Aries Cerat, Lampizator, Audio Research, Analysis Omega, Rockports
- Thread starter bonzo75
- Start date
This is not relevant for this particular discussion because the Aries is using the same tube and the GG does not require bias adjustments.
But that is how the dac is made. For the purposes of an evaluation, the point whilst interesting, is moot. You can have concerns about whether you think Lukasz has designed a good circuit or not but not whether this impacted the test. If the distortion data changed when Ked put a 242 (either better or worse) it makes no difference if asking the question "is the GG with 242 better than the Aries"
Without wishing to take this on a tangent, all audio "reviewing" in the context we know it and unless only based on measurement data is highly subjective. I come from the world of evidence based medicine / stats / clinical trials - an audio review from any main stream magazine is virtually all subjective. Yes there are objective elements a posteori like in Stereophile with their measurement data, and the excellent measurement data in Hi-Fi news, but the prose is largely based on opinion in a hugely confounded and unblinded environment. Let us not pretend that any of this has scientific rigour because it does not. I always found that I followed certain reviewers because I seemed to find a high level of concordance with my own observations and thus this made sense. Other reviewers can and have made conclusions on products that seems incredulous to me. Anyway - closing this can of worms now.
bonzo75 said:
bonzo75 said:
Hey Bonzo,
Yeah, for sure, I agree.
Funny you mention the 300b. Before we moved to the continent I investigated commissioning a set of direct-coupled power amps from three builders - JC Morrison, Thomas Mayer and Aldo D’Urso - based around the 300b ala WE. None of them were prepared to make a 300b amp unless I was prepared to go all in for transformers costing more than the Shindo/EAR I was using at the time (that, and Aldo was not a fan of using interstage transformers, although I hear through the grapevine he's recanted his oath). They mentioned there was a reason the WE stuff had serious iron to begin with and suggested if I wasn't prepared to play with the big boys they could make a far better amp for less from lesser tubes with better circuitry. We abandoned those plans once we discovered we were moving. It’s possible the Lampi isn’t the ideal platform for a 300b, but that’s conjecture on my part. I bet the Silbatone 300b is killer, but then, it should be.
Incidentally, one of my favourite guitar amps is built around the EL84 (the Matchless HC-30), but I understand its limited appeal for hi-fi.
Yep, JC Morrison and Dr. Bae know how to make black-market kidney selling stuff. That was the 16a, right? Hoping they'll be at Munich this year with more crazy unobtainable exotica. I'd really prefer to hang onto my kidneys, so limited exposure might be best.
This was Munich. In 2014 12a and 13a used per channel, with 13a for the bass. In 2015 with those 300a I forget the model number. 16a was heard at two separate occasions, but not with these valves. Heard with WE, GIP, line magnetic. I did hear with WE reissue and AVVT, preferred the latter.
So you think the Lampizator is just adjusting the bias for each tube type automatically? Each tube type has quite different bias requirements to work optimally. The Aries has one tube type where the bias is adjustable and this has consequences for the sound. By tube rolling in the Lampizator you are doing kind of the same thing because each tube is in a different part of its curve relative to what is optimal. One type of tube is likely the closest to getting ideally what it needs.
Most of those tube types will "work" at a single set of operating voltages and currents; however, they will all not be optimal. As micro said, gain is audibly different so things like noise and distortion will likely be as well. If your DAC has been optimzed for the 242 then it is no wonder the other tubes sound worse. You would have to compare against one optimized with a different output tube and then gain match to tell if the 242 was really better or only better in your DAC.
No, but the level matching does given how much higher the output was for the 242.
Interesting you mention the iron. My JJ amp has parallel 300B and the darn thing weighs 42kg! The dual mono power transformers weigh about 7 kg each and the output trannies are significantly larger... I would put them at about 12kg each and they are double "C" and not EI ones. Transparency is superb and bass heft not too bad but bass articulation is again superb. All SETs for power applications need big well designed iron but if you use it as a line level stage then you don't need iron at all. Since the gain is changing then the output cannot be a cathode follower, it is likely a grounded cathode design with output impedance around 1kohm.
The circuit is auto balancing for 2 wattage settings. That is why some tubes are on high setting and some on low setting, changed by a rocker switch.
No I doubt the GG is adjusting bias - I think your conclusion is accurate i.e. that there is a fixed setting. This I don't doubt.
> It is just that this isn't relevant to the comparison in question I.e. GG vs Aries. The fact that you can't adjust bias for each tube in a GG makes absolutely no difference in the question. If Ked stumbled upon the 242 which happens to have (by chance) the optimised bias "compromise" then this is good news for GG owners but not important in asking whether it beats the Aries. Remember the Aries was adjusted and can be adjusted.
Rematching the level defeats the objective of this test, which was to test by ear whether a component had a level that you found particularly preferable.
You can do that too...however, it is generally from my opinion that the lower level a device sounds better the better the device usually is...assuming it sounded good in the first place.
Similar threads
