|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
209.137.226.63
In Reply to: RE: EML 2a3 mesh and JJ 2a3-40 posted by andy evans on July 11, 2012 at 01:52:50
I'm not sure about the JJ 2A3-40 pricing right now, but these were about $115 USD each last time I looked.Since your amp is PP, the requirement for ultimate transparency is greatly lessened over a simple S.E. application, but you'll still need repeatability in tube characteristics to run 4 of them at once..
The Electro-Harmonix versions of the Sovteks are way better than the plain Sovteks. In S.E. service, both are unremarkable and have stunted Bottom-End. However, in Push-Pull, you're going to get Bottom-End if the amp's design allows it-- tubes are a lesser factor.
4 output tubes is a lot of complexity to run simply to listen to music, however-- but people do it everyday.
If this is working for you, perhaps the rugged reliability of the JJ-- once you find 4 that are similar to each other (that's a tall order for any output tubes) would fill your needs for a long time. They seem to be completely "Bulletproof" in our S.E. amps.
I have a friend who is running 4 of them in a Mastersound integrated stereo amp-- has been for years-- upgraded the JJ power tubes last year--they're still running OK.
The last of the JJ's I purchased cost me $105 USD each.
The Electro-Harmonix and Sovteks that I have around here were cheaper-- the Sovteks a lot so. I have quite a few-- and no use for either.
I also sold-off all NOS as soon as I knew that they're not doing the job right either-- all kinds! I probably kept a few of the best NOS-- Spring-Top Sylvania, etc. If you can use any of this, let me know.
I don't sell JJ or EML. I buy those for my amps.
---Dennis---
Edits: 07/11/12Follow Ups:
Hi Dennis and Jeff!I was pricing the JJ as follows - $255 each at http://tubedepot.com/jj-2a3-40.html. That was the first I found on Google. My mistake - reading closer this was for a matched pair. Seems a typical price
I can see you have no use for the Sovteks, Dennis - you make a very high quality product. I don't use them either. I don't mind about the bass but I can't stand the hard treble - violins are plain unpleasant. The EH may be a bit better - haven't heard them. It's the orchestral violins that are the issue - they absolutely have to be sweet and smooth. I read a test of the Sovteks where they had between three and ten times the distortion of NOS 2a3s.
I'm still going for 'ultimate transparancy' even if it's PP though! The differences in the finals are quite audible. I agree we have a lot of complexity in my amps - three DHT stages and 4 tubes per stage, all with separate filament supplies. That's what made me build 300b SETs - exactly half the work. But the results are worth it, so heck, the music is what counts in the end. I could have used SE inputs and drivers and done the phase splitting in the Interstage, but I have a DAC with balanced output, so that made me go diff pairs right through.
I agree completely with Jeff that I should try the 2a3s at 10 watts dissipation. I'll reduce the wattage as far as my speakers are comfortable - if I can save on tube life so much the better. I don't know what the comfort level of power is exactly with my speakers. I think from experience it's about 25 watts dissipation on a 300b SET but a PP amp may sound cleaner at that power. So 12.5 watts dissipation from each 2a3 should be OK at least.
I'm surprised you don't like the NOS 2a3s, but you've clearly listened a lot in A-B tests so you have good reasons for that. If the EMLs were less expensive.......
Andy
Edits: 07/11/12 07/11/12
Let's put a little finer point on things, Andy.(1) You can get JJ 2A3-40 in singles-- if you buy 4 or more-- for about $125 USD each.
(2) This tube is large and rugged. Run it at 12.5 watts total dissipation each. If using EML Mesh, run at 11.8, if running old AVVT Mesh, run at 10.5.
(3) NOS 2A3s. A FEW of NOS (old RCA Single-Plate, Sylvania Spring-Top Biplate) sound good on most music-- but not GREAT like EML Mesh.
The WORST of these old Biplates are RCAs-- which are just plain distorted. We used to toss 'em at trash cans. Also W.E. 300B tubes. I serviced many a theatre-- these always went into Dumpsters. The "M" and "W" shaped filaments (CHEAP! or it that CHEEPIE!?) that these, and most 45 tubes used made them sickenly euphonic and decidedly inaccurate music-wise.
The Studios all knew it-- not only did they trash the W.E. gear-- they got it OUT of their theatres, and put in ALTEC. That was a MONUMENTAL improvement!
Amps got better also. I actually ran some theatres from McIntosh KT-88) amps-- and did fine with them. Today, that's not so great with me-- but in those days, when you needed a reliable amp that sounded OK-- you could go with them, and run them for years. You STARTED with new capacitors, of course. The old electrolytics would be another trash-can item.
