Aye hope all is good mate, Alan is the man.
Printable View
Aye hope all is good mate, Alan is the man.
Fingers and toes crossed! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Macca
The mid to late '70s for the American gear. You're right, Musical Fidelity continued the trend in the the UK with their 'TVA' power amplifier (the 'Thermionic Valve Amplifier'), the 'MVT' preamp (named after the designer Michael Vincent Thomas (?)), as well as 'The Preamp'. As well as the prosaically-named Nowegian built 'The Two Channel Amplifier'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence001
But thinking about it some more, Rogers in the late '60s were naming their amps with the Rogers 'Cadet' and 'Master' valve amps. And of course Quad stood for 'QUality Amplifier, Domestic'. :)
Nerd Mode ONQuote:
Originally Posted by Barry
Quality Unit Amplifier Domestic actually... ;)
Nerd Mode OFF
quality(in glesgae accent)
https://thumbs.gfycat.com/MiserableD...rm-max-1mb.gif
:popcorn::popcorn:
So how's it sounding?:)
Marco.
will report later got loads on right now.
Okies, no worries:)
Marco.
Okay work is done for the day.
Here's one of the KS50s with the Philips 22AH380 (good designation!) 'Black Tulip' preamplifer and Soncoz SGD-1 DAC.
https://i.ibb.co/KLS1Sy6/krell.jpg
What's the point of using a monster amp like this which won't even fit on the rack, instead of the power amp of the NAD320BEE? The NAD is rated at 50 wpc and actually gives 67, the Krell is rated at 50 wpc and delivers 75. So really there's no effective difference in power output.
Two things really. First is pretty simple, the speakers impedance drops to 2.4 ohms and the NAD, with its little cigarette-packet sized frame transformer struggles a bit with that. Bass not quite so tight and taught, and not as well defined in terms of the timbre of the bass instrument.
Nevertheless it still sounds 'good' and if you hadn't heard the speakers sound better you'd be fine with it. But the NAD (which would probably cost about £500 in today's money) would never have been intended to partner speakers like the JM Lab.
So bass frequencies are tighter, more solid and more defined with the Krell.
The second thing is a bit harder to pin down. Imagine you are watching the telly, picture looks good, you're happy with it, and then some expert comes in and twiddles with some setting and suddenly there's just a little bit of extra sharpness and focus.
Not a big thing but now you have that picture quality going back to what you had before you can never not notice that it just isn't quite as clear as it was.
Assuming it's all still working at the weekend I'll swap in the DCB1 pre-amp which I recall as being a bit better with the Krell than the Philips is. With the NAD the Philips is the better match. The NAD was not keen on a zero gain pre-amp. It worked but there was something a bit 'edgy' about the sound from that combo.
Great its working out for ya Martin, you deserve a bit of luck mate.