Chris,I did say mediocre rather than crap,but I would say that PP kt88 amps are not really my cup of tea either.Much nicer triode connected! :)
Printable View
Chris,I did say mediocre rather than crap,but I would say that PP kt88 amps are not really my cup of tea either.Much nicer triode connected! :)
HAHA... Aye, I'll remind you of that, wee man, when you've come down and heard the Copper amp in its natural habitat! :lol:Quote:
I would say that PP kt88 amps are not really my cup of tea either...
:ner:
Marco.
naa,Quote:
Originally Posted by Ali Tait
KT88's dont make very good triodes, KT66 are much better.:eyebrows:
Marco' regarding AE1's i think they work bloody well with high powered valve PP amps
the guy who run's V Audio in Bristol (ad in hifi world) confirmed this for me.
Good thread ..
feed back is a good subject, when you read the mullard enginers work from the 50's one would think an amplifier would be substandard without it
most modern push pull/ pentode amps are based on those circuits, so need feedback to operate
but there is a down side to feedback..
and it starts with your speakers..
so i'll start with your speakers..
if you connect a voltmeter onto a speaker( just the driver) and vibrate the cone in and out (its also a dynamo?) you can easily create 1/2 a volt or so.... so, if its moving at its real speed.. whats the voltage created? close to the signal thats moving it..?
next... the complicated sinewave that is the music signal, the height of the wave is volume, the length is frequency..
The speakers goal is to act on, and move the speaker cone to replicate that sine wave.. yes..
but none do....
transient attack is the speed the cone follows that sine wave, and effeciency(loudness) is the height achived by the speaker cone movement relative to the height of the sine wave.. ( that explains why hi eff are louder and follow that signal more.. think about that one...)
so now.. on the speakers wires.... there is the music signal voltage...and the signal thats created by the speaker not keeping up with the signal..
two different, yet very similalr voltage sinewaves, the latter more dependant on the speakers and associated components.
with the mullard type amps, global feedback is used ( nearly all amps use global) ... to put that simply, there's a tap from the speaker wire that feeds a portion of that signal back into your power amp input,
so a portion of the signal from the speaker wires is mixed with the source signal.... not a big portion of the amps output, but a large amount compared to the input or source signal that it mixed with
so..
the 'level' of feed back dictates how much signal goes back ito the amp,
and the speakers themselves are affecting the signal through the amplifier !!
The amount of distortion the amp is making at higher volumes is also fed back into the 'pot'...
These affects are only slight in most cases, usually a thinkening of the sound, giving a little more body to the presenation.. but it also takes away the finer details and the sweetness or musicallity that is maybe in the source
so many 'high' feed back (usually solidstate) amps, in use, can thicken the combined signal up, often resulting in a (futher?) lack of detail and a thicker (more solid ) sounding.. slightly false output...
now.. it is obvious to me that speakers and amps need to 'suit' each other
and very good results can be had with many combinations of all types of kit,
but don't forget all is not what it seems
think of a ducati V twin sound.. an impresive boom.... boom..... boom ...
but its not really..it just sounds like that.. its really boomboom...... boomboom......
many would say.. who cares it sounds good...
and there's nothing wrong with saying that about your hi fi too.. is there ?
steve
I don't think i mentioned this but i also had way back in the good old 90's a pair of Quad 2 mono's completely rebuilt and re badged as concordant exultant quad 2s they were lovely sounding and i had the option of either using GE kt66 or 6550 both very different but the amp was more suited to classical than rock , they sounded amazing with ESL57's a friend had at the time.
Anthony,yes you're right,kt66 is better.I like triode sound,45 is my favourite valve so far,but alas not enough power for my statics.813 is the best compromise I've heard so far,along with Nick's A2 211. I like my statics far too much to change them,so am stuck with the need for a bit of power. Steve,this back emf thing has been talked about before,but I hear the same sound with a PP amp on my statics,so I guess it can't all be down to that.What do you think?