NOS Biplate 2A3s possess a kind of musical euphony-- but not as bad as one might think. These things were two 45 tubes sandwiched together, with appropriate filament, grid and other wiring changes.
This caused two things-- (1) they were not as transparent as the 45 because the tube now had a lot of junk in it-- we got more distortion and less transparency. (2) They LOST a lot of musical detail (compared to 45).... or a GOOD 2A3 (RCA Single-Plate at that time).
The problem was the same as with the 45-- the filament assembly was JUNK-- and still is. Had they built a welded, waterfall kind of filament structure like they had in their-- too expensive to produce-- Single-Plate RCA, the sandwich 2A3 and the 45 would have been accurate music reproducers. Well, they're NOT!
Today, the only output tubes made in the world that are actually built right are EML.
JJ 2A3-40 is an orphan-- also produced by the same people. The filament structure in the EML consists of vertically-hung, welded sections just like the old RCA Single Plate-- but better, and with far better modern materials. The filament structure, grid set, and plate all line-up with each other, and we get a uniform radiation pattern-- we don't have euphonic "hot" and "cold" spots messing with our music like the NOS tubes do!
The JJ is a well-engineered cheapie. The filament is long and strung-out just like a W.E. 300B, BUT it's not draped-in like a @##$%%Mart Toaster-- it doesn't form the DREADED "M" or "W" shape that RUINS MUSIC. Instead, they simply run the whole thing up and down and across the tube's top and bottom spacers, but they were smart enough to run some filament across both the top and bottom of the spacer plates-- and got---Tah Dah!!!---- VERTICAL filament strings. Now, the radiation pattern between this structure, and the plate is the SAME SHAPE-- and now the tube works! La, La! Music! Really!
What's wrong compared to the EML? Instead of 8 equal vertical filament sections welded onto bars at the top and bottom of the tube, we have only ONE long filament.
This ONE long filament means that one end of it is at 2.5 volts, the other end is at zero. All along the filament length, we have a different bias at any given point than at another given point. The radiation pattern is not totally uniform, but it's certainly better than mis-shaping the thing as well! The other thing is that the long filament can get looser easier-- but there are a few nice, thoughtful touches done to minimize that-- somewhat.
The tube is made from really good glass, is rugged, heavy and-- for the price-- a great performer.
Can it compete with PERFECT (almost!) filaments and a Mesh Window (EML)? Nope! But, then, it's only $125 bucks, and it lasts a long time, and sounds really good in a good amp.
What's not to like on the JJ 2A3-40? Nothing-- at the price.
---Dennis---
Edits: 07/11/12
You used to chuck 300Bs at trash cans ? Sure you did, when they were bad tubes; maybe...
RCA touching plate 2A3s, specified by significantly important companies like Brook and Northern Electric, are great tubes, used correctly. The fact that you do not like NOS USA triode opt tubes is simply your wish; nobody else's fact. Well, maybe Jeff believes that as well. I am not wishing to diss you or Jeff; you know that. Why do you say, repeatedly, that SE inherently has more clarity than PP ? Can you cite scientific facts that prove such ridiculous claims ? You might prefer, as do many on this forum, the sound of SET amps. But, to blanketly say or always imply SET is better than PP; that is nonsense. Do you really believe that you, or Jeff, are enjoying your systems any more than the rest of us commoners that do not have your amps ?
On the contrary, all of us are enjoying our systems; equally. That is why we hover as inmates, here and at other forums, some of the time. The rest of our free time we are hopefully listening to and ENJOYing our systems. I love some SE amps; to be sure. I sure do love my PP amps even more. In my systems, this is my preference, most of the time. Which flowery lingo sonic description term do you care to discuss that means SE is always better ? If SE is always better sounding to you, great. Enjoy your stuff. Please stop trying to make anyone else believe their systems, or even tube brand choices, are inadequate; compared to your choices. Can't we all just get along and enjoy listening; without any denouncing ?
.....I love some SE amps; to be sure. I sure do love my PP amps even more. In my systems, this is my preference, most of the time.> >
I think more than a few of us feel this way. Many of us must have built a stack of both. I don't think there's anything mystical about SETs, though I know many do think that way!
I'm listening this morning to the Brandenburgs by Il Giardino Armonico on my PP 2a3 all-DHT amp, and I'm as deeply satisfied as any SET user - which, by the way, includes me!
Andy
I like that! ---Dennis---
No denouncing! That's not the idea, please! It's just an objective discussion of differences that exist-- choose what you like!S.E. amps have no natural Common-Mode (hum, noise & distortion) rejection.
This factor is why they must be built better, with better parts-- if they are to become anywhere near as good as a cheaper to build P/P.Superior is when you develop either type to best address the speaker you're driving with the amp.
There are, of course, differences that one should be aware of. S.E. amps tend to tune into narrow bandwidths that tend to center around the values of capacitors that are used for cathode bias and plate supplies. S.E. amps are extremely sensitive to these values. The really great S.E. amp requires-- what some may regard as extreme measures-- virtually "perfect" engineering across a wide spectrum of the amp's design and construction.
If all of the necessary challenges are met, then the S.E. is more musically revealing and sensitive to musician attitudes and emotions-- and is a better replicator of musical depth and layering-- than any other form of amp, especially if the S.E. is simple-- uses only two stages Directly-Coupled together.
So what, you could say? And I might agree-- depends....
The P/P amp has natural Common-Mode rejection-- it eliminates a lot of hum, noise and distortion automatically. It is pretty self-evident that there are artifacts that are a part of (dynamically occurring) music-- that will look the same as hum, noise, or distortion-- to the circuit-- which, being Push/Pull, will naturally reject some of it. ALL Push-Pull circuits do this.
Common-Mode rejection is a form of processing-- it PROCESSES OUT some hum, noise, distortion AND MUSIC.
A Push/Pull amp is far easier to design for a wide bandwidth as each side of the circuit tends to augment the other's bandwidth-- expand it.
Output transformers for Push/Pull circuits tend to self-cancel any tendency for the laminated core to "saturate"-- allowing easy design for wide bandwidth and power in the output trans.
Basically, the best-designed S.E. amp will be under 2 watts or so, Push/Pulls can be anything you want to build to-- in power levels.
To choose one topology over the other isn't the point here-- the point is that tube quality requirements are MUCH more stringent for the S.E. type.
So, why do we listen to S.E. amps at all? THEY DO NOT PROCESS MUSIC-- they can't unless additional circuitry is designed into them to force it. Of course, we're not going to make that mistake with S.E.-- the simpler and more natural it's built to be-- the better it is.
What to like? I use both types of amps routinely. But this is the SET forum!
---Dennis---
Edits: 07/11/12
"It is pretty self-evident that there are artifacts that are a part of (dynamically occurring) music-- that will look the same as hum, noise, or distortion-- to the circuit-- which, being Push/Pull, will naturally reject some of it. ALL Push-Pull circuits do this."
Care to explain this?
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Thanks for posting that. Well said !!
Jeff Medwin
SET:...more musically revealing...more sensitive to musician's attitudes and emotions...better replicator of musical depth and layering...
PP: CMR Common Mode Rejection in push-pull amp naturally rejects artifacts of music that look like hum noise or distortion...PP processes the music...
Does anyone really think all of this is gospel ? Jeff, my old friend, do you think this is all true fact ? Come on, now, let us decipher some of this; shall we ?
The opinions about more musically revealing, more sensitive to emotion and attitude plus a better replicator of musical depth and layering, sound just like my PP Triode amps using an IT and NFB (no neg fdbk). In fact, my PP amps have more dynamic contrast (thus dynamic range), better depth and layering(much more involving 3D EFX described as holographic), plus they are clearly a better conveyor of the speed and the action of each instrument within any musical selection; compared to many SE amps used on my same systems. Of course, this is opinion. In yours or Dennis's system, your's or Dennis's opinion is what matters.
There is no inherently better topology, nor inherently better tube vs. solid state. System synergy can create fantastic sound in anyone's home. Despite this being the SET forum, there is no SEPentode, triodes, tubes vs. transistors or PP forum. So, this forum is where we often meet and greet.
I have no doubt that your topology and Dennis's topologies have many virtues, sonically. Even spec wise; though we all know many of the specs are inadequate, some of your specs could be admirable. Leaving out any discussion of CMR, a truly theoretical mumbo jumbo description originally intended to describe power supply rejection, how about distortion ? Specs being inadequate, to be sure, it is said the SE amp has higher even order distortion than PP. Okay; and this higher magnitude even order distortion came to be known as euphonic, compared to the lower odd order distortion in PP ? Euphonic; what a pleasant term. What a pleasant effect. Is it any wonder we all strive for euphonious playback ? Even if we prefer other terms, like accurate and detailed, better replicator, more musically revealing, even more flowery words, don't we all strive for musicality and harmonious music reproduced in our homes ? Yes; we all strive for euphonic playback.
Regardless of what type of distortions or the magnitudes of these distortions, none of us usually bring any distortion meters, signal generators or spectrum analyzers when we evaluate systems for the purposes of long-term listenability. We rely on our ears, most of the time; as it should be. Most importantly, any topology, even including ss amps, can create a very musical sound when synergistically chosen within a system approach. There is no reason, for any of us, to drill into anyone else's minds, that their particular approach makes any and all others not as good. Let us all enjoy the music...
Hi,
Thanks for informative subjective opinions (to all), it helps me decide which way my investigations go. And on that, nice to know that people are actually building stuff.
Andy, I can also recommend that you try the JJ 2A3 tubes, if you're concerned about matching, I can recommend Bob at Eurotubes.com, I bought a quad 5 years ago and they still all bias up the same, and they were also the most cost effective vendor, even half way round the globe.
PP vs SE, I suspect theres alot more to it that meets the average load. I did and do like 71A SE to PP 2A3 grids into 6k6p-p. Cracker-Jack. But you need a good IT. Lundahl doesn't, Bud Purvine does and no doubt theres a suitable UTC unit that fits more than well.
Foregoing the IT and the splitter and running direct coupled to the SE OP stage was better again, clearly.. but I can appreciate other could be preferred.
I also prefer Garfish to Whiting, others will disagree.. but disagree with what exactly?. Its just a preference, and thats all it is.
Liked what Dennis had to say about bias shift with Vf potential, yes. Could be lessened by some extent, at least to my thinking, by using a CT AC supply -1.25vAC - 0 - +1.25vAC.. who really wants a Rk or Ck anyway?.
At any rate, I'm sure most would agree that its nice to be interested in something that can reward you with satisfaction. And I think that less people can attest to the same as time goes by.
Hey, Thanks.
Shane
Your sense of humor and common sense is refreshing-- and fun!
One thing you might understand-- in my own case-- I've been in audio for a long, long time.
During that time, I've always had access to the best audio amps, preamps, wiring and speakers-- for at least the last 50 years.
I was into Ham Radio, built all my own equipment, ran commercial broadcast stations, designed , serviced, and built movie theatres across half the USA, and worked in L.A. recording venues..
In the early days, the first thing one did to an amp was disable the NFB. Next thing-- in those days-- was better signal handling caps. That included speaker crossovers which normally used Band-Aid packages for caps in passive crossovers. One could get monster improvements in the ALTEC theatre speakers-- for example-- by calling up Rel-Cap, (right in town!) and getting some film caps that were actually designed for speakers.
We had all kinds of amps to play with, and had the money to buy more.
It quickly became obvious that "pro" amps and "Hi-Fi" amps were usually sort of opposites. All were Push-Pull (except for the W.E. Model 91)-- some worked and some didn't. They all had to have major work to sound OK.
In the 60's, finally-- parts that were fairly good had become available to the population-- not just to "pro" users. Many people took available amps as far as they could go-- examples were Dynaco, Citation, McIntosh, Marantz, ALTEC (tube), and a whole pile of Scott, Fisher, and whatever else you want to remember.
NONE of those amps EVER performed well enough to convince a listener-- on any speaker-- no matter how good-- no matter how well modified the amp was-- not one could convince me, or others that we were listening to anything other than equipment that was struggling.
The culprit was amp power supplies-- designed to reduce hum-- and for nothing else useful at all. Those things guaranteed current starvation of all driving
elements, and even screwed-up operation of the output stages-- to some extent. Regardless of power rating, ALL of those amps had NO POWER.
That wasn't all! They also screwed-up Rhythm, Pace, and Timing-- big time.
Today, a few people still try to fix-up this stuff. The results are often far better than the originals, but they still fall very short of actually reproducing music.
A few of us got busy and studied all aspects of amp design, and we first threw-out everything that was not needed. The result was two-stage direct coupling without NFB. The next thing was to assure adequate current availability to the driver stage-- regardless of operating condition.
The next thing was to stop "snubbing" voltage-driven dynamics-- a practice that was robbing music of its "wow" and "fun-factor".. We soon learned to make circuits VERY High-Impedance, put minimal loading on them, but provide them with LOW Impedance POWER.
The rest was implementation-- good chassis design, floating parts in 3-dimensions, using really heavy, sonically excellent conductors, using the best parts, floating iron parts on brass. Using parts of the chassis as isolation platforms. Not much was overlooked!
Today, the results are spectacularly good at reproducing what's been recorded by the best Studios.
That was what we were after the whole time.
---Dennis---
...A few of us got busy and studied all aspects of amp design, and we first threw-out everything that was not needed. The result was........> >
Hi Dennis,
This sounds a very, very familiar scenario and probably one we all went through. The thing is there's a LOT of ways of finishing the sentence! My own would be:
"... putting all indirectly heated tubes back in drawers or on ebay and only using DHTs right through, only using polypropylene caps in power supplies, avoiding all caps in the signal path and as cathode bypasses (except for the output stage), using filament bias, direct coupling where possible, only using transformers or plate chokes on plates of tubes......... and so on
Andy
Nice, Andy!
---Dennis---
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: