A Partial Retraction in Fairness - Jack G - Tubes Asylum

Tubes Asylum

Questions about tubes and gear that glows. FAQ

A Partial Retraction in Fairness

144.83.35.32

OK after all the talk about KR 2A3s, I decided to give them another listen, considering I've changed my preamp tubes and all my cables.
Ok so they aren't the Spawn of Satan I made them out to be. The edginess is mostly gone-that helped. They are still very detailed and very visual. The soundstage is deeper than wide. The treble seems good-*maybe* slightly more extended, its hard to say since it IS very prominant. It may be the most pristine treble I've heard in my system-definitely the KR's strongest point. The bass is OK, not as overpowering (tube swap fixed that). The Midrange is still lacking tho. The sound is still lackinging something-intimacy for one thing-roundness and organicness for another. Images aren't as fleshy-woods are less wooden, and things seem harmonically lean. What I found really odd, is that pace and rythem were off with the KRs. The music was noticably slower, and thats usually not one of my main concerns.
This is all in comparison to RCA biplates. The KRs are a little better than the chinese tubes, which don't seem to like my speakers(no reflection on the tubes tho). Are they worth $400/MP? I don't think so. One of the reasons I got them, is their suposed sturdiness. I guess I wont know now.
Enjoy,
Jack
PS. Is there a reason Kron has to make his tubes so damn phalic looking?

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

Atma-Sphere Music Systems, Inc.

Topic - A Partial Retraction in Fairness - Jack G 04:52:51 09/16/99 (13)

Re: A Partial Retraction in Fairness - Bryan F. 06:06:10 09/17/99 (1)

Re: A Partial Retraction in Fairness - Jack G 04:51:57 09/20/99 (0)

I'm really glad we can finaly give KR2A3 a much fairer trial :-) - Quest 08:51:26 09/16/99 (0)

Re: A Partial Retraction in Fairness - Doc B. 08:38:14 09/16/99 (1)

We agree-no offense taken:-) - Jack G 08:58:45 09/16/99 (0)

Thanks, Jack, - Phil Sieg 07:56:23 09/16/99 (0)

Re: A Partial Retraction in Fairness - Myles B. Astor 07:41:46 09/16/99 (5)

Re: A Partial Retraction in Fairness - Doc B. 08:21:50 09/16/99 (0)

Re: A Partial Retraction in Fairness - Phil Sieg 07:54:09 09/16/99 (2)

Unfortunately - Jack G 08:14:21 09/16/99 (1)

Understand... - Phil Sieg 09:21:45 09/16/99 (0)

Re: A Partial Retraction in Fairness - Jack G 07:53:13 09/16/99 (0)

should be: for fairness (nt) - Jack G 06:52:48 09/16/99 (0)

You can not post to an archived thread.