:
"Marantz Model 9 Seventy Watt Amplifier
Sleek, efficient beauty hallmarks the unparalleled performance of this massive single-channel 70 watt amplifier. Here is the instrument that proves just how much difference an amplifier can make in high fidelity reproduction. Exceptional stability and low distortion team with its tremendous reserves of power to produce the finest sound available today. Its precision design and construction is mirrored at every point - from superb transient response to the built-in metered adjustments. If you've a taste for luxury and a desire for the purest of sound reproduction, satisfy it with the Marantz Model 9.SPECIFICATIONS
Power: 70 watts continuous - 140 watts peak. Switch for 40 watt triode operation.
Response: At full rated power; within 0,1 dB - 20 cps to 20 kc; within 1 dB - 12 cps to 40 kc. At 0,5 watt, within 1 dB - 3 cps to 40 kc
Harmonic Distortion: At full rated power; less than 0,1% at mid-frequencies, less than 0,33% - 20 cps and 20 kc.
I.M. Distortion: less than 0,5% at full rated power.
Hum & Noise: better than 100 dB below 70 watts.
Damping Factor: 17. Damping factor may be changed internally by adding current feedback.
Output Impedances: 4, 8 and 16 ohms, plus 1 ohm tap for center-speaker conection.Construction: Instrument type, precision construction throughout. Circiut assembled on rigid heavy-duty terminal board with machined, silver plated turret-terminals. Wiring connections neatly cabled. Silicon diode B + and bias supplies, with Zener regulation for first stage. Three Sprague type 17D telephone-grade electrolytic capacitors. Over-sized transformers for very cool operation. Heavy front panel with precision-machined knobs, precision d'Arsonval meter, etc.
Test Section: Complete built-in instrument for self-testing and balancing of output and driver tubes. Adjustments for balance of driving signal. The circuit includes five scrowdriver adjustments, a seven-position test switch, and an accurately calibrated d'Arsonval meter. These simple adjustments eliminate the need for matched output tubes and assure optimum performance despite normal tube aging.
Controls: All controls, adjustments and connections with the exception of the Triode switch, are accessible from the front.
Gain Control: Isolated by cathode-follower / phase-reversal circuit.
Phase Switch: For securing corect phase relation (A +B) of phantom center channel speakers fed by two amplifiers.
Low Filter: Subsonic cut-off filter, less than 0,25 dB @ 20 cps - 20 dB @ 3 cps
Test Switch: For bias (plate current) readings for each tube. Built-in test signal for dynamic balance adjustment. Five bias and balance adjustments, as well as all input and output connections are located under snap-out panel
Tube Complement: 2 x 6DJ8/ECC88; 1 x 6CG8; 4 x 6CA7/EL34; 1 Zener Diode; 5 Silicon rectifiers.
Overall Dimensions: 15⅜" x 8¼" x 10½" (W x H x D); Panel 15⅜" x 7¾" (W x H)
Shipping Weight: 60 lbs"We can go over and over this and it will not change, so why subject the rest of the inmates to it.
All that matters to me is that I truly love my system and no one will be able to dampen the enjoyment I get from it, period. At the same time, I'm glad that you have the same feeling about your system and am not sure why you try to diminish what others have or enjoy.
Jim
Music is the best thing you can do legally that doesn't require a medical prescription!
Edits: 01/30/12
An amps "Character" is audible distortion. I have heard the reissued Marantz 9s and they have loads of "character". Pleasing to be sure but there nonetheless. Many people prefer this sound and given how sterile sounding most SS sounds its no wonder.
I am not quite sure why you are taking these debates personally, no one doubts you like what you own, but we are debating the merits and flaws of technology...don't turn it into an idealogical war and don't hide from the debate or cry if someone attacks your viewpoint. Find a good defense instead or don't join the fray.
morriscab:
Here's what others are saying about the Marantz Model 9 Reissues (see link below).
It's all good and I've got the tubes warmed up and I'm off to enjoy one hell of good sounding system!
Jim
Music is the best thing you can do legally that doesn't require a medical prescription!
morriscab:
I would rather enjoy the music that to take this stuff personal. Quite frankly, there is nothing to discuss or debate. BTW, I posted all the spec's on them, end of the debate/discussion. If you want to say I'm running away, so be it, but that is my prerogative.
Jim
Music is the best thing you can do legally that doesn't require a medical prescription!
If you think specs tell the story then I guess you are right and there is nothing to discuss. Otherwise, there is plenty to debate regarding tube amps, SS amps and the different circuits, parts and power suppply ideas that lead to good (or bad) sound.
BTW., your deliberate misspelling of my moniker is none too pleasant a behavior for a guy crying for civility on this forum, Slim.
morricab, my apologies, it wasn't intentional....
Music is the best thing you can do legally that doesn't require a medical prescription!
