Valve experiences (1976 to 1987) The golden years? Err no, not necessarily!

[Togil]

Yeah, very Italian !

[Marco]

LOL. Note how I said, "nice" wood - there is 'wood' and there is wood (nicely polished, beautiful graining, etc) such as the Rosewood finish on my Spendor SP100s

Some stuff is OTT, though, and yes Italian designs often come into that category!

Marco.

[Complin]

LOL. Note how I said, "nice" wood - there is 'wood' and there is wood (nicely polished, beautiful graining, etc) such as the Rosewood finish on my Spendor SP100s

Some stuff is OTT, though, and yes Italian designs often come into that category!

Marco.

Or very Bang & Olufson.....

The Chinese are using quite a lot of wood on their HiFi

I seem to remember when i first started in hifi in 1900 and frozen to death wood was obligatory... teak usually!

[Marco]

1900 eh? You seem to be wearing quite well!

I hate teak.

Marco.

[Complin]

1900 eh? You seem to be wearing quite well!

I hate teak.

Marco.

Yes apart from the ear trumpet and the Zimmer frame.... not too bad at all. I think i'm about Howards vintage.

[Marco]

It's a good vintage, rather like that of a fine Claret.

I'll be adding more to this discussion tomorrow in terms of Howard's excellent observations

Marco.

[jandl100]

Can you expalin what you mean by a bit lacking in REZ

Lacking in resolution. Other valve amps I have had (and still own) do a better job in detail retrieval making the 509/II sound a bit vague and amorphous. It isn't the ultimate detail machine which means that the soundstage too is vague and ill-defined (relatively speaking). The overall presentation significantly fails to let through some of the excitement and pizzazz that is in the music.

I understand the 509's have quite a unique sound for a valve amplifier. Has all the impact, speed, dynamics and extended frequency range of valves whilst retaining the ephonics and ability to accomodate the high voltage swings of valves.

Oh dear. I seem to have trodden on someone's toes here and insulted a near relative who they love dearly!

No kit is perfect, and imho where the EAR 509/II falls down is in some of the very areas that you mention as being its strong points!

Yes, 'impact' is pretty good and the bass is strong and fairly well defined.

I don't think the 509/II has a unique sound at all - ime it's a rather old fashioned valve amp sound. Perhaps I would call it the 'missing link' between the old fashioned soggy-bass, moderate rez mids and smoothed off treble of all too many early valve jobbies and the new generation of higher rez valve amps that can go face to face with the best solid state and beat them on 'musicality'. "A bit on the slow side, but sturdy" might be a decent summary of my view on the 509/II.

I have no idea where I would place your EAR V20 within the valve sound pantheon as I have no experience of it. It would certainly seem to be a totally different animal to the 509/II.

All the above are just my personal opinions based on fairly extensive experience of quite a few bits of kit.

[jandl100]

hi jerry,
i agree, thats why its so good to read that there are still some dealers out there who have some morals left! but as you say, they do seem to be very far and few between these days.
anthony.

Yep, in my time as a hifi buyer I've been lied to, financially swindled and (I am pretty certain) knowingly sold faulty goods - all by established dealers.

Definitely one of the reasons I rarely buy kit from a dealer these days.

[snapper]

Yep, in my time as a hifi buyer I've been lied to, financially swindled and (I am pretty certain) knowingly sold faulty goods - all by established dealers.

Same here Jerry.

And all by the same person,who will be celebrating (next year) 30 years of ripping people off.

[Marco]

Name and shame...

Marco.