|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
184.8.114.56
Often the quality of some classic magnetics, most notably the output transformers, is considered one of the key reasons that older amplifiers are thought to have a superior sound in comparison to some newer, tube amps.
(Please see earlier Marantz 8B discussions)
If this is true, where do the more recent products from reputable manufacturers such as Magnequest or the Toroidal designs of Piltron fit in?
Follow Ups:
Fact of the matter is that most transformer designs are held in secret. So truth be told, very few people really know for sure if a transformer old or new is any better then another.
IT's what people like to listen too.
How that could make a difference, I don't know.
But I recall it being an issue for some folk a decade or two back.
Note that a post in response is preferred.
Warmest
Timothy Bailey
The Skyptical Mensurer and Audio Scrounger
And gladly would he learn and gladly teach - Chaucer. ;-)!
'Still not saluting.'
The transformer laminations are made from grain oriented silicon steel (either M4 or M6). The composition, mechanical handling, and heat treating of the metal are pretty rigorously defined. I don't think it matters if the iron entering the steel making process is "virgin" pig from a blast furnace or scrap, as correct composition is correct composition. It's the old tale of the difference between path functions and state functions.
Eli D.
The only reason I can see for an older transformer to sound better than a modern one that is identically made is some sort of break-in from the decades of use. However, that remains to be fully explained or proven. The best we can do is go with what we have. Certainly, there are great sounding amps with modern and vintage transformers.
Dave
IIRC Magnequest has the prints from the original winding manufacturers, so there ought not to be very much difference.
I believe one reason why old iron sounds good, is that they are simply completely broken in.
There was a rumor in the late 80's, that certain Peerless transformers were wound with rectangular cross section wire. This was the concerning the early non ultra linear transformers in the 20-20 series, but I have found no verification of this story.
I do know that the Tice power block and Titan isolation transformers were wound with square cross sectional wire, however, so such a construction is feasible. Someone else ( unverified) had told me once that the wire was actually diamond shaped in order that they could be more tightly wound. Again I have found absolutely no verification of such construction.
I have seen and actually held a blueprint of the Heath W-6 output transformer in my hands. Nothing was unusual, except they specified that that the transformer "can" be packed with silica sand and then tamped down before tar was poured into the box. Silica has a high quantity of quartz in its composition.
Stu
I only see two push-pull transformers in his product line.
I can understand not stocking any more than that - it's a sensible business decision - but a list of available transformers, specs, prices, and lead times would make me consider buying Peerless.
I guess some of the older stuff is really good, but I wonder if those designs were being developed now by the same engineers whether they would use components and materials that are even better in some aspects of performance. We have some things that weren't available then. Some of the current manufacturers are making great transformers.
I also don't think that the great designs of the past are necessarily better than all of the new amps being offered. My DIY amps use some MQ transformers that are classic designs but updated with more modern core materials and insulations. I also have some Lundahl interstages with amorphous cores that are just fabulous and some nice Onetics outputs that are waiting on a project.
Probably the old and the new include great amps.
Thanks for the interesting topic. Hopefully someone will respond with more to say than I.
John
De gustibus non est disputandum
Looks like you have to buy new for quality SE anyway, unless you have lots of $ for rare WE etc. Looks like PP took over in mid 50's so lots of that iron out there. It can all be copied like many are doing now! Those C cores are supposed to be nice in PP and they say have advantages over traditional EI types.
Randy
The stuff from MQ and Plitron, along with some other winders, is quite good. It's the creme de la creme "vintage" stuff that gets the accolades.
A case can be made for the H/K Cit. 2 having the best O/P "iron" ever. Those trafos exhibit both large power handling and phenomenal bandwidth. Plitron offers toroidal models with either of the attributes, but not both at the same time.
The unity coupled stuff Frank McIntosh used is also revered for good reason. Saul Marantz would have nothing to do with anything remotely mediocre.
FWIW, I think some current designs engage in complexity for its own sake.
Eli D.
I regard the Cit II transformers highly, but the Peerless transformers in the Heath W-6 are at least the equal and, in my opinion, superior. I own both units.
How did you compare the two OPTs? Since they are used in entirely different (and different sounding) circuits I wonder how you found one to be better than the other - and how you are able to narrow that down to a difference in the output trafos? Did you put the H-K units on the Heath or vice-versa?
I also maintain that at a certainly level "better" by and large is a matter of personal taste unless you have specifics to quote.
Both are wonderful pieces of vintage iron!!
John Atwood did an exhaustive comparison of vintage OT in 1990 using the identical driver circuit and no feedback around the transformer. The upper -3db point for the Cit II was 108K versus 129K for the W-6; the latter's 10K square wave performance was also superior. The Peerless transformers measured better than the Cit II or any other transformer under test. I also prefer the sound of my W-6 to my Duece (with updated power supply, coupling caps and resistors--but stock circuits). In addition to John Atwood's objective tests, Bruce Thigpen and Julius Futterman both touted the Peerless 16431 as the best output iron they had ever come across. To quote Julius, "the Peerless in the W-6 has no peer".
Edits: 02/22/12
That's what I thought Jim. The only way to tell! I bet they are much the same.
New stuff can sound great, Until it breaks and you have to send it back to the factory for repair. Personally I'll take an old to-300, A Mullard circuit and my basement work shop over new any day of the week. Hell, Dynaco st35's are pretty damm easy to build or fix. I guess I just like Vintage from a Hobbiest standpoint.
WE ARE THE THE BORG! Resistance is Futile.
Eli,
When you say ..."current designs engage in complexity for its own sake" are you speaking of the design of the transformers or the design of the supporting circuitry?
Excess complexity in the circuitry, not the magnetics.
Eli D.
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: