Doctor's Orders-Part Two-The New Listening Room Of Steve Williams

[Edward Pong]

Steve, the power supplies have huge effects on the sound! We use 2 RCA 3B25 Gas rectifying tubes for my RCA838 transmission tube amp for my subwoofers. Tony has always stressed the importance of tube rectified power supplies. The DIY guys can try very different tubes & all have different character... Fun!

Ed

 

[Steve Williams]

Steve, the power supplies have huge effects on the sound! We use 2 RCA 3B25 Gas rectifying tubes for my RCA838 transmission tube amp for my subwoofers. Tony has always stressed the importance of tube rectified power supplies. The DIY guys can try very different tubes & all have different character... Fun!

Ed

I have to admit that I am really liking this 75 yo tube

 

[highstream]

I do have on order a Shuguang gz480 but it is back ordered

Back ordered with whom?

 

[Steve Williams]

Back ordered with whom?

I did a very extensive search as to companies that sell this tube. "Back ordered" as you suggest is not the best word as virtually every tube seller in SE Asia is sold out while Shuguang is temporarily closed however I did find one company that said "sold out doesn't mean it is unavailable and they are working on getting me one. Until they do I will keep my little find private until I get mine (they seemed to suggest it is possible). I will let everyone know how it pans out but not until then

In the meanwhile this 1946 Philco 5u4g is simply a killer tube

 

[highstream]

Understood. I’ve only seen two sites that list the GZ480, with quite different pricing.

Did you mean to post a photo of the Philco? I read that they were made by RCA then Sylvania, and some of the latter had Sylvania date codes. What tonal quality does the Philco add to your system?

 

[rbbert]

Although my experience with tubed electronics is somewhat limited, I have found that the rectifier in line stages (preamp, DAC output stage) is very significant, and empirical knowledge from users of guitar amplifiers (Fender, Marshall, etc) over the last 50-60 years should have clued us all in.

 

[highstream]

I agree. But “killer” tube depends on your tastes. I am trying to gauge what tonally you heard when adding it, e.g., clean and detailed, modestly warm, romantically lush, or... Thanks.

 

[Steve Williams]

I agree. But “killer” tube depends on your tastes. I am trying to gauge what tonally you heard when adding it, e.g., clean and detailed, modestly warm, romantically lush, or... Thanks.

midcrange is exquisite
3D layering of the soundstage
top to bottom sounds better than my RK-KR 5u4g
it does lack some of the dynamics of the RK 5u4g but to a minor degree

Bottom line is “it sounds natural” which for me is the ultimate goal

 

[microstrip]

Although my experience with tubed electronics is somewhat limited, I have found that the rectifier in line stages (preamp, DAC output stage) is very significant, and empirical knowledge from users of guitar amplifiers (Fender, Marshall, etc) over the last 50-60 years should have clued us all in.

Yes, it is a well know subject - compatible rectifiers have very different internal resistance and electrode capacitance. And knowledge was not only empirical - there were papers in magazines such as Wireless World addressing it and explaining the differences, although the case of class AB guitar amplifiers is somewhat different from our typical class A applications. In general, higher current rectifiers have lower internal resistance and higher parasitic capacitance.

A simple way of getting different types of sound with rectifiers is wring them in parallel.

 

[Steve Williams]

I did a very extensive search as to companies that sell this tube. "Back ordered" as you suggest is not the best word as virtually every tube seller in SE Asia is sold out while Shuguang is temporarily closed however I did find one company that said "sold out doesn't mean it is unavailable and they are working on getting me one. Until they do I will keep my little find private until I get mine (they seemed to suggest it is possible). I will let everyone know how it pans out but not until then

In the meanwhile this 1946 Philco 5u4g is simply a killer tube

FWIW, I have paid my money and the order taken. They say I will have the tube after Jan5. They just didn't say what year but I am a trusting guy and this will be a new tube, not used

 

[highstream]

midcrange is exquisite
3D layering of the soundstage
top to bottom sounds better than my RK-KR 5u4g
it does lack some of the dynamics of the RK 5u4g but to a minor degree

Bottom line is “it sounds natural” which for me is the ultimate goal

Natural means different things to different people, depending on the speaker's ears and tastes (there's even a SCOTUS justice or two that use that term to define their political/judicial philosophies). While you didn't answer my question directly, I'm guessing that if you like the sound of the KR 5u4g RK, the Philco must be on the clean and detailed side, without much, if any warmth.

 

[highstream]

FWIW, I have paid my money and the order taken. They say I will have the tube after Jan5. They just didn't say what year but I am a trusting guy and this will be a new tube, not used

Well, please let us know when you get it and from whom. Someone on the Lampi TRP thread got one from yoycart.com for around $300, now $312.50, + ~$25 shipping. Mable Audio shows them for $178 + ~$45 shipping, but I couldn't get their site to recognize one of the last steps in purchasing, and they haven't responded to emails.

 

[highstream]

And I have asked before, who says their system is "hifi, unnatural", preferring it to "natural"? I can't think of any self respecting audiophile.
"Natural" must rank as the least useful audio lexicon term that we're obliged to use.

When I first got back in audio several years ago, I used "natural" in discussions to mean modestly warm. Then, along with some closer listening to live music, I that realized everyone's tastes, hearing ability, experience with music and priorities in sound are different, and so natural was not just meaningless, but its use was presumptuous on my part. Take the RK5u4g. Some people love it. Who am I to criticize? To me, in spite of it's detail and PRAT, tonally its effect on music doesn't take long to make me feel angry, wanting to throw my system out the window (call that my natural reaction), to get what I'm hearing as far away as possible (or left off). That's why I ask about where gear, including tubes, stands on the clean/detailed to various degrees of warmth continuum. Saves time and money.

 

[highstream]

FWIW, I have paid my money and the order taken. They say I will have the tube after Jan5. They just didn't say what year but I am a trusting guy and this will be a new tube, not used

Well, please let us know when you get it and from whom. Someone on the Lampi TRP thread got one from yoycart.com for around $300, now $312.50, + ~$25 shipping. Mable Audio shows them for $178 + ~$45 shipping, but they haven't answered my emails.

 

[PeterA]

And I have asked before, who says their system is "hifi, unnatural", preferring it to "natural"? I can't think of any self respecting audiophile.
"Natural" must rank as the least useful audio lexicon term that we're obliged to use.

Marc, for me the term is a reference to the way live music sounds, or my memory of it. People can find that useful or useless, but the meaning is clear. You know it when you hear it.

 

[highstream]

Exactly. Without mention of the KR-RK, I wouldn't have a clue whether or not this was a tube worth spending some money to take a listen to.

 

[Steve Williams]

Natural means different things to different people, depending on the speaker's ears and tastes (there's even a SCOTUS justice or two that use that term to define their political/judicial philosophies). While you didn't answer my question directly, I'm guessing that if you like the sound of the KR 5u4g RK, the Philco must be on the clean and detailed side, without much, if any warmth.

You have to spend a week long crusade into the desert of Utah to understand what ddk preaches......"above all else it must sound natural"
My take away from my week sojourn there was that not only should the sound of instruments have the correct timbre and voices sound real but so also nothing is exaggerated. IOW if someone says " that X piece of gear was a welcome addition to his system because he now has booming bass or ...........suggests the sound isn't natural because attention is now being drawn to the deep bass" suggesting coloration.

To that extent, this is exactly what this Philco tube does differently fro the RK-KR 5u4g

 

[the sound of Tao]

My main objection to "natural" is that before people started using it abundantly they wrote meaningful descriptions of the sound of their systems with some detail that we could understand. Now they just say it sounds more "natural" than previous week.

Anyway, one nice thing is that sometime ago digital was not "natural", currently it seems it is accepted as being "natural".



Fortunately here we have a typical description in audiophile lexicon of what is meant to him by "sounds natural" . Thanks, Steve!

I like the idea but I’m not sure they did always Micro. So often the feedback of many was just based in what some thought was best. Complex and in-depth description is difficult and like many here we do our best.

Also just because someone identifies something as having a tendency to sound natural isn’t then the end of the process. It’s just part of the descriptive process. Nothing is really lost by it’s usage. It’s meaningful to some and not so much to others. I struggle with why people can’t easily grasp the concept but I’m also happy to just let that go.

Natural is for me a simple holistic reference that can build towards understanding when used in conjunction with other criteria. It’s not that hard.

I never get why people want to box everyone’s language in so every part of terminology is expected to perform in some absolute way. These are parts of conversation. If someone doesn’t get this particular part then no real harm. When Peter or David or Tang or Ked use it as a descriptor I appreciate it. We are building towards understanding not doing a checklist tick box of atomistic criteria and that’s then by default all we’re allowed.

For those that hate it just ignore the term, it’s like videos, useful for some not so useful for others. But why some people want to then cry out against the usage is beyond me. Are we so boxed in ffs... surely language allows for us explore. Some hate the term. Same with videos... I just figure if you don’t find things useful then move past them. I appreciate some things and not others. I just don’t expect everyone to conform to my specific world view. We need to lighten up or we’ll scare off every half interesting person that wants to come and join in if it’s all just a rule bound tedious parse fest. This thing where people want to hyper analyse and parse every bit of a post is just terrible. We are old and tired but surely we can have some lightness and latitude in 2021

 

[tima]

My main objection to "natural" is that before people started using it abundantly they wrote meaningful descriptions of the sound of their systems with some detail that we could understand.

Yes. I agree.

If you understand "natural" in the ddk sense you may believe that is the only word you need. Its virtue is its simplicity and I can appreciate that. If you don't understand "natural" the word is so generic that an audiophile definition using audiophile meaningful descriptions is called for. Admittedly doing so is more work. Meaningful descriptions of the sound of systems and/or components make the effort to expose what the writer is hearing - the benefit or aim of doing so is not so much for the writer but for the reader. Doing so is more communicative, imo. But I have no problem in seeing "natural" written in conjunction with such effort.

The extreme is "musical". I won't use it and if I did in the distant past, then mea culpa. "The XYZ speakers sound so musical." is so generic and vacuous. It is the harbor of those with either insufficient vocabularly or the inability to describe what they hear or the lazy. (Sorry, I realize that is harsh.)

My take away from my week sojourn there was that not only should the sound of instruments have the correct timbre and voices sound real but so also nothing is exaggerated.

Here, Steve takes the time to relay what his desert sojourn taught.

 

[tima]

I never get why people want to box everyone’s language in so every part of terminology is expected to perform in some absolute way.

From another angle: Are we in the salon posing or in the forum attempting to communicate? <smile>

Describing sound is difficult. Many audiophiles enjoy talking about it. If we don't work at or toward some shared vocabulary then more time is spent talking about meta-issues of language and less time talking about the subject at hand.