 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
216.83.156.226
In Reply to: Re: Complex music v. ? on ? and ? posted by BBeck on July 8, 2006 at 10:04:30:
Thanks for the rundown. I have found, however, that the speaker DOES make a huge difference. I normally use a PHY KM30 full range [approx 99db eff 13ohm load] and it has many outstanding qualities, but it will congest a little on loud, complex musical passages. This happens with low power SET 2A3 or 45 more often and quickly than higher power 845, 75TL, 304TL amps. It occurrs to me that with low power amps, the congestion could be accompanied by some clipping as well....a problem exascerbated by the wrong speaker load.When listening to a system of higher efficiency, say 106db 8ohm, where the impedence and efficiency are optimized for SET, even using a flea power globe 50 SET will reproduce music with a minimum of [at least noticable] compression by presenting the music with a much higher level of dynamic attack and resolution than is possible from low imp, low eff speakers.
I say 'minimize' because the introduction of a higher power SET amp seems to improve the sound and make that experience even more dramatic. Then the introduction of a SET amp that uses ultra low distortion triodes like 304TL, makes even more improvement to the experience.
Then the upgrade to the drivers makes yet another improvement, etc. And remember these improvements are NOT the subjective 'improvements' that high tech power cords or esoteric IT and speaker wires make either....nor the 'dramatic improvement' of cryogenically treated triodes and wall plugs make. [How's that for a troll? :)]
My other observation is that the human ear tends to get confused/congested when presented by a lot of instruments playing simutaneously, and loudly. This seems to be independent of room/venue. I am talking of orchestral music/settings rather than amplified stuff. There are times when I find that I [often] can't hear specific instrument placement, they all become like a huge aural tapestry where the instruments all weave themselves into a sort of sonic textural blaket.
Quite different from typical multi-mic recordings, but I experience much the same effect that I would recognize as sonic compression.
So I wonder about the necessity of 'trading off' what I love about SET amps for the purported benefits of PP [forget NFB], especially when we all know of the deleterious drawbacks. When we can just get better speakers.
You guys are right about one thing, the quality of SOME speaker drivers have improved dramatically in recent years, but not all work well with SET amps. Trying is only fitting the square peg...
Later
D
Follow Ups:
Have you tried ESLs? After living with, say, a pair of Quads, everything else sounds so "dirty". By the way, all modern ESLs are inherently push-pull. Maybe someone needs to reintroduce those ancient high-distortion single-ended ESLs; we'll call them "SEEs". A new craze.I'm sure the ear congests somewhat with complex live music, but unless the volume is crazy high, I can decode complexity a lot better in a decent live venue (say a concert hall) than I can with most hi-fi systems. But I've been in too many dance clubs and nightclubs where the "live" sound was horrendous - talk about congestion! But then what we're really hearing is being amplified by mediocre equipment, thrust at us at unholy volume levels.
I understand what you like about ESL speakers, but you know that they hardly present the kind of load that works with SET amps.And Klipsch, as good as they are, don't quite match up with many other vintage offerings like Altec, etc, and are a far cry from modern compression driver technologies.
Regardless, I still have some difficulty accepting that congestion originates in a suitibly matched SET amp/speaker combination, which makes me wonder if pursuit of your line of reasoning will ever bear fruit, or not....but you will like what you will. :)
Heard the 'Rippingtons' last PM in an outdoor venue. I think that current pro-sound set up philosphy may be the 'ultimate evil' when it comes to quality audio. Of course, I don't like soft [fluffy] rock/smooth jazz either.
Later
D
So then you have to choose either ESLs or SETs. I've made my choice ;)
Actually guys, I've pretty much proven (at least to myself) that you don't have to choose. After playing with PP for quite some time I tried a commercial 300B SET and was unimpressed. As a result it took me some years to rediscover how good SET can be and that occurred only as an evolutionary process.First I started modifying my huge PP ARC Ref600's with some great success ... choke, Triode Mode etc. Then I wondered whether smaller was better and bought a little Cary Signature Superamp. Anyway, after doing the rounds and auditioning all sorts of gear in my system since I have a great relationship with a top high end retailer here, I was sufficiently encouraged to give SET a fair go and set about building some serious 845s. BIG improvement over anything I had previously tried in my system including (and especially) some serious (and seriously expensive) class A and AB SS monos. This was the sound I wanted, the 845s stopped the "beaming", music became so 3 dimensional I couldn't believe it. Detail, dynamics, delicacy ... these amps had it all except for sufficient power. So I set about building some parallel SE 845s driven into A2 on peaks for around 70W or so.
A few years earlier no-one could have convinced me that parallel was good but this was another quantum leap. Perhaps it was mainly attributable to the simultaneous introduction of all tube rectification and better PS caps I surmised so I set about proving it. Easy to do ... I removed one 845 from each amp and changed the OP TX tapping accordingly and the sound went back to almost where I had it with my previous single 845s.
Big SETs can drive ESLs very well indeed. MLs love them but I must point out that my ESLs only handle frequencies above 180Hz. An array of 7" drivers handle mid bass and huge subs driven my high powered SS amps handle frequencies below 50Hz. I honestly can't tell you if this would be as successful with full range ESL's ... perhaps not. The questions I was asking about headroom and power trade-off were aimed at trying to better understand the reason I don't seem to have a problem with complex music. BTW, my speakers have an efficiency rating of about 90db m; fair but hardly high efficiency.
Dave, re your comment about the load that ESL's present to an amp; if you use a higher primary impedance, effectively a lower impedance tapping on your OP tranny, then speaker load is really don't an issue. You will obviously lose a little power but you gain better linearity to boot.
Naz
Thanks Naz.I have tried low eff speakers with SET amps, and agree that it still works [to a degree], but high eff is another world that I simply wish to encourage all tubies to taste/enter, because it really completes the paradigm IMHO. Of course I like the fact that HE allows me to use more simple, relatively lower power amps, and I have not heard an alternative to [Josh's] SET amps yet that convinces me to switch.
Even with a 106db speaker, I agree that higher power is the ticket. I just prefer to keep it simple and pure with [DIY] DHSET amplification throughout.
Later
D
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