Wazoo:
I believe that they absolutely knew what they were doing back in the day with respect to tube amplification. There is no myth regarding the quality of vintage tubes. The EPA has all but eliminated any and all mfg of vacuum tubes within the USA. Other countries have also followed and outlawed the making of vacuum tubes. This leaves only China, Russia, and some eastern block countries to make current production tubes.
The metallurgy is not the same, the forming of the glass envelope and inert gasses are also inferior. Then there is the internal construction, while in appearance is the same, it's not.
A quality vintage preamp tube will last around 10k hours and power beam or output tube 5-7k hours. New production tubes maybe 2-4k hours for preamp and 1.5 to 3k for output tubes. In effect, it pays to buy vintage tubes in the long run for both life expectancy and for sonic qualities.
However, many new tube amp builders do voice their product in concert with current production tubes. With this said, there are some nice current production tubes made under tighter controls and higher quality standards and do rise above the crowd of current production tubes.
Understand, the voicing is for the output tubes more so than the preamp or driver tubes.
Jim
Music is the best thing you can do legally that doesn't require a medical prescription!
The operating behavior of those wonderful devices was quite well understood and it was no accident that they were well built. Ergo, the information from those days concerning how various valves perform has not been rendered irrelevant. That can only mean that all of these devices present the design engineer of amp XYZ with a challenge.
Whether the technology is tube or solid state, the building blocks have inherent flaws which the designers must avoid or overcome.
Waz:
I wouldn't be as critical as to say "inherent flaws to overcome", rather the state of technology to overcome. I don't think that Marantz's, McIntosh's, and few others had so much as design flaws, as they did make neutral sounding amps, preamps back then and on the higher end, used military grade chassis', the best of the day capacitors, transformers, potentiometers, and so on. Said technology became rather good in the late 50's and 60's.
In the 60's the advent of the transistor paved the way for less expensive methods of manufactoring of hi-fi product that was smaller in size, was more watt for the dollar and the mega watt wars was on.
This alleviated the speaker makers from having to produce high efficient speakers as mega watts amps were now the name of the game and a new generation of young audiophiles were able to put together systems less expensively than their parents.
Then factor in that only few makers actually made high-end tube amps even in the hey day of tube amplification, this numbered their days, but for some reason they never went out of vogue and enter the new breed of tube amp makers, with ARC leading the pack.
Because of the popularity of tube guitar amps, and that many eastern block countries still adhered to the vacuum technology, tubes were still being made and this spurned the likes of many USA and UK concerns actually taking vintage tubes to these Chinese, Russian, Yugoslavian, and formerly East German concerns with the actual tooling and or reversed manufactured techniques to replicate as much as possible to the originals.
One problem, original tooling's do wear out and replacements need to be fabricated, but the tolerances were spec'd from the worn out tooling...save the day, some of the original blueprints were still out there and the likes of Aspen Pittman, and others sourced them and were used to retool some of the factories and these factories are making nice tubes given the state of the metallurgy and such.
This has allowed growth within the marketplace for designers to make some amazing tube amplification and preamplification to this day.
Frankly, Tube amplification is rather simple in principle, but to do it right is more expensive than its counterpart. What the 2011 RMAF is showing is that the technology is now to the point with SS amplification can produce the same euphoric soundstage as the great tube amps and it is even being achieved in the less than top-tier SS amps, in the view of one observer.
I'm still in the 20th century on a lot of this stuff and will have to come to grips with pure digital, but that too has shown exponential advances in the last few years and I too will need to dig into my pockets to take that leap, but that is a different thread waiting to be written.
Jim
Music is the best thing you can do legally that doesn't require a medical prescription!
What the 2011 RMAF is showing is that the technology is now to the point with SS amplification can produce the same euphoric soundstage as the great tube amps and it is even being achieved in the less than top-tier SS amps, in the view of one observer. "
I have yet to hear this. The closest I have heard is the one from darTZeel or one of the laser biased amps from Edge (NL reference for example). Still don's sound as good as any number of hybrid or all tube designs, IMO. The complexity that is necessary to get most SS amps to work "correctly" is the primary reason they sound bad. Too many stages, too much feedback.
Kirk Midtskog notes on page 61 of the 2/2012 edition of The Absolute Sound the following in reference to the 2011 RMAF:
"Many solid-state amps are every bit as 3D like and continuous-sounding as their tubed cousins, and this now applies to the less than top-tier SS amps, too."
The gap is narrowing as technology advances.
Jim
Music is the best thing you can do legally that doesn't require a medical prescription!
Kirk Midtskog notes on page 61 of the 2/2012 edition of The Absolute Sound the following in reference to the 2011 RMAF
And who is he????
There are very few SS amps that sound holographic in the way of good tubes. VERY FEW. I think the man hasn't really heard what is possible if he makes such statements.
morriscab:
It's all good, nothing to get upset about.
Jim
Music is the best thing you can do legally that doesn't require a medical prescription!
The only thing making me upset is your misspelling of my moniker, otherwise, I could care less about your uninformed opinions. If you are reading my posts and thinking I must be upset I would suggest you see a psychologist and find a solution for your projection of your own feelings onto others.
:~0
Music is the best thing you can do legally that doesn't require a medical prescription!
OK so when I see Nelson next week I will tell him it's only a brief trip on the " glowing " side for you, you may yet repent and return to the True
path.
Russ
You can tell him that I think the X150 & X350 are stunningly good sounding amplifiers. I think the X350 is getting edged out by a valve amp that costs twice as much - certainly no landslide. They are surprisingly close.
I know myself. The question will linger. What about a proper Class A SS amp? More specifically, what about an XA series amp? How would that compare to the VAC? It won't happen this year, but it could happen in the foreseeable future.
So, yeah, I may return to the dark side of the force.
morriscab:
I'm having too much fun and besides, running in triode is pure class A.
Jim
Music is the best thing you can do legally that doesn't require a medical prescription!
Interesting. I remember the sweetness well, though my father's amp wasn't good enough to display the other qualities (1940's technology).
Remember guys, putting a pentode into the triode mode doesn't really make it a triode. Also they are still push pull, not single ended. If you really want to hear triode sound with Maggies you need to hear them with a true triode amp
Alan
Alan:
True, however, I like EL34's. Running triode while not single ended, it is still Class A. One of my friends and the guy I bought my Marantz 9's from used to run his avantgarde trio's with SET 300B monoblocks and ditched them for vintage Marantz 9's and sold me his VAC Reissue model 9's.
He also did the same for his smaller system upstairs that too was SET for his Tannoy monitors.
SET isn't for everyone, nor is tubes for that matter.
Jim
Music is the best thing you can do legally that doesn't require a medical prescription!
;~[Jim
Music is the best thing you can do legally that doesn't require a medical prescription!
Edits: 01/24/12
Most soprano's need "Mass Reduction"!
Jim
Music is the best thing you can do legally that doesn't require a medical prescription!
.
Nor does this one!
Jim
Music is the best thing you can do legally that doesn't require a medical prescription!
That would reduce the pile driver effect . . .
I watch my levels with a meter these days, since I want to preserve what's left of my hearing. But I read not long ago that the duty cycle of long peaks in classical music is something like 5%, so it may not be that important. And these I assume are even shorter (drum) peaks: "The second histogram is only composed of the heavily shaded bars and represents the 51 examples surveyed that did not include any electronic augmentation (that is, amplifiers and loudspeakers). Inspection of this figure shows that many music performances have peak levels in the range of 120—129 dB SPL and that a number of these do not include electronic augmentation. The major reason for the existence of such high sound levels is the use of instruments capable of producing high sound levels. Most notable are drums, which are capable of producing sound levels of 138 dB SPL at a 1-m distance (see Sivian et al. [ for more details.)" Of course the audience is more than 1 meter away, the highest level they show in the Dolby paper for an acoustical performance is 127 dB SPL and the highest level they report for a classical performance is 122 dB SPL.
The very last thing I would ever want to do is sit one meter away from an instrument generating ear bleeding levels. I'm a Row G kind of guy.
Having said that, I do listen to my wife play her baby grand from such a distance and love to hear the beautiful mix of harmonics, but the sound levels don't begin to approach 127 db!
One of my worst concert-going experiences was hearing von Karajan conduct Beethoven's Ninth from the first row. Painful. But I suspect a baby grand has a surprisingly loud peak SPL -- I don't know what it is, but a concert grand up close does 120 dB. Fortunately, since the peak-average ratio is 20 dB, it doesn't sound like it.
Sound good to me too!
Jim
Music is the best thing you can do legally that doesn't require a medical prescription!
@ 300w into 4ohms, on the basis that the Parasound A21 drives 3.6s with ease.
Good luck,
Andy
Had a couple of very similar HCA-1500As. Plenty of beans in these amps. IIRC, John Curl designed the 1200s, like the 1500, 2200, 3500 and A21 amps.
Opus 104
oh yes, my HCA-1500A is still a sweet thing while packing some real punch driving my MMGs.
Opus 104
Yes, and I can tell how much difference the MOSFET make. In addition, I have a 1000a, also designed by J Curl but for a different market and with no MOSFET.
When you look at their schematics, and then look at their insides, both their solid design and careful construction similarities are evident. The parts measure the same type of attention to tolerances and precision matches of components.
The fact that the 1000a does not feature the MOSFET trannies comes to bear when you hear them under similar load conditions (keeping in mind the lower power of the 1000a.) It certainly is a nice-sounding piece but as soon as one switches to the 1500a, the extra smoothness kicks in.
While driving in class A, at rather low volumes, one can also hear the 1500a pretend that tubes don't matter and it almost gets away with it. If I get another 1500a for a good price, I'll give it just the tweeters, which should keep it in class A longer.
Opus 104
YesSSS!!!! [salivating]
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: