The build quality of the KR 211 is fantastic. Easily the best modern 211 I have had in my hands and nicer than the ELROG.
211 valves: please share your experiences
- Thread starter Audiocrack
- Start date
The build quality of the KR 211 is fantastic. Easily the best modern 211 I have had in my hands and nicer than the ELROG.
Thanks. A difficult question : how would you compare the sound of 211 push pull versus PSE? Do you think the tube type (211) is more important than the topology?
Possibly an interesting link for our technical members that are interested in the RCA 211 tube:
http://shinjo.info/frank/sheets/049/2/211.pdf
http://shinjo.info/frank/sheets/049/2/211.pdf
My 211 collection mid-2009.
Some RCA 211s burning in my amps even earlier than that:
Plus some 75V and 150V voltage regulators. OA3 and OD3s - popular Juke Box valves apparently.
Around this time I would have told you the RCAs sounded the best. These days, running a custom built Apogee Duetta based design, I would say the Amperex valves are the best.
Why is that? Well, there's a certain sharpness present in the upper mids that is exposed by the Apogees. The Amperex 211s are free of this. Plus also they just don't have any identifiable "that sounds mildly odd" issues. The GE 211s have a comparatively thumpy bass that the Amperex is also free of. Initially that seems like a plus from the GE, but after a while it wears a bit thin.
So in my current system (in 2009 I was using Martin Logans), the Amperex are the best choice.
I am unsure why the MLs didn't appear to show this issue, because the recent hORNS Autotech 211 experiment also showed it to be an issue.
So my advice to Rudolf is to get the Kagura's biased for the Amperex 211s and see if he agrees. Knowing TIDAL's lesser offerings he will hear it if it is there. The first time I heard TIDAL speakers at Munich 2011 I came away very impressed. More so by a margin than in later years if I am honest but that is probably down to ancillary kit issues and show conditions more than anything else.
Some RCA 211s burning in my amps even earlier than that:
Plus some 75V and 150V voltage regulators. OA3 and OD3s - popular Juke Box valves apparently.
Around this time I would have told you the RCAs sounded the best. These days, running a custom built Apogee Duetta based design, I would say the Amperex valves are the best.
Why is that? Well, there's a certain sharpness present in the upper mids that is exposed by the Apogees. The Amperex 211s are free of this. Plus also they just don't have any identifiable "that sounds mildly odd" issues. The GE 211s have a comparatively thumpy bass that the Amperex is also free of. Initially that seems like a plus from the GE, but after a while it wears a bit thin.
So in my current system (in 2009 I was using Martin Logans), the Amperex are the best choice.
I am unsure why the MLs didn't appear to show this issue, because the recent hORNS Autotech 211 experiment also showed it to be an issue.
So my advice to Rudolf is to get the Kagura's biased for the Amperex 211s and see if he agrees. Knowing TIDAL's lesser offerings he will hear it if it is there. The first time I heard TIDAL speakers at Munich 2011 I came away very impressed. More so by a margin than in later years if I am honest but that is probably down to ancillary kit issues and show conditions more than anything else.
My 211 collection mid-2009.
Some RCA 211s burning in my amps even earlier than that:
Plus some 75V and 150V voltage regulators. OA3 and OD3s - popular Juke Box valves apparently.
Around this time I would have told you the RCAs sounded the best. These days, running a custom built Apogee Duetta based design, I would say the Amperex valves are the best.
Why is that? Well, there's a certain sharpness present in the upper mids that is exposed by the Apogees. The Amperex 211s are free of this. Plus also they just don't have any identifiable "that sounds mildly odd" issues. The GE 211s have a comparatively thumpy bass that the Amperex is also free of. Initially that seems like a plus from the GE, but after a while it wears a bit thin.
So in my current system (in 2009 I was using Martin Logans), the Amperex are the best choice.
I am unsure why the MLs didn't appear to show this issue, because the recent hORNS Autotech 211 experiment also showed it to be an issue.
So my advice to Rudolf is to get the Kagura's biased for the Amperex 211s and see if he agrees. Knowing TIDAL's lesser offerings he will hear it if it is there. The first time I heard TIDAL speakers at Munich 2011 I came away very impressed. More so by a margin than in later years if I am honest but that is probably down to ancillary kit issues and show conditions more than anything else.
Thanks Justin. Very interesting feedback.
You had - or should I say: you have? - a mighty impressive collection of 211 valves!!
Were you ever able to compare the Amperex ‘brass’ 211 tubes to the United Electronics 211 valves in any of your systems? So does your preference for the Amperex ‘brass’ 211 not only includes the GE and the RCA but also the UE 211 tubes? I am not sure if the UE picture you supplied us with is of your own amp.
I am waiting for the Tripoint Emperor grounding cables to arrive at the end of this month (hopefully). They have a big impact on the total presentation of the Tidal LA/Kondo system. Once I have inserted those cables and they have settled I will try the Amperex as well as the UE 211 tubes. Not really looking forward to the rebiassing though because that is quite an operation with the Kagura’s. That said, we are definately going to experiment with the Amperex and UE 211 valves I have currently available.
I actually have 2 less 211s now than in the shot above. I sold the UE 211 as I said earlier in the thread I could only track down one with the same internal construction. UE seemed to change the way they made their 211s quite a bit. They were still identifiably UE and not some third party e.g. you can find RCA branded GEs.
So Rudolf, if you have some UE 211s I would be prepared to bet they are not the same as the one I had above when you look at them closely.
There is also a Taylor 211 in there somewhere. I sold that too.
Be curious to see if your viewpoint alters once the Amperex have been used for a few days Rudolf. I sometimes wonder whether the RCAs, if they haven't been used for a few years, need a bit of re-use for a week or two before they come back on form. But TBH the way they currently sound I'm not sure I'd want to have to go through the process to be sure!
So Rudolf, if you have some UE 211s I would be prepared to bet they are not the same as the one I had above when you look at them closely.
There is also a Taylor 211 in there somewhere. I sold that too.
Be curious to see if your viewpoint alters once the Amperex have been used for a few days Rudolf. I sometimes wonder whether the RCAs, if they haven't been used for a few years, need a bit of re-use for a week or two before they come back on form. But TBH the way they currently sound I'm not sure I'd want to have to go through the process to be sure!
I actually have 2 less 211s now than in the shot above. I sold the UE 211 as I said earlier in the thread I could only track down one with the same internal construction. UE seemed to change the way they made their 211s quite a bit. They were still identifiably UE and not some third party e.g. you can find RCA branded GEs.
So Rudolf, if you have some UE 211s I would be prepared to bet they are not the same as the one I had above when you look at them closely.
There is also a Taylor 211 in there somewhere. I sold that too.
Be curious to see if your viewpoint alters once the Amperex have been used for a few days Rudolf. I sometimes wonder whether the RCAs, if they haven't been used for a few years, need a bit of re-use for a week or two before they come back on form. But TBH the way they currently sound I'm not sure I'd want to have to go through the process to be sure!
I only compared the stock Kondo 211 tubes to the RCA 211 valves in the Kagura amps. According to the seller the RCA’s had played around 20 hours when I bought them. When we readjusted the bias we could see/measure that the RCA’s had indeed played very little. I do not know how much hours 211 valves need to be considered (more or less) played in. However, from the first moment on the RCA 211 tubes sounded much better than the stock Kondo 211 valves. To put it bluntly: the RCA’s deliver a less synthetic/more real sound.
However, I have now played the RCA’s for about 80-100 hours and they clearly ‘opened up’ and sound more natural than in the beginning. I am really impressed with how the RCA 211 tubes are performing in my Kagura’s and in all honesty I do not really recognize your and Kedar’s impressions regarding the RCA’s. But of course this does not mean that I am right or that you and Kedar are wrong.
First of all I have never heard the Amperex ‘brass’ and the UE 211 tubes in my life, let alone in the Kagura amps. Furthermore my audio system, acoustics, power, grounding, etc. differ dramatically from your system and conditions. It is quite possible that the nos 211 brands interact differently with various amps/systems, don’t you think?
Anyway, let’s see what happens once I have inserted the Amperex and UE 211 valves. I am afraid that will take a while but I am definately going to try the Amperex ‘brass’ and UE 211 valves in the Kagura amps.
I actually have 2 less 211s now than in the shot above. I sold the UE 211 as I said earlier in the thread I could only track down one with the same internal construction. UE seemed to change the way they made their 211s quite a bit. They were still identifiably UE and not some third party e.g. you can find RCA branded GEs.
So Rudolf, if you have some UE 211s I would be prepared to bet they are not the same as the one I had above when you look at them closely.
There is also a Taylor 211 in there somewhere. I sold that too.
Be curious to see if your viewpoint alters once the Amperex have been used for a few days Rudolf. I sometimes wonder whether the RCAs, if they haven't been used for a few years, need a bit of re-use for a week or two before they come back on form. But TBH the way they currently sound I'm not sure I'd want to have to go through the process to be sure!
Btw, forgot to mention that my UE 211 tubes - as you already predicted - indeed differ from your 211 valve in the picture. My UE’s do not have this central glass support at the top. I do not know however how important these glass supports are for the sound quality.
A while back someone challenged me on a forum stating he could not see why there would be any difference between various 211s in terms of sound quality. This guy was a noted technical expert.
So I got a test microphone out, and proceeded to take system frequency response plots of the various quads I had. What I found is up to 3Db difference in sections of the frequency response from 20Hz to 20KHz. What's more, the measurements were very definitely repeatable, in the sense that the various quads always displayed the same characteristics when re-measured.
So a sharp, or raised frequency response of one valve at say, 8KHz, may not be heard as a negative in a system that has a frequency response with a corresponding dip at that frequency.
Do the stock Kondo valves have a piece of mica at the top? If so, they are probably the cheapest Shuguangs on the planet. I have seen them being used in Kagura's at various shows, including Munich. Same is true for various Audio Note amps. I guess they are worried about using NOS at shows, as I am sure (know) that the component quality inside these amps is very high.
You just need to find what suits you best, Rudolf. I really would NOT pay much attention to what other people say when it comes to valve rolling. There are just too many variables in a hi-fi system and also in people's ears for it to make sense.
That said, I agreed with nearly all the comments being made during the recent 211 rolling experiment. Scarily so. Which tended to indicate we all heard pretty much the same thing. That is pretty freaky, really.
The glass support at the top of the UE is to reduce internal resonance/microphony. It is probably a good thing in terms of accuracy, but some people seem to like microphonic valves as they can give a more analogue feel i.e. a bit like the feedback a turntable cartridge picks up at higher SPLs. It leads to a sense of better space and air, when in fact the result is not technically as good.
Hi-fi is mad. But it is fun
So I got a test microphone out, and proceeded to take system frequency response plots of the various quads I had. What I found is up to 3Db difference in sections of the frequency response from 20Hz to 20KHz. What's more, the measurements were very definitely repeatable, in the sense that the various quads always displayed the same characteristics when re-measured.
So a sharp, or raised frequency response of one valve at say, 8KHz, may not be heard as a negative in a system that has a frequency response with a corresponding dip at that frequency.
Do the stock Kondo valves have a piece of mica at the top? If so, they are probably the cheapest Shuguangs on the planet. I have seen them being used in Kagura's at various shows, including Munich. Same is true for various Audio Note amps. I guess they are worried about using NOS at shows, as I am sure (know) that the component quality inside these amps is very high.
You just need to find what suits you best, Rudolf. I really would NOT pay much attention to what other people say when it comes to valve rolling. There are just too many variables in a hi-fi system and also in people's ears for it to make sense.
That said, I agreed with nearly all the comments being made during the recent 211 rolling experiment. Scarily so. Which tended to indicate we all heard pretty much the same thing. That is pretty freaky, really.
The glass support at the top of the UE is to reduce internal resonance/microphony. It is probably a good thing in terms of accuracy, but some people seem to like microphonic valves as they can give a more analogue feel i.e. a bit like the feedback a turntable cartridge picks up at higher SPLs. It leads to a sense of better space and air, when in fact the result is not technically as good.
Hi-fi is mad. But it is fun
A while back someone challenged me on a forum stating he could not see why there would be any difference between various 211s in terms of sound quality. This guy was a noted technical expert.
So I got a test microphone out, and proceeded to take system frequency response plots of the various quads I had. What I found is up to 3Db difference in sections of the frequency response from 20Hz to 20KHz. What's more, the measurements were very definitely repeatable, in the sense that the various quads always displayed the same characteristics when re-measured.
So a sharp, or raised frequency response of one valve at say, 8KHz, may not be heard as a negative in a system that has a frequency response with a corresponding dip at that frequency.
Do the stock Kondo valves have a piece of mica at the top? If so, they are probably the cheapest Shuguangs on the planet. I have seen them being used in Kagura's at various shows, including Munich. Same is true for various Audio Note amps. I guess they are worried about using NOS at shows, as I am sure (know) that the component quality inside these amps is very high.
You just need to find what suits you best, Rudolf. I really would NOT pay much attention to what other people say when it comes to valve rolling. There are just too many variables in a hi-fi system and also in people's ears for it to make sense.
That said, I agreed with nearly all the comments being made during the recent 211 rolling experiment. Scarily so. Which tended to indicate we all heard pretty much the same thing. That is pretty freaky, really.
The glass support at the top of the UE is to reduce internal resonance/microphony. It is probably a good thing in terms of accuracy, but some people seem to like microphonic valves as they can give a more analogue feel i.e. a bit like the feedback a turntable cartridge picks up at higher SPLs. It leads to a sense of better space and air, when in fact the result is not technically as good.
Hi-fi is mad. But it is fun
Yep, totally agree with you that this hobby is a mad struggle but also fun and - hopefully in the end - rewarding. All Kagura’s are delivered with the same (Chinese made) 211 tubes; the Kondo factory apparently does not have enough nos 211 valves available anymore to ensure a constant quality as regards sold Kagura and Ongaku amps (Gakuon amps are not being produced anymore).
So you are completely right implying that it is no wonder that the RCA’s 211 tubes sound much, much better than the Kondo stock 211 valves.
Audiophiles agreeing with each other during an audio experiment is a indeed real miracle!
I looked at the the curves available for various brands of 211 in the net and they showed significant differences. This means that you will surely measure differences in performance when changing brands. I remember reading in the DIYaudio forum that people optimized the point of operation of tubes for the transformer impedance and plate voltage - when we refer to subjective performance of tubes, it is always relative to one amplifier.
Audio Research and VTL tubes used the same type of tubes - but ARC operated them at 420V/65mA and VTL at 580/35mA - they would surely sound very different!
Audio Research and VTL tubes used the same type of tubes - but ARC operated them at 420V/65mA and VTL at 580/35mA - they would surely sound very different!
Thanks Micro, good to know that differences in 211 sound that few of us have experienced can (partly) be explained by technical data.
But the acid test is the fact the a test mic can easily "hear it". If a mic can't hear a change, I am very dubious that a human can i.e. there almost definitely isn't a difference as a result of any component change you may recently have made. In any part of your system.
That's why a test mic is essential kit, IMHO. It will answer questions no review will ever provide you with. And it will provide you with deeper insight the moment you start to use one.
That's why a test mic is essential kit, IMHO. It will answer questions no review will ever provide you with. And it will provide you with deeper insight the moment you start to use one.
Assuming that the amplifier does not have global feedback, we risk that gain varies by a couple of dBs when we change the output tubes. Because of this, short time tube rolling without measurements can be a very misleading game.
Just run an FR plot, make a component change, and make another FR plot. Play spot the difference.
You are right I found different output levels when changing tubes/valves. But this can easily be accommodated for/factored out with a decent software tool. What you are really interested in is changes in shape of the FR plot.
What a test mic picks up is phenomenal. This becomes evident very, very quickly when zooming in and generally inspecting the results.
Here are some comments praising the quality of the United Electronics 211 tubes:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/tubes-valves/137731-wouldnt-love-united-electronics-211s.html
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/tubes-valves/137731-wouldnt-love-united-electronics-211s.html
And here is another link with references to various 211 valves:
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=109403.0
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=109403.0
The last link for today in which Steve Hoffman describes his experience with various 211 tubes and proclaiming the RCA 211 as ‘the best’ (and what an attractive prices for the 211 valves back in the old nineties!):
http://www.monoandstereo.com/2016/04/211-tube-rolling.html
As regards the modern 211 tubes he does not mention that he listened to the Kron 211. So rather silly to proclaim Elrog the ‘best’ currently produced 211 valve.
http://www.monoandstereo.com/2016/04/211-tube-rolling.html
As regards the modern 211 tubes he does not mention that he listened to the Kron 211. So rather silly to proclaim Elrog the ‘best’ currently produced 211 valve.
Last edited:
Similar threads
