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

[Marco]

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 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.

LOL. I don't know what was going on there, Jerry, but the above is *so* diametrically opposed to the sound of (original 1978) 509s in my mate's system (with DBLs and a Croft pre) that it beggars belief

Quite frankly, I don't know what to say... Which is somewhat unusual for me!

I agree wholeheartedly with you though about:

the new generation of higher rez valve amps that can go face to face with the best solid state and beat them on 'musicality'

That's exactly what my Yaqin does. However, in my experience 509s don't sound anything like you describe. In my mate's system they are a bit 'dry' and clinical due to their studio pedigree, but are also very lively, detailed, neutral and punchy - a million miles away from the world of "soggy bass" and "smoothed off treble" you have alluded to...

Marco.

[snapper]

Name and shame...

Marco.

Don't know if I should,on an open forum.

I bought a Pathos phonostage (battery powered) and had it running for a week or so.

It sounded seriously bad.Broken.

When I returned it to the shop he said the power cord I was using to recharge the battery's was probably at fault.



Told me one of his JPS mains cords at just under £400.00 would solve the problem.



Needless to say this never cured anything.

Next up was his £800.00 i/c's.

A bargain at just £125.00



Then he gave me a s/h Trichord (can't remember the model) which he claimed was over £1800.00 'new'.

That was broken as well.

In fact years before this,about 1999/2000 or so I bought an Audio Note CD player from him,this was also broken.The drawer sometimes wouldn't go back in the player,so pretty useless.

He told me the problem wasn't his but I should contact Audio Note directly.
When I reminded him who I worked for he soon changed his tune and gave me a different CD player.

Unfortunately,a few months later,Audio Note called to say my CD player was now fixed,could they have my address to send it to,I replied too quickly that it wasn't mine anymore.

Anyway,I'm sure you can work out who it is by now.

[Neil McCauley]

Don't know if I should,on an open forum.

I bought a Pathos phonostage (battery powered) and had it running for a week or so.

It sounded seriously bad.Broken.

When I returned it to the shop he said the power cord I was using to recharge the battery's was probably at fault.



Told me one of his JPS mains cords at just under £400.00 would solve the problem.



Needless to say this never cured anything.

Next up was his £800.00 i/c's.

A bargain at just £125.00



Then he gave me a s/h Trichord (can't remember the model) which he claimed was over £1800.00 'new'.

That was broken as well.

In fact years before this,about 1999/2000 or so I bought an Audio Note CD player from him,this was also broken.The drawer sometimes wouldn't go back in the player,so pretty useless.

He told me the problem wasn't his but I should contact Audio Note directly.
When I reminded him who I worked for he soon changed his tune and gave me a different CD player.

Unfortunately,a few months later,Audio Note called to say my CD player was now fixed,could they have my address to send it to,I replied too quickly that it wasn't mine anymore.

Anyway,I'm sure you can work out who it is by now.

Good clues and a diverting piece of detective work. Yes, I'm pretty sure I know who you mean. Frankly though, very probably not worth the hassle of naming and shaming. I say this not because he is a fellow retailer, but because you and some of my other customers have learned a bitter lesson and the clues are clear. Life's too short. Re-reading this, looks to me like I'm losing my 'edge' - or maybe I'm just growing up a bit. Hard to tell. Hmm.

---//---

[Marco]

LOL. All is now clear, David. Jumping JACK flash

Howard, you're losing nothing, old chap. You are quality, sheer quality, my man!

Marco.

[snapper]

LOL. All is now clear, David. Jumping JACK flash


Marco.

Aye,and he's full of 'Gas Gas Gas'.

[jandl100]

LOL. I don't know what was going on there, Jerry, but the above is *so* diametrically opposed to the sound of (original 1978) 509s in my mate's system (with DBLs and a Croft pre) that it beggars belief

Well, you have been known to praise my listening skills .... what was it? .... ah yes, my description of Telefunken 12AX7 tubes.

And I never said the 509/II had soggy bass and rolled off treble - I described it as inbetween such antiquated beasts and the modern hi-rez valve amps (such as your Yaqin and my OTLs, both Chinese and excellent!).

I stand by my description of the 509/II

It has been known for the Mk2 of anything to be a step (or 2) backwards from the original. Maybe that's the case with the EAR 509.

[jandl100]

LOL. All is now clear, David. Jumping JACK flash

Howard, you're losing nothing, old chap. You are quality, sheer quality, my man!

Marco.

Aha, yup, I know who you are talking about having suffered the blandness of the £125 (£800) cables!

But to be fair I have bought a pair of used Audiostatic full range stats from these guys and the speakers were precisely as described and rapidly delivered. So a thumbs up for that major (£2k) purchase from Way Oop North.

[Complin]

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.

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.

Typical comments ive seen on the 509 are

(They are) quite reliable (only one failure for each amp in 20 years), and cheap to retube. You gave evidence of their exceptional qualities in dynamics. I agree with you; the same when you describe their excellent bass (less extended in the very low region and less punch in respect of best transistor design, but still better than a large majority of tube amps). They also have great detail and a bright balance. I'm not so persuaded of that unnatural quality you mention, but maybe it's a main character of the unusual pentode power tubes employed (PL509/519).

The 509 had two big pluses (and maybe more); an amazing dynamic impact/intensity and their outstanding bass reproduction (especially for tubes). They made most other amplifiers of that time sound like anemic wimps. However, I also felt they were “dirty” sounding and somewhat unnaturally bright. I preferred the earlier Michaelson and Austin TVA-1, which had the same sonic advantages, but was more natural and cleaner sounding. In conclusion, I would seriously consider these only for the bass when bi-amping. I've never done this myself, but based on what I've heard in the past, the results could be well worth the investment.

Stereophile The ten greatest amplifiers ever made
1) Naim NAP250
2) Fi 2A3
3) Conrad-Johnson Premier One
4) EAR 509
5) Audio Note Ongaku
6) Rankin Baby Ongaku
7) Quad II
8) Krell KSA-50
9) DNM PA3ΔS
10) Lamm ML2.1

On the contratry you have not trodden on anyones toes, everyone is entitled to your opinions. I'm very interested therefore in what you might consider to be a modern hi resolution valve amplifier?
Also should these be used with a valve or SS preamp or no preamp at all?

[Neil McCauley]

.......... should these be used with a valve or SS preamp or no preamp at all?

Manley Stingray. So good that I've just invested in the 'Neo Classic' 300B preamp and The Steelhead phono stage.

My preference is not for valve power amps though. I'll be partnering with the 2 x LFD PA3 mono amps. Very doubtful at my age that I'll go beyond that.

---//---

[jandl100]

On the contrary you have not trodden on anyones toes

Well, that's good. I've yet to come across a perfect component - if you know of one, please do let me know!

To be honest, I'm not sure that the quotes you give are that far away from my own feelings. I was quite complimentary to the 509/II bass saying " 'impact' is pretty good and the bass is strong and fairly well defined.". One of your quotes said that the 509 wouldn't be his choice for anything bit the bass end - kind of similar to me, but I'd not say the mids and treble were bad, just that you can get valve amps that do better these days.

As for the list of Top 10 Amps of all time from Stereophile. That list was never intended as the Top 10 best sounding amps - but those that had most influence on the evolution of hifi. Sure some of them sounded good, too - I currently own a Krell KSA50 - very nice indeed!

I never said the EAR 509/II was a bad sounding amp - just that it is a bit 'old fashioned' in its sound. You really can get higher rez valve amps these days. Some folks would still prefer the EAR 509, and that is fair enough as far as I am concerned.

___

As for pre-amps - I currently have an EAR 802 valve pre and an Audio Synthesis DAX Decade (which is a DAC with a pre-amp section). I prefer my Quad 57 stats using the EAR 802 driving the Krell, but my Bowers Active speakers with the DAX Decade on its own. For me, which to use just depends on system synergy.