View Full Version : Tannoys! Not much cop it seems.
walpurgis
06-06-2013, 23:49
Amazing how many different views there are regarding Tannoy speakers. I think the majority of people who express negative views, just haven't heard 'Tannoys done right'! I came across this on the net and I thought, "what a shame".
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060707222659AAwEaKK
The uninformed advising the uninformed?
Audio Al
07-06-2013, 01:17
The article is from 7 years ago
Speakers mature with age ;)
...because 1) some people talk rubbish and 2) most comments like that are from people who've likely never heard a pair never mind a pair done properly ;)
jandl100
07-06-2013, 06:15
... well ... those guys were pretty clueless, but I think most folk will admit that Tannoys have a distinctive sound ... some people love it ... and some people just don't like them much.
Count me as one of the latter - and yes, I've heard them 'done right'. ;)
... Paul's RFC Fidelio Tannoy implementation are the best I've heard by a long way. But they still wouldn't be my choice for ownership.
But hey, we're all different - and vive la difference! :cool:
But hey, we're all different - and vive la difference! :cool:
Indeed... I'm not really sure what purpose this thread serves, Geoff, highlighting the (likely ignorant) comments of a couple of daftees on Yahoo? I could see the point if it were an in-depth discussion on another hi-fi forum, by people with some knowledge of audio!
Soz, dude, no offence, but starting threads like this is pointless, and simply smacks of fanboyism - and I say that as a huge fan and long-term user of vintage Tannoys :)
Marco.
...because 1) some people talk rubbish and 2) most comments like that are from people who've likely never heard a pair never mind a pair done properly ;)
I agree with Paul
However you have to accept the fact that people may just not like them.
Its good to be different
walpurgis
07-06-2013, 09:02
It just got my goat that this guy who seems to be a self appointed font of wisdom, is obviously spouting nonsense.
It doesn't actually matter if he's talking about Tannoys or anything else. A publicly voiced view from somebody people apparently turn to for guidance, should at least be based in reality (unless you're a politician of course).
I'm going to check out this guys posts on other topics. It may just be worth signing up to Yahoo to wind him up!
Geoff, I doubt that this guy is any more than some clueless dweeb on Yahoo, who likes the sound of his own voice, as it were.
I'd need to see some evidence of his audiophile credentials before I'd be taking any notice of what he writes. Let him get on with it, is my view. You're giving the bloke more attention and importance than he deserves!
Honestly, I just laugh when I read pish like that - I suggest you do the same :exactly:
Marco.
walpurgis
07-06-2013, 09:22
You're probably right Marco.
I'll let it go! (Grrrrr :steam: )
Geoff.
Audioman
07-06-2013, 09:24
Everyone's got different taste especially with speakers. I like some things the Tannoy's I've heard do but they are far from perfect. Same can be said of Harbeth and other well loved designs on this forum. Neither are quite there for me being good in certain areas. One thing that is right in the comments is the stupid prices. Unfortunately that applies to other old speakers which in my opinion have a very limited appeal. Just look at prices for old LS3/5A's when you can buy the new (and better) equivalents for less. Was looking at a dealers site yesterday and he was asking £170 for a pair of Ditton 11's. :mental: Perhaps if some members on here would stop swooning over these 'vintage' products prices would become more realistic. :)
jandl100
07-06-2013, 09:31
It just got my goat that this guy who seems to be a self appointed font of wisdom, is obviously spouting nonsense.
Ah well, there's quite a few of us around, you know. :lol:
Perhaps if some members on here would stop swooning over these vintage products prices would become more realistic.
I largely agree with what you're saying, Paul, but in terms of the above, what if you genuinely feel (like others and I do) that the BEST vintage speakers, especially when judiciously modified, significantly outperform their modern counterparts, as indeed many years of experience making relevant comparisons has proven to me. Just shut up and say nothing?
Forums are for sharing our collective experiences after all! ;)
Marco.
walpurgis
07-06-2013, 09:38
Some vintage items are lovely, but not many.
Tannoys are a 'stand out' product really as far as vintage stuff goes. The old ones definitely had something which Tannoy have not significantly bettered.
I see they have even resorted to using bought in (presumably Chinese) compression drivers, to mount on the back of the more expensive dual concentrics these days. It may work, but it's not as beautifully elegant and simple an idea as the single magnet/dual coil DC with a horn pole piece (Red/Gold/HPD, etc.)
And talking about vintage gear. Has there ever been a better moving coil tweeter/super tweeter than the venerable Celestion HF2000. I've used these many times and they still amaze me with their purity of sound. I could also mention Radford/Leak/Lowther and Dynaco valve amplifiers for instance. They still sound great by modern standards. There are numerous ancient turntables that sound fabulous even today.
Audioman
07-06-2013, 09:53
I largely agree with what you're saying, Paul, but in terms of the above, what if you genuinely feel (like others and I do) that the BEST vintage speakers, especially when judiciously modified, significantly outperform their modern counterparts, as indeed many years of experience making relevant comparisons has proven to me. Just shut up and say nothing?
Forums are for sharing our collective experiences after all! ;)
Marco.
I'm not saying people should not enthuse over these products. Inevitably increased demand as a result of online recommendations will force prices up. Problem is this appears to extend to any condition and any model by the same manufacturer of the recommended product. Your words 'judiciously modified' should be observed strictly when paying a sensible amount for auction items. Also if you have been around long enough to remember the new price of some of these products you are likely to think twice. They tend to reflect the inflated prices asked for new hi-fi rather than their age and condition.
Sure, Paul.
Thing is, by far the most important consideration for me when recommending quality vintage equipment, is alerting other members to what could be potentially a 'giant-killer' (and a possibly a bargain), compared with much more expensive modern designs, even after factoring in the cost of said (often very necessary) judicious modifications. I feel genuinely pleased when something I recommend goes on to give someone else as much pleasure as it has me.
How that then affects prices of said equipment on ebay is not my concern. Stuff costs what it costs. I would certainly not temper my enthusiasm for recommending the best vintage products, out of fear of raising prices on ebay. That would be counterproductive to why I contribute to forums and also the ethos of AoS...
There is undoubtedly LOTS of VASTLY over-priced tat on the vintage hi-fi market, but there are also some real gems, which with a bit of know-how, can truly become special bits of kit, and I consider it my duty to inform people of what those are :)
Marco.
Rare Bird
07-06-2013, 10:14
I love Tannoys
Aye, sitting on top of a nice bonfire.
Marco.
Some vintage items are lovely, but not many.
Tannoys are a 'stand out' product really as far as vintage stuff goes. The old ones definitely had something which Tannoy have not significantly bettered.
I completely agree; indeed that fact has been (reluctantly) finally acknowledged very recently by a friend of mine who owns 1995-vintage Canterburys, which use a version of 15" HPDs. As good as they are, and they are very good, they lack a certain magic, in terms of musicality, only found in the original designs (Blacks, Silvers, Golds). Therefore, I suspect that sooner rather than later, he'll be swapping them for some Lockwood Majors, fitted with 15" Golds, with upgraded modern crossovers...
However, vintage Tannoys are far from being alone in the 'special' vintage speaker stakes... Other superb vintage designs from the likes of Altec, Goodmans, Klipsch, BTH, Lowther, JBL and Quad, come to mind, not to mention many more. Trouble is, you're too much of a Tannoy fanboy to acknowledge it! :ner:
;)
Marco.
southall-1998
07-06-2013, 10:29
I completely agree; indeed that fact has been (reluctantly) finally realised very recently by a friend of mine who owns 1995-vintage Canterburys. As good as they are, and they are very good, they lack a certain magic only found in the vintage designs. Therefore, I suspect that sooner rather than later, he'll be swapping them for some Lockwood Majors, fitted with 15" Golds, with upgraded modern crossovers...
However, vintage Tannoys are far from being alone in the 'special' speaker stakes... Other superb vintage designs from the likes of Altec, Goodmans, BTH, Lowther, JBL and Quad, come to mind, not to mention many others. Trouble is, you're too much of a Tannoy fanboy to acknowledge it! :ner:
;)
Marco.
Geoff should marry a pair of Tannoy's :)
Imagine what the kids would look like!! They would be half Tannoy and half ATC, coz Geoff is one neutral dude. Just like an ATC monitor, he doesn't smile much :D
No offense Geoff.
I largely agree with what you're saying, Paul, but in terms of the above, what if you genuinely feel (like others and I do) that the BEST vintage speakers, especially when judiciously modified, significantly outperform their modern counterparts, as indeed many years of experience making relevant comparisons has proven to me. Just shut up and say nothing?
Forums are for sharing our collective experiences after all! ;)
Marco.
This statement is very true Marco, look at the Epos ES14s, they significantly outperform their new siblings.
P.
walpurgis
07-06-2013, 10:43
Right! That's two off my Christmas card list for a start. :)
I'm not suggesting Tannoys are the 'only stand' out vintage speakers. I've heard most of the revered old gear at one time or another. I particularly like older JBL and Altec speakers (I just can't live with Lowthers though).
Not sure I agree with you Marco on the magic only being really in the much earlier Tannoys. Mine use the later ceramic magnet pepperpot driver that followed the 12" HPD and these have the magic in spades. To me, they definitely sound better than the 12" Gold or 12" HPD. I've heard most of the earlier drivers and owned many of them, so the comparison is valid.
Lol.............
Sure, Geoff. I'm referring mainly to the 15" models. In that respect, I've heard nothing *yet* that beats my Lockies... Perhaps Paul's judiciously crafted babies would give them a good run for their money?
Cabinets, as you well know, also make a HUGE difference. In that respect, the 12" models are likely to be rather less fussy :)
Marco.
Something that I've picked up on with various opinions on Tannoy DC's is that they can be a marmite speaker regardless of the model if inappropriately partnered (ie the wrong amp!). I've lost count of the number of times I've seen people trying to drive 12 and 15 inch DCs using 8wpc SET amps :scratch: They may have a low "Q" but they still sound better to me when driven with an amp possessing a high damping factor and at least 50wpc. A few Valve amps tick the boxes (I'm sure) but most dont as the output impedance is too high. This can result in wayward and woolly bass, lots of honk at the crossover point and splashy treble. Its quite amazing how different one pair of Tannoys can sound when driven by half a dozen different amps! There's also loads of misinformation knocking about regarding the differences between Golds/HPDs. The latter are simply golds with slightly higher power handling and deeper bass from the lighter and stiffer cones, more flexible surrounds and higher power handling voice coils. Everything else is the same including the HF unit, magnets and basket. Crossovers differ and (amongst other differences) the golds used a 6.8uF cap in the main HF section whereas the HPDs use a 4.7uF which rolls off the main cone sooner. MGs suffered a little with more cone distortion which colours the sound for a "warmer" midrange which some people like. If HPD's sound bright, then either the crossover is wrong or the matching amp isn't suitable. With correct crossover values, I've measured the response from HPDs and its pretty much ruler flat up to 15KHz (certainly within 5dB) providing that an amp that can grip them properly is used. Some prefer the golds, some prefer the HPDs, and some neither! The later DC's had greater power handling and are very under rated. I'm wondering just how long that the drivers used in the SRMs and similar cabs will stay at sensible price levels before going the way of the Golds and HPDs?
Bass performance from DC's is extremely cabinet and amp dependant IME (sounds obvious but again there seems to be undeserved generalisations regarding vintage Tannoys and bass performance). I can attest to the fact that 12 inch DCs can drop to very low levels in room ;)
Hi Paul,
There's also loads of misinformation knocking about regarding the differences between Golds/HPDs. The latter are simply golds with slightly higher power handling and deeper bass from the lighter and stiffer cones, more flexible surrounds and higher power handling voice coils. Everything else is the same including the HF unit, magnets and basket.
... MGs suffered a little with more cone distortion which colours the sound for a "warmer" midrange which some people like.
Regarding the last bit, technically that may be true, but in terms of the drive units I have, along with the specific crossovers and cabinets, I've not yet found that to be the case, in comparison with modern Tannoy DCs. I guess that "warmer" is perhaps too subjective a description. I dislike "warm" sounding anything in hi-fi, as to me, that suggests audibly high levels of coloration - and that is not a signature I permit in my system.
In my experience, I find that modern Tannoy DCs, in comparison with my modified Lockwoods Majors (please bear in mind that my opinion is based mostly on what my specific speakers are capable of, sonically, not other Tannoy speakers that use vintage DC drivers), to have a less musically expressive midrange and are dynamically less incisive, throughout the frequency range, and subsequently sound 'smaller' in scale and lacking in 'presence', compared with my LMs and also the best vintage Tannoy DCs of a similar size and internal volume.
Crucially, my LMs also sound subjectively 'faster' than modern designs (including HPDs), I suspect due to the drive units having lighter cones and less heavy-duty magnet assemblies, as a result of them being designed in the valve amplifier era, before high-power handling was required with the advent of solid-state amplification. It is my opinion, based on considerable listening experience, that when Tannoy decided to 'beef up' the construction of their drive units, in order for them to handle more power, this had a (negative) knock-on effect on their musicality.
It's certainly what I hear whenever I do the comparison, and why my friend is considering selling his beloved Canterburys, after hearing my LMs recently sounding better than he's ever done, due to some judicious tweaking to my system upstream. Trust me, it's not a decision that he's arrived at lightly.
In reference to the first bit above, specifically this:
The latter are simply golds with slightly higher power handling and deeper bass from the lighter and stiffer cones, more flexible surrounds and higher power handling voice coils. Everything else is the same including the HF unit, magnets and basket.
On the contrary, I think you'll find that modern Tannoy DCs are heavier than their vintage counterparts, specifically to facilitate the higher power handling you mention. Like I said, it is that aspect about modern Tannoy DCs, coupled with their stiffer cones, which to my ears gives them an 'over-damped' sonic quality, as the extra weight and stiffness doesn't allow them to react as quickly to the demands of the music signal in the same way as the lighter, less stiff cones, of the vintage drive units.
You will probably disagree, as your experience so far has suggested something different, but I can only relate what I've heard with my own speakers, in comparison with many modern Tannoy DCs. You're certainly right, though, that both modern and vintage Tannoys are very amplifier fussy.
Personally, I think that the older designs work best with powerful (Class A P/P valve amps), and generally sound quite poor with solid-state amps, although I heard my speakers recently sound utterly sublime with a hand-built 12W SET (EL-34 based amp), belonging to Duncan, who posts here as 'Tubehunter'. Modern Tannoy DCs, to my ears, often benefit from being given a good 'kick up the arse' with some serious SS power!
At the end of the day, though, it's all personal taste, and results will vary hugely depending on a multitude of factors. However, I've heard enough now of both modern and vintage Tannoy DCs to be satisfied that when the latter are optimised and driven by a top-notch, reasonably powerful P/P valve amp, they make music sound truly spellbinding in a way that no modern Tannoy DCs can replicate.
Marco.
Yup...sorry, I meant that the cone surrounds were lighter but you're right, the cones on the HPD are slightly heavier with the Girdacoustic ribs, but not significantly so. Voice coils allow greater power handling so they are every bit as fast as MGs providing they're partnered with a decent amp. Your point RE PP valve amps and earlier DC's is valid because they were designed in the era of valves, and the MGs having lighter cones don't require the same degree of electrical damping. That's not to say they can't sound good with SS, but it depends which SS is used and it depends on the cabinet used. Some cab designs call for more electrical damping and current to deliver and control bass and some are far more efficient in upper bass delivery (eg GRFs). The stiffer cones with their ribs were introduced to improve the early cone break up that Tannoy believed was a point of improvement for the MGs, and in this respect, they intended them as the "last MG" variant. You can re-cone HPDs to make them into MGs easily enough though as everything else is identical. I like both units. Each has its own strengths.
Yup...sorry, I meant that the cone surrounds were lighter but you're right, the cones on the HPD are slightly heavier with the Girdacoustic ribs, but not significantly so. Voice coils allow greater power handling so they are every bit as fast as MGs providing they're partnered with a decent amp. Your point RE PP valve amps and earlier DC's is valid because they were designed in the era of valves, and the MGs having lighter cones don't require the same degree of electrical damping. That's not to say they can't sound good with SS, but it depends which SS is used and it depends on the cabinet used. Some cab designs call for more electrical damping and current to deliver and control bass and some are far more efficient in upper bass delivery (eg GRFs). The stiffer cones with their ribs were introduced to improve the early cone break up that Tannoy believed was a point of improvement for the MGs, and in this respect, they intended them as the "last MG" variant. You can re-cone HPDs to make them into MGs easily enough though as everything else is identical. I like both units. Each has its own strengths.
Gold and HPD 15's both have mms of 90g with same BL of 19(ish).I've found the extra life of unmolested Golds to be down to the extra energy in the crossover region where the LF is allowed to roll off later than a standard slope would suggest.
Gold and HPD 15's both have mms of 90g with same BL of 19(ish)
Sorry, Frank, what does that mean in numptie lingo? :)
Marco.
Yup...sorry, I meant that the cone surrounds were lighter but you're right, the cones on the HPD are slightly heavier with the Girdacoustic ribs, but not significantly so. Voice coils allow greater power handling so they are every bit as fast as MGs providing they're partnered with a decent amp. Your point RE PP valve amps and earlier DC's is valid because they were designed in the era of valves, and the MGs having lighter cones don't require the same degree of electrical damping. That's not to say they can't sound good with SS, but it depends which SS is used and it depends on the cabinet used. Some cab designs call for more electrical damping and current to deliver and control bass and some are far more efficient in upper bass delivery (eg GRFs). The stiffer cones with their ribs were introduced to improve the early cone break up that Tannoy believed was a point of improvement for the MGs, and in this respect, they intended them as the "last MG" variant. You can re-cone HPDs to make them into MGs easily enough though as everything else is identical. I like both units. Each has its own strengths.
Absolutely, Paul, and you make a very valid comment about how cabinet designs significantly influence things.
Marco.
Sorry, Frank, what does that mean in numptie lingo? :)
Marco.
LOL, They have the same moving mass and the magnet motor forces are more or less the same.:)
Gold and HPD 15's both have mms of 90g with same BL of 19(ish).I've found the extra life of unmolested Golds to be down to the extra energy in the crossover region where the LF is allowed to roll off later than a standard slope would suggest.
Interesting, observation but what extra energy? Initial cap in the HF (first order section) allows the main cone to carry more of the HF but this was later reduced by Tannoy due to the additional distortion created. The inductor value is also slightly different. If anything, having the 6.8uF cap there adds to a more mellow upper mid/lower HF with increased upper mid THD. There's more energy imparted to the HF unit lower in the frequency range by using the 4.7uF cap. The level (in terms of balance between LF cone and HF driver) is partially determined by the value of the shunt resistor following the autoformer as well as the autoformer setting itself (voltage and inductance). You can get a MG to sound remarkably like an HPD and vice-versa by simply using the same crossovers, the main audible differences will be that the HPD will be stronger in the bass region. Just my own experience from messing around with crossovers!
Ah I see, interesting... When you say 15" HPDs, Frank, do you mean vintage HPDs (as in those introduced immediately after Golds ceased production), or more modern HPDs, such as those used in Ian's Canterburys or the current Prestige range?
I'm pretty sure that I've read good evidence somewhere that the modern DC drivers are more heavily constructed throughout, due to the demands of handling greater amplifier power. Indeed, technically, this would make sense. Regardless, there's certainly a marked difference between how both the vintage and modern drivers sound - and there's nothing making me want to sell my Golds and buy some HPDs... ;)
Marco.
walpurgis
07-06-2013, 20:29
A whole succession of really good posts here. Enjoyed reading them.
I agree with Paul's observation about the drivers from the SRM series and the like. They will rocket in value soon, I'm certain. So certain in fact that I just bought a pair of Tannoy Lynxes (Wildcats series) just for the drivers, which are basically the same 12" unit. They will actually drop straight into my Cheviot IIs should I choose.
You can get a MG to sound remarkably like an HPD and vice-versa by simply using the same crossovers, the main audible differences will be that the HPD will be stronger in the bass region.
I read you mentioning that earlier, Paul, and meant to comment. If that's your experience so far, then fair enough. However, mine is rather different.
Ian's Canterburys, for example, have excellent bass extension and impact, as you can imagine from having such large drive units in solid and very inert cabinets, but their bass response sounds drier and more 'constrained', and lacking in scale, compared to that offered by my 15"MGs.
This is something that he has commented on himself: namely, that his speakers sound 'smaller' than mine. They don't seem to 'let go of the music' the same. Perhaps its a cabinet thing? 'Fancy' the Lockwood Major cabinets are not, but they seem to do a remarkable job of maximising the sonic attributes of vintage Tannoy DCs :)
One other thing I'd say about Tannoy DCs. The 'real deal' only happens when Pepperpot tweeters and Alnico magnets are in the equation, otherwise you're only playing at it.
Marco.
Ah I see, interesting... When you say 15" HPDs, Frank, do you mean vintage HPDs (as in those introduced immediately after Golds ceased production), or more modern HPDs, such as those used in Ian's Canterburys or the current Prestige range?
I'm pretty sure that I've read good evidence somewhere that the modern DC drivers are more heavily constructed throughout, due to the demands of handling greater amplifier power. Indeed, technically, this would make sense. Regardless, there's certainly a marked difference between how both the vintage and modern drivers sound - and there's nothing making me want to sell my Golds and buy some HPDs... ;)
Marco.
Old HPD's Marco.
Heard gold,reds and mg's in GRF cabs.
All have sounded very good.
Old HPD's Marco.
Ah, that's fair enough. Anyway, more importantly, when are you coming to have a listen to my old wardrobes and drink some beer? :)
Marco.
Could it be the Gold's are set up for -3dB summation whereas the HPD's are -6dB?
That extra energy may even be in the power response rather than the on axis trace-pure speculation but the Golds do subjectively have more zing in the xover region.
Ah, that's fair enough. Anyway, more importantly, when are you coming to have a listen to my old wardrobes and drink some beer? :)
Marco.
I'll get in touch with that Walker chap..;-)
Sounds like a plan, dude! :cool:
Marco.
Btw, does anyone have any figures for the quoted efficiency of 15"MGs, compared with modern (and here I mean post-1990s) 15" Tannoy DCs? Ian, Duncan and I were discussing this the other day.
Both of them thought that my speakers sounded more efficient than the Canterburys. I thought it was the other way round.
Marco.
walpurgis
07-06-2013, 21:26
The 'real deal' only happens when Pepperpot tweeters and Alnico magnets are in the equation
No, Marco. That was my view too. My current ceramic magnet pepperpot 3128 drivers have made me revise my opinion entirely. They have everything the best of the alnico models offered. I've tried every type.
Sure, Geoff. I can only comment so far from my own experience. Certainly, to my ears, the Tannoy DCs with Alnico magnets and Pepperpot tweeters roast the Tulip-Wave Guide ones without.
I haven't heard the ceramic magnet pepperpot 3128 drivers yet, in order to offer my opinion. Pity you weren't nearer :)
Marco.
Btw, does anyone have any figures for the quoted efficiency of 15"MGs, compared with modern (and here I mean post-1990s) 15" Tannoy DCs? Ian, Duncan and I were discussing this the other day.
Both of them thought that my speakers sounded more efficient than the Canerburys. I thought it was the other way round.
Marco.
15" Golds were 95 dB/w/m, later post '90's Prestige jobbies 93dB/w/m measured at 1khz....
Ah, I didn't realise that was the case... That extra 2db, then, could be the difference and perhaps explain why the volume pot on Duncan's 'integrated' EL34-based SET amp was at a much lower listening position, for the same given volume, in my system than it was in Ian's (10am vs. 2pm positions on the control).
Marco.
I read you mentioning that earlier, Paul, and meant to comment. If that's your experience so far, then fair enough. However, mine is rather different.
Ian's Canterburys, for example, have excellent bass extension and impact, as you can imagine from having such large drive units in solid and very inert cabinets, but their bass response sounds drier and more 'constrained', and lacking in scale, compared to that offered by my 15"MGs.
This is something that he has commented on himself: namely, that his speakers sound 'smaller' than mine. They don't seem to 'let go of the music' the same. Perhaps its a cabinet thing? 'Fancy' the Lockwood Major cabinets are not, but they seem to do a remarkable job of maximising the sonic attributes of vintage Tannoy DCs :)
One other thing I'd say about Tannoy DCs. The 'real deal' only happens when Pepperpot tweeters and Alnico magnets are in the equation, otherwise you're only playing at it.
Marco.
Which Canteburys Marco, the vintage ones? The HPDs were designed and engineered for stronger bass response, that's no secret. How that translates in real terms is entirely dependant upon cabinet design and crossover. With the Tannoy crossover design in cabinets of the same design, the HPD should have stronger bass than Golds. It's one of the reasons that I chose them for my own project and with EBS tuning, they (remarkably) measure almost flat to 32Hz in room (no roll off at all) which is a stronger result than the 10 inch Prestige range in either Kensington or Turnberry cabinets. The latter is tuned for F6 of 34Hz (ie 6dB down at 34 Hz). A few AoS members have visited to listen to my DIY efforts and I'm sure can attest to the strength of the bass. They need low output impedance from an amp to have any sort of bass slam though, so are best matched with decent SS amps (and sound none the worse for it; in fact what they lose in mid band lushness of valve amps, they gain in dynamic response and bass control and can mix it with the best of modern designs in that respect). Whilst I'll never convert those already having invested heavily in valve amps, later Tannoys from HPDs onwards thrive on high current output amps with decent electrical damping despite the low Q factor, irrespective of what midrange magic a SET amp can muster. Decent PP's wont have any more grip on the bass unless they have low output impedance, as its not about power, its about grip (electrical damping). I'm sure that the amp you use is well enough engineered for that to be the case. Personally, I like what most decent valve amps do for the mid range and the treble (including my own) but few can compete with the bass control of a 50+ watt good SS design.
walpurgis
07-06-2013, 22:09
Certainly, to my ears, the Tannoy DCs with Alnico magnets and Pepperpot tweeters roast the Tulip-Wave Guide ones without.
I haven't heard the ceramic magnet pepperpot 3128 drivers yet, in order to offer my opinion. Pity you weren't nearer :)
Marco.
Yeah, I like many of the tulip waveguide models, they can sound very fine. But, there just seems to be a bit more speed, communication and image depth/transparency with the compression horn 'pepperpot' types.
And yes, you are a bit far away. Hidden away in as yet to be fully charted territory with all the mountain goats. :)
Never mind, there's always a chance I could be in your neck of the woods one of these days. I could drop by and buy you a pint!
Which Canteburys Marco, the vintage ones?
Nope, matey, 1995-vintage ones.
The HPDs were designed and engineered for stronger bass response, that's no secret. How that translates in real terms is entirely dependant upon cabinet design and crossover.
Fair enough - can't argue with that. The last bit is certainly very relevant, IME.
A few AoS members have visited to listen to my DIY efforts and I'm sure can attest to the strength of the bass. They need low output impedance from an amp to have any sort of bass slam though, so are best matched with decent SS amps (and sound none the worse for it; in fact what they lose in mid band lushness of valve amps, they gain in dynamic response and bass control and can mix it with the best of modern designs in that respect).
I don't doubt that your speakers have excellent bass. The low output impedance thing is interesting, though. I've no idea what my Copper amp is like in that respect, but all I can say is that its 50w of Class A, driving my 95db efficient Lockwoods, produces bass slam that would re-arrange your intestines, when reproducing the right type of music!! :eek:
I kid you not - ask anyone who's heard it........
Whilst I'll never convert those already having invested heavily in valve amps, later Tannoys from HPDs onwards thrive on high current output amps with decent electrical damping despite the low Q factor, irrespective of what midrange magic a SET amp can muster. Decent PP's wont have any more grip on the bass unless they have low output impedance, as its not about power, its about grip (electrical damping).
Again interesting... I've certainly never noticed anything lacking in terms of bass extension (slam) or grip, when using my Copper amp with a variety of suitable speakers. It even drove Martin T's huge Ushers to gut-wrenching levels... Our ears would've given in long before the Copper amp ran out of steam!! ;)
I'm sure that the amp you use is well enough engineered for that to be the case. Personally, I like what most decent valve amps do for the mid range and the treble (including my own) but few can compete with the bass control of a 50+ watt good SS design.
Again, I cannot refute your experience. However, for me, getting the best out of valve amps is all about matching them with the right speakers. Get that right, and the best high-powered P/P designs, using top-notch transformers (and even some SETs), have all the bass control and extension you could wish for.
Even if that weren't the case, I personally couldn't live with the rather 'grey' sounding, dynamically flat, and matter-of-fact musical presentation of most (not all) SS amps, in comparison with the VERY BEST valve designs.
YMMV :)
Marco.
And yes, you are a bit far away. Hidden away in as yet to be fully charted territory with all the mountain goats. :)
Never mind, there's always a chance I could be in your neck of the woods one of these days. I could drop by and buy you a pint!
Anytime, dude. I live right next door to a pub! ;)
Marco.
walpurgis
07-06-2013, 22:25
I live right next door to a pub! ;)
Marco.
How cool is that!
Sadly, it's not the best one and rather soulless. It's perfectly acceptable for having a pint or two in, though, and a game of pool... However, there's a much better one within 2 mins walking distance ;)
Marco.
I don't doubt that your speakers have excellent bass. The low output impedance thing is interesting, though. I've no idea what my Copper amp is like in that respect, but all I can say is that its 50w of Class A, driving my 95db efficient Lockwoods, produces bass slam that would re-arrange your intestines, when reproducing the right type of music!! :eek:
I kid you not - ask anyone who's heard it........
Marco.
I don't doubt that as having had the pleasure of speaking with Anthony a while back, it's very clear that he knows his stuff and your amps will have been properly engineered. Many modern valve amps simply aren't though! Another valve amp that thrives with Tannoys is the Radford STA25. I recently had the pleasure of Radford Revival's company and we used one of their superb STA25's to test speaker response. Output impedance is below 0.8Ohms (engineered properly) and the Radford had no problems controlling the bass. It was an excellent pairing in fact all round (in room response varied no more than 6 or 7dB between 28Hz and 8KHz). Many modern (Chifi?) amps and SETs simply have too much output impedance. They can go low in the bass, but can't control the drivers. Poor design. I understand that the original Quad II's also had output impedance of around 0.8Ohms.
I've tried many modern SS amps too with them, and I tend to agree with you about the rather sterile presentation of many. They can be a little dry. Not all are like this though and again, it's about picking one that partners well, but the one thing you will get is vanishingly low output impedance. Whereas valve amps are current controlling devices, SS amps are voltage controlling (ie they put a steady voltage into a speaker load, and that speaker load can vary but the voltage doesn't. In keeping with Ohms Law, as speaker impedance drops, current output from the SS amp increases). I like the Quad SS amps, and there's a few from New Zealand that always sound great (Perreaux and Plinius). Parasound are perhaps one of the most under rated and seem to be able to challenge the likes of Krell without sounding as edgy but they take up quit a footprint! I'll be trying another few amps next week. I'm currently going through a fair few to identify the ones which measure flattest with the Tannoy DCs and would be happy to share my findings in due course.
The later Canteburys didn't use HPDs by the way Marco, they used 3889 drivers :eyebrows: HPD manufacture was largely phased out by the late 1970s and quality suffered past 1974 after the move from the London Factory to Coatbridge, although with more funding and skilled staff increases, quality did recover fairly quickly at Coatbridge. HPDs were Tannoys attempt at world DC domination! The new range of HPD speakers including Ardens and Berkeleys were especially polular in the far East right up until 1980 when the models were phased out with the new drivers. HPDs then only enjoyed around a 6 year manufacture period. An all new magnet was derived by Tannoy in 1977, using Anistropic Barium Ferrite and used in the new range (Mayfair, Dorset, Chester and Ascot) with the 2528 driver which was very different to either the Monitor Gold or the HPD. It was around the same time (1978 or 79) that the new Broadcast Monitor DCs were developed (3838) using lighter mass higher FaS cones, and the later studio monitors including the SRM series which made a return to higher power drivers. The Alnico magnets and HPDs were missing for this entire journey, and Alnico's were only reintroduced a fair while later after opinion was that they sounded better!
Ironically, the Lockwoods never used Golds. They were originally designed for HPD drivers and used in Studios everywhere, notably at Abbey Road. At that time, the higher power handling and genuine full range performance of the HPD made it a very popular choice for studios although hifi aficionados tended (and often still do) to prefer the gentler response of the Mgs which highlighted more of the mid range as bass didn't tend to dominate as much (and when I say "dominate" they still measured very well, but the Mgs having a more rolled off lower frequency perfromance tended to highlight the mid range more).
Apologies for the history ramble!
The move from AlNiCo magnets was due to a world shortage of cobalt(Congo was having another civil war).
JBL, Tannoy and a few others had to move to ceramic magnets due to AlNiCo being uneconomical.
Lockwood Majors were around in the 60's and house Reds, Gold's and later HPD's. They use aperiodic reflex loading(or should do)
with a ported lower section separated from the rest of the enclosure by a layer of felt over a brace.
The original Rectangular York also featured this type of loading.
The 3828/38/39 used in the Time compensated series/M series classic monitor(sync source) all had tanoplas surrounds, Girdacoustic struts, Fs of 22hz and a 68g mms cone/short throat/ceramic magnet. The corrugated fabric surround 3808 had higher Fs and a 48g mms sans girdacoustic struts and to my ears sounded nasty....
The 3839 turned up in an early Canterbury as an addition to the Time compensated series.
The reintroduction of the classic alnico DC was in part a response to demands from far east for vintage Tannoys.
I must say that hearing Ian W's copper amp left me in no doubt good tubes can get a grip of big Tannoys.
We listened alongside a big muscle MC2 650 SS amp for comparison and it wasn't found wanting.
Mr Kipling
08-06-2013, 11:52
Soz, dude, no offence, but starting threads like this is pointless, and simply smacks of fanboyism - and I say that as a huge fan and long-term user of vintage Tannoys :)
Marco.
Fanboyism?
Sounds like a (unholy) perversion to me.
Some useful info there Frank...I hadn't appreciated that Lockwoods had used earlier drivers so stand corrected. Having discussed the change in magnet materials with Tannoy some time back, I gathered direct from the horse's mouth that part of the reason for the return to ALNiCo was due to demand on the basis of perceived sound quality, particularly from Japanese customers. Newer materials offer stronger and more efficient performance but apparently at the expense of some aspect of sound quality (although I never found out the specifics), hence ALNiCo is used in some of the newer Tannoys once again. Agree RE the Copper amp. Was impressed by the one driving Mr Toy's speakers at the last pie-fi show at Melton.
Some useful info there Frank...I hadn't appreciated that Lockwoods had used earlier drivers so stand corrected. Having discussed the change in magnet materials with Tannoy some time back, I gathered direct from the horse's mouth that part of the reason for the return to ALNiCo was due to demand on the basis of perceived sound quality, particularly from Japanese customers. Newer materials offer stronger and more efficient performance but apparently at the expense of some aspect of sound quality (although I never found out the specifics), hence ALNiCo is used in some of the newer Tannoys once again. Agree RE the Copper amp. Was impressed by the one driving Mr Toy's speakers at the last pie-fi show at Melton.
Yeah, agreed the shift back to AlNiCo had a number of contributory factors- the classic sound being the main one.
I suspect it's a benign coloration in the oldies that makes them sound so nice.
The newer versions measure better in terms of distortion, the horn throat and phase plugs are more accurately machined too-this is a critical part of the design and imperfections at the throat cock everything else up. As you mentioned some quality control went awol in the past and I've seen some shockingly machined pepper pots.
walpurgis
08-06-2013, 16:12
The pepperpots on my older drivers were accurately machined, with the drilling terminations clean and concentric.
On my current 3128 drivers (from 1979) they look untidier, but it does not seem audibly detrimental, as this pair of Tannoys has one of the cleanest top ends I've heard.
It could be argued that a bit of randomness in this area may even be beneficial, causing minor phase changes which may reduce the suspected phase plug, horn throat interface resonance, which colours the treble in Tannoy DCs.
Whether there actually is a resonance at this point I'm not sure, it has been suggested in the past and the opposing horn sides are almost parallel to each other at the start of the horn, so a reflective excitement could be possible.
The pepperpots on my older drivers were accurately machined, with the drilling terminations clean and concentric.
On my current 3128 drivers (from 1979) they look untidier, but it does not seem audibly detrimental, as this pair of Tannoys has one of the cleanest top ends I've heard.
It could be argued that a bit of randomness in this area may even be beneficial, causing minor phase changes which may reduce the suspected phase plug, horn throat interface resonance, which colours the treble in Tannoy DCs.
Whether there actually is a resonance at this point I'm not sure, it has been suggested in the past and the opposing horn sides are almost parallel to each other at the start of the horn, so a reflective excitement could be possible.
A great deal of the treble issues I've heard Geoff have been squarely attributable to either an inappropriate crossover being used (wrong values: you'd be amazed at the number of people influenced by DIY forums and not by the correct Tannoy factory values!) or inappropriate amplification. The accuracy of the response at the crossover point and just beyond (to around 3khz) is where I think a lot of the perceived treble issues can be found where our hearing is most sensitive. Get the right x-overs and decent amplification and a lot of the obvious treble issues vanish I've found.
Wakefield Turntables
08-06-2013, 19:55
MMMMMmmmmm I have a STA25 and a bloody big pair of tannoys, I really need to get my ass into gear get some new cabs and a better set of x-o's. Money, however, is not infinite and i have a PS10 to maybe buy and a Krell KSA50, decisions, decisions......
The importance of accurate machining the pepper pot.
The phasing plug effects two basic functions. First, because the cross-sectional area of the air channel inlets are smaller than the area of the diaphragm, the air between the diaphragm and the phasing plug (i.e., the compression region) can be compressed to relatively high pressures by motion of the diaphragm. This is what allows a compression driver to output sound at greater pressure levels than can conventional loudspeakers where the diaphragm radiates directly into the air. The efficiency of the loudspeaker is thus increased by virtue of the phasing plug being placed in close opposition to the diaphragm to minimize the volume of air between the diaphragm and the phasing plug Secondly, as the name "phasing plug" implies, the path lengths of the air channels within the phasing plug may be equalized so as to bring all portions of the transmitted sound wave into phase coherence when they reach the throat. Without such path length equalization, sound waves emanating from different air channels would constructively or destructively interfere with one another at certain frequencies so as to distort the overall frequency response.
Hi Paul,
I don't doubt that as having had the pleasure of speaking with Anthony a while back, it's very clear that he knows his stuff and your amps will have been properly engineered. Many modern valve amps simply aren't though!
I completely agree on both counts. The latter are often what give valve amps a bad name, which is unfortunately why most people have the wrong opinion of them, based on hopelessly predictable stereotypes. Yes, Anthony certainly knows his stuff around amplifier design - and not just with toobs either! ;)
I've tried many modern SS amps too with them, and I tend to agree with you about the rather sterile presentation of many. They can be a little dry. Not all are like this though and again, it's about picking one that partners well...
Yup, I've heard a few SS amps I could live with. They tend to be those which have been voiced in a way where you can tell that the designer has good natural instincts for how music should sound, and where he or she has used their ears as the final arbiter, rather than simply the readouts on test equipment!
...but the one thing you will get is vanishingly low output impedance. Whereas valve amps are current controlling devices, SS amps are voltage controlling (ie they put a steady voltage into a speaker load, and that speaker load can vary but the voltage doesn't. In keeping with Ohms Law, as speaker impedance drops, current output from the SS amp increases).
Yup, no argument there. What tends to ruin it for me with a lot of SS amps is that they're often strangled by excessive levels of feedback. It's one of the things that, to my ears, give them their often overly 'controlled', over-damped and sat-on sound, which in turn makes music sound soulless and anodyne.
The best valve amps have a beautiful 'freedom of expression' and openness, where all the natural texture and colour in voices and instruments is allowed to come flooding through, and that aspect alone is often worth trading for any amount of rather prosaic technical considerations, such as vanishingly low output impedance, especially when deficiencies there can largely be tuned out when partnering valve amps with the right speakers.
I like the Quad SS amps, and there's a few from New Zealand that always sound great (Perreaux and Plinius). Parasound are perhaps one of the most under rated and seem to be able to challenge the likes of Krell without sounding as edgy but they take up quit a footprint! I'll be trying another few amps next week. I'm currently going through a fair few to identify the ones which measure flattest with the Tannoy DCs and would be happy to share my findings in due course.
Don't get too bogged down, though, with what measures flattest, as there are other important considerations.
Often, in my experience, flat measurements can make for a 'flat' sound, as in a boring sound, due to a lack of dynamic contrast and natural 'colour'. Obtaining the flattest response with equipment, without simultaneously striving to achieve musicality, can often lead to the sound produced stripping music of its vibracy and 'life', making it sound unnatural and insipid and quite the opposite from realistic.
There's a fine line to strike, in order to get the balance right. Yes, you want accuracy, but it has to be genuine (musical) accuracy and not simply what constitutes as fulfilling the demands of a limited set of measurement parameters.
It's the same with valves: people go on about 'what about all that distortion?' Well, some forms of distortion in equipment are natural and necessary for music to sound believable and real! I recall the late (great) John Peel's famous quote about vinyl and its inherent distortions, compared with the 'crystal clear' sound of CD, where he replied: 'well, life has distortion...!'
What JP said is so true, and when it comes to designing audio equipment, you can focus too much on achieving 'text-book' measurements and strangle the life out of the music! An 'organic' approach to audio design, where oscilloscopes are put down and ears used, in order to 'shape' the final sound of equipment and speakers, is so important, IMO, to ensure that genuinely musically satisfying sounds emerge and satisfy the listener.
The later Canteburys didn't use HPDs by the way Marco, they used 3889 drivers :eyebrows:
Yes, that's right, but what I meant was that they used an 'improved' version of the HPD drivers. I suspect that the 3889s have more in common with HPDs than they do with Monitor Golds, but I'm more than willing to be proved wrong.
Ironically, the Lockwoods never used Golds. They were originally designed for HPD drivers and used in Studios everywhere, notably at Abbey Road. At that time, the higher power handling and genuine full range performance of the HPD made it a very popular choice for studios although hifi aficionados tended (and often still do) to prefer the gentler response of the Mgs which highlighted more of the mid range as bass didn't tend to dominate as much (and when I say "dominate" they still measured very well, but the Mgs having a more rolled off lower frequency performance tended to highlight the mid range more).
I see that Frank's already corrected you about the Lockwoods, lol!
Mine originally had 15" Monitor Reds in them, and I believe had come from a major recording studio, although which one I'm not sure. The Reds were mind-blowingly good in certain areas, such as the midrange, but had no deep bass to speak of, I suspect largely due to their 15 Ohms design and the fact that the transformers in my amp are wound for 6 Ohms, so not an ideal match. That's why I swapped them for Golds, as they had 95% of the midrange prowess of the Reds, and a gorgeously authoritative bottom end, to back it up!
I haven't heard this lack of bass you mention with Golds, in comparison with HPDs - and indeed nor do I hear any rolled off frequency performance, especially with the high-quality crossovers I'm using.
Like I said, for me, it's the other way round with the bass, but perhaps that's because I've been fortunate enough to hear them in ideal (for the purpose) cabinets, and driven by a valve amp that can fully exploit and control their bass capabilities, not to mention is able to to open up their sound in the midrange and upper frequencies, due to its oodles of resolution and high levels of headroom and resolving power.
I'm really lucky to have found a combination that works so incredibly well, and for sensible money, too! I can't see myself ever parting with either my Copper amp or my LMs :)
Marco.
I must say that hearing Ian W's copper amp left me in no doubt good tubes can get a grip of big Tannoys.
We listened alongside a big muscle MC2 650 SS amp for comparison and it wasn't found wanting.
Yes, I remember that session well, Frank! Out of curiosity, how many watts per channel does the MC2 650 have? :)
Marco.
Yes, I remember that session well, Frank! Out of curiosity, how many watts per channel does the MC2 650 have? :)
Marco.
350w/8, 650w/4 per channel.
Frank
Cheers, Frank! So 350W of SS vs. 45W of Class A valve power, and the Copper amp wasn't found wanting in any way... Interesting, eh? ;)
Marco.
Well we didn't even light the -40dB led's on the MC2 so about 2 watts per channel!!.If I had passive crossovers the Copper amp would be the amp for me.
I'm surprised our mate is in any way dissatisfied tbh, that big lush sound is pure Tannoy, that said the JBL's did have the edge playing the return to forever drum solo,
perhaps that same visceral excitement is there in the Lockwoods too-I'll find out soon enough he he.
Lol... Oh, yes *that* drum solo track... We've worn that one out! :eyebrows:
I actually think that Ian's Canterburys do that kind of stuff really well, but I think he's after, like you say, perhaps a bit more "visceral excitement"/scale, or indeed a sound with greater midrange presence, texture and overall musicality.
S'ok, the daftee will get there in the end! :D
Marco.
Yo, Paul... I thought you might have replied to my post #60? :)
Marco.
dantheman91
10-06-2013, 08:58
Still waiting for my mini CPA5's...
Hi Marco
Nothing to respond to! A few opinions shared :)
Don't confuse "flat sound" with measuring flat though! I know what you mean, but music isn't flat, it's just that the kit we reproduce it on needs to measure flat (for the same input signal strength at all frequencies) if it's to reproduce accurately the music its played on. If the music sounds flat or dull, then there are clearly issues somewhere within the system needing attention.
More often than not, the culprit behind most of the colourations we hear are the speakers or simply the speaker/amp match being reactive (ie speakers may measure well and sound great with an amp that can drive them and grip them, or be distorted if underpowered or under damped amps drive them). Some SS can sound tonally dull, but so can some valve amps. The circuit design and how it's implemented matters far more to me than what it is (ie SS or valve). Valves are prettier and do some things better than SS, but not more efficiently which is becoming more of a consideration these days. I personally prefer valves but good valve amps are few and far between IME and tend to cost way more than an equivalent performing SS because most rely on the quality and bandwidth of the output transformers which have a massive bearing on how they sound (much more so than what make of valves are employed). n Good output transformers use a lot of copper, and it takes a lot of skill and time to design and wind them for high bandwidth/low distortion
dantheman91
10-06-2013, 09:23
Wot be those?
Marco.
Only mini ones i cant afford the big boys
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=tannoy%20cpa5&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.47534661,d.d2k&biw=1024&bih=475&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=5pq1UaOFI6im0wWFzYHwAw
Ah, reet-o... I'm sure those'll still be fun, Dan! :)
Marco.
dantheman91
10-06-2013, 09:45
Ah, reet-o... I'm sure those'll still be fun, Dan! :)
Marco.
There only going to be in a small box room with a parasound Zamp V.3 and NAD 3130
Im sure they will be fine..
dantheman91
10-06-2013, 11:32
They now have arrived..reasonable for their size there ideally used for AV set-ups even though there made by goodmans using there dual coaxial design but good for a small room
Hi Paul,
Sorry I'm late to this, but I missed it when it was originally posted.
Don't confuse "flat sound" with measuring flat though! I know what you mean, but music isn't flat, it's just that the kit we reproduce it on needs to measure flat (for the same input signal strength at all frequencies) if it's to reproduce accurately the music its played on. If the music sounds flat or dull, then there are clearly issues somewhere within the system needing attention.
I totally agree and understand where you're coming from. However, I've certainly heard systems, built solely around measuring 'flat', sound utterly anodyne and near-bereft of musical merit (even when reproducing some of the best music ever produced), simply due to having the 'life' sucked out of the sound, as a result of an obsession with achieving 'transparency' (or rather a false notion of such), based on designing to a limited set of measurement parameters, and seemingly a complete lack of understanding as to how real voices and instruments actually sound, on behalf of the person who's assembled the system.
That is why, at the end of the objective design process, where one has satisfied all basic electrical measurement parameters, it is essential for an audio designer to listen to the results achieved thus far, and if necessary make subtle final adjustments, in terms of 'voicing' the components or speakers concerned, in order that the sound produced genuinely represents that of real music, and not merely a cardboard cut-out of such, achieved simply by 'getting the numbers right'.
You should know as well as I do, with all your experimenting, that one can fit sonically superior caps and resistors into a circuit, replacing those that were merely adequate and 'fit for purpose', and for the circuit to measure identically, yet sound markedly different, and usually more convincing, musically. This is simply because, though design, those components are addressing aspects of how faithfully the music signal is relayed to the listener, and in a way which currently isn't quantifiable on test equipment - or perhaps rather that we don't yet know exactly *what* to measure for, in order to make the correlation between what we can clearly hear, yet not readily identify on measurement apparatus.
This is where the aspect of 'voicing' comes in. Anthony and I have discovered this many times with the Copper amp or when modifying my Croft preamp. Therefore, if your design goal with loudspeakers or equipment is simply to achieve a ruler-flat frequency response, or some limited/skewed notion of 'transparency', and then it's a case of 'job done', then chances are that you've succeeded merely in creating a technically competent electrical (or electro-mechanical) device; not necessarily an instrument optimised for accurately reproducing the complexities of recorded music. Despite what some might think, there *is* a difference!! ;)
More often than not, the culprit behind most of the colourations we hear are the speakers or simply the speaker/amp match being reactive (ie speakers may measure well and sound great with an amp that can drive them and grip them, or be distorted if underpowered or under damped amps drive them). Some SS can sound tonally dull, but so can some valve amps. The circuit design and how it's implemented matters far more to me than what it is (ie SS or valve). Valves are prettier and do some things better than SS, but not more efficiently which is becoming more of a consideration these days.
Totally agree! :)
I personally prefer valves but good valve amps are few and far between IME and tend to cost way more than an equivalent performing SS because most rely on the quality and bandwidth of the output transformers which have a massive bearing on how they sound (much more so than what make of valves are employed). n Good output transformers use a lot of copper, and it takes a lot of skill and time to design and wind them for high bandwidth/low distortion.
Nail > head.
However, that doesn't mean it isn't possible, and so valve amplifiers whose design conforms to the above specifications (such as the Copper amp and others of its ilk) should become the automatic benchmark from which ALL other valve amplifiers are judged. Therefore, if you haven't heard the sonic capabilities of such equipment then, quite simply, you're not qualified to make judgements on what it can do, in comparison with its solid-state counterparts.
It REALLY rips my knitting when I read ignorant remarks about valve amplifiers sounding 'warm & cuddly', best used for 'taming' a bright sounding component or system, or even more ridiculously, that they are merely 'sound-effect devices', from people who quite obviously have never heard what a *really* good valve amplifier can do.
Such utter nonsense merely serves to perpetuate a myth, in may cases to fulfill the needs of certain people's prejudiced personal or commercial agendas. Well, on AoS, we will always expose such blinkered BULLSHITE and quash it with a healthy dose of reality..........!! :trust:
Marco.
I have always found Tannoy's respond well to high quality valve designs and correctly implemented solid state class 'a' units.
Bandwidth issues are abound with both solid state and valves, for example Naim's figures are in the region 36Khz-3dB, yet say a Belles would be typically 8Hz-100Khz +/-0.5-0.8 dB
Personally I find any amplifier worth its salt will have a bandwidth of at the least fifth harmonic, good current delivery and have a high stability factor even when presented with stiff loads at low impedance (one for Marco to play with :stalks:)
A good valve amplifier will have dynamics, detail and rhythmic flow as well as the mid band lushness and tonal quality. We use valves amplifier which exhibit these traits in spades and I know of a designs that also deliver this presentation.
All good fun
Personally I find any amplifier worth its salt will have a bandwidth of at the least fifth harmonic, good current delivery and have a high stability factor even when presented with stiff loads at low impedance (one for Marco to play with :stalks:)
So what is this beast of which you speak?
I completely agree. I've NEVER found the Copper amp lacking in ANY area of sonic reproduction, compared with the many SS amps I've tried, *provided* that suitable speakers were used.
Quite simply, if the transformers are good enough (as Paul has outlined), and the rest of the amp is up to the same standard, with the speaker partnership optimised, then the best valve amps can compete, sonically, on any level with the best SS amps - and in fact trump them in quite a few areas most significant to the accurate reproduction of music! ;)
Marco.
P.S Paul, any thoughts on my previous post? :)
I agree with both the previous posts but would like to add another thing if I may for consideration. Anthony can probably confirm this, but I also think that irrespective of the valve type used, how the valve is implemented in the circuit and most particularly, the amount of feedback used is critical for good stable performance and low distortion. Marketing blurb for amps which boast about using zero negative feedback leave me wondering why :hmm: because there's precious little, fidelity wise, to be gained from using zero feedback, and it certainly doesn't help the amps damping factor. Of course there are many amp designers and manufacturers who'd no doubt argue otherwise and give their own reasons, and I have no issue with that; it's their choice; but I personally prefer valve amps which do use a little negative feedback.
As I've just found (too my surprise) even single ended amps can have more than adequate grip on speakers and remain stable providing that output impedance is kept relatively low and that some feedback is used.
I think your point Marco regarding comments about valve amps sounding warm and cuddly just points to badly designed amps. Its a generalisation that I suspect is a throw back to memories of old Pye valve radio sets (and similar) blurting out AM frequency radio on pretty hopeless speakers giving that warm "Hello, thyis is the BeeBeeCee calling" type broadcast sound (if you know what I mean!) which really bears little relationship to a well designed hifi amp.
In fact, the distinction in measurement terms between a good valve and a good SS amp should be very little difference. Sound wise of course its a different story as both behave a little differently under load, and things like power suplies, slew rate, transient response, and distortion modes when pushed hard all come into play to define the sonic characters of each.
Almost everyone with experience whom I've spoken to on the subject prefers a good valve amp, even though a SS may have it whipped on measured performance (bit then again I defy anyone to AUDIBLY tell the difference between 0.5% THD and 0.1%THD...no-ones ears are that golden because speakers vary way more than that!).
That is why, at the end of the objective design process, where one has satisfied all basic electrical measurement parameters, it is essential for an audio designer to listen to the results achieved thus far, and if necessary make subtle final adjustments, in terms of 'voicing' the components or speakers concerned, in order that the sound produced genuinely represents that of real music, and not merely a cardboard cut-out of such, achieved simply by 'getting the numbers right'.
This is completely accurate. And that's exactly what all serious designers do. They do countless iterations between designing, tweaking, measuring and listening. ;)
Of course, as we all know, hifi is mostly about compromise (set aside some monsters like for instance The Sphere by Cabasse), compromise which produce the final product. :)
dantheman91
16-06-2013, 09:52
Missed a pair of Lancasters by 10 mins this morning for £10 on gumtree. Sunday morning FFS Serves me right for pissing about DOH!!
Cheeky fuckers not even local to Bournemouth Arh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It REALLY rips my knitting when I read ignorant remarks about valve amplifiers sounding 'warm & cuddly', best used for 'taming' a bright sounding component or system, or even more ridiculously, that they are merely 'sound-effect devices', from people who quite obviously have never heard what a *really* good valve amplifier can do.
Swapping tubes around and monitoring the audible result merely highlights the potential of components to colour the sound, though. The fact it can be done so simply with valves doesn't mean the same isn't true with capacitors/transistors etc. When you do the later, you realise that inherently, a lot of the stuff in a signal path has an audible effect, given a decent set of speakers.
This is worrying because you reaiise you cannot easily establish which is "right", only what you prefer the sound of. Even knowing what you like better isn't easy when with your "new" configuration you lose in one area and gain in another.
So ultimately there really are a lot of "colouration devices" acting together in any one system to form the final sound. This is true in SS and valve setups. What is dangerous though is to assume rolling tubes doesn't have a measurable effect on the system's FR and other technically measurable parameters. I could repeatedly measure the change in my system's FR using a cheap Behringer test mic when swapping 211 tubes - as much as 3DB in some parts of the FR. Based on that I know damn well cap and other changes will do the same where I know I have heard a difference.
Swapping tubes around and monitoring the audible result merely highlights the potential of components to colour the sound, though. The fact it can be done so simply with valves doesn't mean the same isn't true with capacitors/transistors etc. When you do the later, you realise that inherently, a lot of the stuff in a signal path has an audible effect, given a decent set of speakers.
This is worrying because you reaiise you cannot easily establish which is "right", only what you prefer the sound of. Even knowing what you like better isn't easy when with your "new" configuration you lose in one area and gain in another.
So ultimately there really are a lot of "colouration devices" acting together in any one system to form the final sound. This is true in SS and valve setups. What is dangerous though is to assume rolling tubes doesn't have a measurable effect on the system's FR and other technically measurable parameters. I could repeatedly measure the change in my system's FR using a cheap Behringer test mic when swapping 211 tubes - as much as 3DB in some parts of the FR. Based on that I know damn well cap and other changes will do the same where I know I have heard a difference.
Good post Justin....and your reasoning is EXACTLY why it's important to aim (to start with anyway) for a system that measures flat to begin with as at least you know that within measurable parameters, it's there or thereabouts and you can then fiddle and tune to your heart's content to voice it to your own preferences. Moving from room to room often has little if any bearing on amps and sources but can have huge impacts on how speakers sound, so whilst swapping caps or valves on amps can colour the sound (or change it) it's usually nowhere near to the extent of how speakers impact on sound when faced with different room response.
As Marco also points out, a good valve amp can compete on equal terms with a good SS amp (which will probably measure better in some areas) and will even trump it in other respects, but "good" in this context usually (not always though) means more expensive comparatively speaking because to get that good costs money. In the grand scheme of things though very few music enthusiasts that I know stick with their first purchase and usually work through a journey of experience and learning to perfect a system as their budgets allow until they get to the point of diminishing returns for them. Increasingly these days it does seem that point ends up with a valve amp in the equation somewhere!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.