Marco,yes I haven't forgotten!Yes your amp has huge amounts of headroom,and there is no shortage of "balls" but I still prefer se.I like the 813 amp(triode connected) because it gives me the se sound,but also has the authority of a PP amp.I also need a bit of power to drive my statics.It all comes down to personal taste....
nice one steve.Quote:
Originally Posted by SPS
when trying to explain feedback, i often akin its affects to a shock absorber on a car,[bear with me] if you took all of the shocks off your car the ride would be fine untill you hit a bump, then it would bounce from the affect of the bump and continue untill it gradually stopped [eventually] this i atribute to the damping factor in a power amp, now, put back the shocks, and when we do the bump thing the after shocks are damped, and the bouncing stops almost as fast as it started, now uprate the shocks and you get even more control over the stopping and starting, but as the shocks get harder it begins to have an adverse affect on the springs ability to absorb the shock in the first place, ie, it takes more effort to move the spring in the first place.
so just to clarify,,, i relate the spring to the speaker, the shocks as the damping factor acheived by the negative feedback, and the after shocks as the back emf produced by the speaker.
hope this makes sense.
anthony...
quite agree Ali, it not all down to that, there are many variables.. as you know..Quote:
Originally Posted by Ali Tait
but...if you hear the same sound with push pull, why do you prefer your se amp?
steve
hi ali,Quote:
Originally Posted by Ali Tait
i agree, the 45 is a great little valve, also the 813 can give excelent results in the right circuit.
anthony...
LOL. Ali, never say never, mate, or at least add a "so far" to the end of that statement. I won't ever completely rule out SE until I've heard all there is to hear with it, which will probably be never! You should do the same with P/P KT88s.Quote:
Marco,yes I haven't forgotten! Yes your amp has huge amounts of headroom,and there is no shortage of "balls" but I still prefer se.
Bring all your amps to mine and we'll have a shoot-out and see what happens :)
Marco.
Bought a CD of Hermann Prey singing the Peter Cornelius Weihnachtslieder ( including the famous "Kings" ) , a 1971 recording
The singing is so beautiful and pure that I don't want the amplifier to change anything and make it more musical
I'm not happy with the sound of my own ampolifier on this record but would it be better with valves ? I'm not so sure. I will use it as my reference recording for the next few months.
Have you only heard this recording via your amp? If the answer is yes then using it as a reference may well mislead you. Indeed it's not unusual to setup a system around a few recordings. Feeling confident it's been done well, you then play some other music and you discover that all you've done is to setup your system for a few specific recordings....Quote:
Originally Posted by Togil
Good question Steve! Same reason most of us do I suspect.There's something special about se that pp just doesn't do.
That describes my Chord MOSFET SS amp perfectly. I have gone the other way, from valves to SS but I am open minded and can hear the merits of both technologies. Previous valve amps have been a Croft Series 4S and a fully rebuilt Leak Stereo 20. The latter has a sound to die for, but unfortunately its power envelope is a bit limited.Quote:
Originally Posted by tfarney
The Chord has headroom to spare and allows my system to soar. That's important at the volumes I choose to play at.
Another possible factor in deciding which amp to use.Quote:
That's important at the volumes I choose to play at.
Marco wouldn't be happy with my 4-5 watt SET, because it wouldn't give him the high sound levels he enjoys. However it's good enough for me, most of the time.
Therefore the choice is limited to many push pull amps or a few powerful single ended models.
Hi Al,Quote:
Marco wouldn't be happy with my 4-5 watt SET, because it wouldn't give him the high sound levels he enjoys...
You're absolutely right, but that situation might change with a pair of 100db+ efficiency Bastanis! ;)
Marco.
They went reasonably loud with my 2W 45 amp but now that my 8W 300B is fully fettled, 8W into 100db speakers should work for most people......Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive
it would be very interesting Clive, to hear how your bastanis compare with my goodmans based baffles, there are not that many 100db baffles about..
steve
Well I'll let you know Steve once I've heard both ;)
I know what your babies can do in my room and I'll soon hear what the Bastanis can do in a mate's room I know very well - heard them at Clive's and loved them, though :)
Marco.
Interesting that the very expensive Canadian company Tenor ( £ 50,000 plus ) have switched to FET in the output stage while using an OTL valve driver stage in their new top model.
I usually find these discussions most interesting though tend to keep well out of the way.
However on this occasion:-
Personally I have time for both forms of amplification, I have been privileged to have listened to some truly great equipment, both valve and solid state.
Last year I was in a position to spend an afternoon with some truly world class valves and horns. It was the first time I have heard horns produce realism, bass, and dynamics without recourse to any of the usual failings at all.
All powered by 4 watts of SET. A superb musical entertainment fest.
The amps and horns were bespoke built at no expense or technical issue. Cost around 800,000 Euro's excluding the room!
Conversely the Grande Utopia III's with a couple of quality solid state units gave me the same transcendental sensations though in different areas, yet awe factor was just incredible.
The above is all very well and good, however the price constraints mean all but a very few very lucky soles can obtain this.
In the real world, most days I hear both good and bad examples of each breed, and I take this on board and use it when matching systems to customers needs.
Some of the most musically involving systems we have heard seem to lie between 5K and 9K and are carefully selected and matched and have a 'just right' gel factor.
They have a listen too for hours quality that just makes you smile when you listen.
The very bottom line on this debate boils down to a very simple word 'Implementation' nothing more or less.
I have heard 'very average' £30K valve amps, and some great £1k lash up's, which easily out stripped the hugely more expensive 'named' brand.
To be fair, I have also witnessed great one man band self proclaiming 'take on all comers' £10K monster, get creamed by a chap who works for a hospital radio, who knocked up box sat on a piece 3 inch chopping block!
The same goes for solid state too, the are some truly dire examples out there, as there are some quite exemplary examples too.
Though one observation that has always stood out for me is the pre-amplifier, one of the big keys to systems sounds.
I so agree with you and have had similar experiences: Infinity Betas run from Audio Research valves, for instance, Horning Agathon Ultimates from SETs and JM Lab Grande Utopias from solid state amps. All fantastic, all different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. C
I'm sorry I never bought those Focal Altos as an upgrade from my Mezzos from you, but went in another direction and fell in love with Usher. Doesn't make me any less fond of Focal, though.
Agreed too. I found audio Nirvana here in the Pass Labs X1 and believe Nelson Pass has a lot to say about preamp circuits. I have borrowed Krell and BAT preamps in the past and they have not come close.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. C
a good preamplifier is a must,
if the begining or intermediate stage is not up to scratch then it wont matter whats in the chain after it, all the dynamics and detail that were present in the original recording will be skewed, or at worst lost all together.
anthony,TD...
If you are after purity of (unamplified) vocals, is there anything better than a good passive preamp with a valve power amp ?Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyTD
Passive preamps are great with purity of vocals and yet very poor with dynamics, according to my experience. An active valve pre is far superior overall.
I have played with passive 'preamps' in the past and also made my own with Alps and Noble pots. They pass the detail and transparency test but fail on dynamics.
Power amps like to be driven, preferably by balanced XLR connections.
In general I agree about the lack of dynamics on typical gear where you have:
- 1m interconnects from passive to power amp
- 0.775V sensitivity power amp
- lowish input impedance power amp, eg 20k
The capability of the source is just as important too.
However take a not unusual valve amp with:
- pot integrated with the power amp (it could instead be external but short cables help)
- 0.2V sensitivity power amp
- 100k input impedance for the power amp
This 2nd scenario will work much better. It's likely this 2nd scenario comprises a 3 stage valve amp so effectively you have the preamp in the power amp. I'm being pedantic here but it's not that passives don't work, it's more to do with the gain structure and impedance matching characteristics of a system.
Hi All,
*** Oops! My post came in after Clive's which goes a long way to helping my understanding! ***
I'm not trying to be controversial, nor am I saying that pre-amps are a bad thing, just trying to get my head around the _why_ of it all. :scratch:
I mean, if your power amp has enough gain, and your CD player or Phono amp has a good buffer to drive the interconnects, why do we need even _more_ gain, just to stick it through a pot and reduce it again? It seems like we'd be better of with less gain stages, less phase shifts, etc.
Where do the extra dynamics come from by using a pre-amp over a "passive pre". (Ooh I _hate_ that term! It's a pot not an "amplifier"! :lol: [sorry, I'm having a pedantic day!)
I just wonder if when people notice an improvement in dynamics when using an active pre-amp over a passive "pot" that it's not the fact that their previous output stage does not have the current drive to handle the capacitance of the cables, plus the pot's load?
I'm just trying to understand what's going on is all.
Cheers,
Tony
hi all,Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Moore
yep,as have already been said its all about the ability of the source being able to drive the following cable and load. thats where an active preamp stage wins over passive. intergrated amps therefore have a lot going for them in this respect as the cables and thus the signal path between attenuator and gain stage can be kept to a minimum...:)
anthony,TD...
Indeed, Anthony.
You're definitely right about integrated amplifiers; these are largely neglected by the supposed cognoscenti in their rush to obtain the latest and greatest pre/power combos, and sometimes dealers chasing the (often) larger profit margins of the latter can also influence things.
A high quality, properly designed, integrated amplifier (valve or ss) has the potential to outperform some highly regarded pre/power amp combinations due to the reasons you've mentioned. I don't think some people realise just how much of a detrimental effect longer signal paths can have on the sound, poor quality cables linking the different boxes together, and just general 'over-complication' in some designs.
Use the highest quality parts possible, implement them correctly, and K.I.S.S (keep it simple, stupid) is the best policy in hi-fi design!
Regarding active and passive preamps, I have something interesting for you to listen to when you come up ;)
Marco.
look forward to that:eyebrows:
anthony,TD...
On this very subject, have any of the valve boys heard the new Burning amps?
Most acceptable
Mmmm... yeah, for what it's worth... my perfect amplifier would be valve. It would be a push pull 300B with no feedback and around 30 Watts per channel. The drivers would be 6SN7GT's. Now that, I'd love. I used to have a WAD 300B PP amplifier around 1998 and that amp was the finest sounding amp I had ever heard up to that time. Of course there's no chance of ever getting another. There is however a very close companion... Icon Audio have a 300B PP amplifier that has a tiny bit of feedback in circuit. Why haven't I bought one...??? The bloody thing is around 1700 pounds and therefore around twice what my pocket will sustain these days. I am therefore going to have to make do with a Naim Nait 5i when I have saved up the pennies. There is no way that is going to come anywhere near my dream 300B but, as with most things, it's a compromsie.
Hi-I'm new here !
I have several valve amps, PP & SE and they all have their merits.
I have yet to find a solid state amp that i could live with,but it might exist.:lol:
Once you find a good,efficient speaker then low power SE valves are all you need. 300b is my fave (at the moment !)
Do you mean Berning ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. C
I own the perfect amps for my needs :)
I inherited them, so they cost me nothing (well, the bottom two didn't), they were made for pro as well as domestic use so are honest sounding and bomb proof. They run cool and have no "attitude" at all.
Boring? Possibly, but I love the way they just get on with the job of feeding some lovely music and speech into the Spendors, never obviously getting in the way...
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q...kedsmaller.jpg
hi all,
seems there is a healthy following from users of both technologies sharing their views on this thread, which is great as the whole reason for starting this thread was not to promote the virtues of one technology over the other, but to get opinions from users of both, and for all to share and contribute their views on why one technology works for them. i have already given some positive pointers and atributes as to why my own prefrence is valves, but as we all know both technologies have negative and positive atributes, so lets hear more from all who have experienced the diffrences and what finaly swayed them to choose one technology over the other in their paticular system... :)
anthony,TD...
I have used both in the past, and have changed from one to the other occasionally. both have their strengths. Blanket statements like "valves are just better" for example show a bit of ignorance IMO, each have their strength and weaknesses. YMMV
Well, I must be ignorant !Quote:
Originally Posted by aquapiranha
Valves ARE better !
Not all valves are created equal though.:lol:
When i hear a transistor (or class D/T ) amp that I could live with I would revise my opinion.;)
that is why I included YMMV in the post.... I have used a Tripath amp, that was lovelyQuote:
Originally Posted by promachos
I'm still undecided which I thinks best although admit its been a while since I've used a valve amp.
I've still got a WADkit88 with Sowter UO82 output transformers sat under the bed, wouldn't mind gutting it out sometime and making use of the transformers in another design, a later project maybe:confused:
In isolation,my Tripath chip amp sounds good.
But then put on a decent PP or SE amp and it is obvious where the Tripath is deficient.:lol:
Leo,
Seriously, you should revisit some quality valve amps sometime and see what you think now. Oh, and by "quality" I don't necessarily mean expensive! ;)
Nothing in hi-fi is perfect, and through recent experiments with high quality, well-designed, solid-state amps and respective examples from valves, I can clearly hear that ss amps have the edge on speed of bass transients and an overall quickness of response in the bass region which makes for a 'faster', tighter, slightly punchier sound - but with certain types of music only (mainly rock and dance). But a good valve amp is not lacking at all in this area; it's just that in my experience a good ss amp handles that particular aspect of the sound just that little bit better.
However, in every other area, to my ears, a good valve amp outperforms a good solid-state amp, and by a considerable margin, particularly when you hear a valve amp that gets it *so* right. There is a crystalline clarity, purity, openness and expansiveness with valves that I simply don’t think ss is capable of, no matter how well designed it is – for me, it’s to do with how fundamentally different both technologies behave when implemented in their respective circuits. But it's like anything else: ‘you pays your money and takes your choice’. I could easily see why people with certain tastes in music and presentational priorities wouldn't really 'get' the valve thing, and their choice is as valid as anyone else's.
As far as I'm concerned though, my taste in music is too wide and varied to build a system around what optimises only a small percentage of what I listen to, and then only in a way which isn't really that important to me. The valve amp I use handles the vast majority of my music collection far better than any ss amp I've heard, and that's all that really matters. YMMV :)
Marco.
I agree totally with the above...Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
I don't agree with the above, (except possibly in relation to SE amps and unsuitable speakers). I listen to both rock and dance and feel that valves still have it here too, but in fairness its more the higher power push pull amps such as my BAT VK75 which has great 6c33c valves that do power and delicacy very well indeed, or my Music Reference RM 200 amp. The BAT is 75 watts the RM200 100 watts.Quote:
Nothing in hi-fi is perfect, and through recent experiments with high quality, well-designed, solid-state amps and respective examples from valves, I can clearly hear that ss amps have the edge on speed of bass transients and an overall quickness of response in the bass region which makes for a 'quicker', tighter, slightly punchier sound - but with certain types of music only (mainly rock and dance). But a good valve amp is not lacking at all in this area; it's just that in my experience a good ss amp handles that particular aspect of the sound just that little bit better.
Solid state, even the very best I have heard just sounds two dimensional and unreal compared to good valve amps IMHO.
Regards D S D L---Neil :)
Marco,Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
Well I'm not biased, infact I go with anything I find sounds best be it valves, SS or even classD
I would like ago at building something, not sure what exactly yet:scratch:
I'm not a huge fan of SE valve amps tbh, I appreciate why people love them but I also understand why others don't even with very high sensitive speakers it would have to be PP for me
Well, I'd be delighted to get my Quad II's going again with some later Epos ES14's, as the combo was so good and my current room isn't big. What I described earlier has the speakers adding an organic quality and the amps giving it as straight as possible. It can even do 3-D if the recording allows it, but doesn't if it isn't there.
Quad 11s are nice,nicer if modded with modern resistors and caps,but ultimately lacking compared to the "other" valve amps i have.
They don't get used very often unfortunately.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalek Supreme D L
Hi Neil,
If you have not heard it already, you may want to listen to the YBA Integre integrated amp or it's less expensive brother, the Audio Refinement Complete integrated amplifier (which I own). Both were designed by Yves-Bernard André of YBA, a French electronics firm widely admired for their rigorously, if sometimes unconventionally, applied engineering. Both amps sound tube-like with no harshness or grain. Yet both are VERY detailed with excellent soundstaging and a realistic presentation of the musicians/vocalists.
Cheers,
Kurt
I fully comply with what has been said about solid state amplification and bass speed. At the moment, in between valve amps, I am using a monster of a studio amplifier with around 300 Watts on tap. Whilst this amp is on loan I have noticed a vast depth to the bass and a completely effortless way of presenting low frequencies that, to be honest, I've never heard before especially from a valve amplifier. The big difference though between this amplifier and previous incarnations of valves is the midrange purity and delicacy. OK, I have mainly used 300B types but the 'air' and 'space' that these amplfiers create in the treble is astonishing.
So, what would I rather have...? Both I think. I love the sheer effortlessness of the bass that 300 Watts of solid state brings but one cannot deny the sheer elegance of a valve midrange. As most of my music is female vocal and acoustic it would make great sense to go back to valve.