Yes, there was some glare on upper violins and the tubes were smoothing over transients. I'll have to listen more on depth - the Rowland is more upfront by nature.
KeithR's "Dream Speaker" Search
- Thread starter KeithR
- Start date
Yes, there was some glare on upper violins and the tubes were smoothing over transients. I'll have to listen more on depth - the Rowland is more upfront by nature.
The LTA preamp is supplied stock with a pair of hand-picked NOS 12sn7 dual triode tubes, and a pair of current-production Russian Gold Lion 12at7. The 12sn7 tubes in this case are United Electron grey glass. I will have to remember to get the letter codes to try to determine the actual origin of them. United Electron did make tubes during WWII, and very good ones, but shortly after the war became a supplier of glass and tube parts to other makers, and a remarketer of tubes made by RCA, Sylvania, GE and others. Since grey glass envelopes were pretty much abandoned by the first couple of years of the 1950s, it's possible that Keith's tubes originated from the WWII era United Electron factory. If a few years newer then I expect they were made by either RCA or Sylvania. The grey glass obscures the tube internals from inspection.
The 12sn7 is a 6sn7 with a 12v heater. Xsn7 tubes from that era are some of the best sounding dual triodes you can find for preamp-level gain. I brought some alternates, since the preamp can use 6sn7 types with a jumper change, so we compared the stock United Electric 12sn7s with some known high grade 6sn7 types in my inventory: 1 pair of RCA red base 5692 (usually provides a dose of snap and dynamics to an oversmooth 6sn7 component), 1 pair of Sylvania 1945 production 6sn7w (tone-dense and articulate), and a pair of Sylvania 1950s chrome domes (full-bodied with fast bass).
The United Electron 12sn7s supplied are excellent and LTA is doing a good job with their NOS tube selection. No alternative was better holistically. None were worse either. Just different by small degrees. I think the Berning preamp circuit has a sonic thumbprint that narrows tube differences, and it's an objective thumbprint, which I recall from all of his electronics over the years. We were trying to find a little more snap and even the RCA 5692 wasn't delivering much more.
However, I immediately suspected the Russian 12at7 as being responsible for glare in the upper strings and female vocal range, as well as sanding down articulation, especially notable during arpeggios of any kind. I know those 12A*7 Russian production tubes, as they show up in guitar amps and current production preamps, and I don't really like them in anything -- or I should say any gear shipped with them stock can be quickly improved through substitution. We found the missing snap in its replacement.
I didn't have as wide a variety of 12at7s as I have of 12au and a12ax types but I have a narrower range of very good choices. I brought along a pair of Amperex Bugle Boy Holland 12at7, a pair of Amperex Germany 12at7, and a pair of RTC (France) 12at7. The 12at7 position clearly reveals differences in tubes, even very good ones. The RTC 12at7 had the best balance of objectivity, articulation, tone and transparency in that circuit and with the Ampzilla involved. While all the NOS choices I had with me were a large improvement over the stock Russian Gold Lions, the German Amperex overmoothed arpeggio articulation and thickened bass. The Bugle Boy delivered a slightly larger soundstage but did not mitigate the glare as much as I thought possible. The RTC brought everything into balance. Any of them would have been subjectively fine replacing the current production tubes, so I am referencing relatively small differences but they are differences that once heard cannot be unheard. The longer we listened the bigger the advantage offered by the RTCs.
Phil
The 12sn7 is a 6sn7 with a 12v heater. Xsn7 tubes from that era are some of the best sounding dual triodes you can find for preamp-level gain. I brought some alternates, since the preamp can use 6sn7 types with a jumper change, so we compared the stock United Electric 12sn7s with some known high grade 6sn7 types in my inventory: 1 pair of RCA red base 5692 (usually provides a dose of snap and dynamics to an oversmooth 6sn7 component), 1 pair of Sylvania 1945 production 6sn7w (tone-dense and articulate), and a pair of Sylvania 1950s chrome domes (full-bodied with fast bass).
The United Electron 12sn7s supplied are excellent and LTA is doing a good job with their NOS tube selection. No alternative was better holistically. None were worse either. Just different by small degrees. I think the Berning preamp circuit has a sonic thumbprint that narrows tube differences, and it's an objective thumbprint, which I recall from all of his electronics over the years. We were trying to find a little more snap and even the RCA 5692 wasn't delivering much more.
However, I immediately suspected the Russian 12at7 as being responsible for glare in the upper strings and female vocal range, as well as sanding down articulation, especially notable during arpeggios of any kind. I know those 12A*7 Russian production tubes, as they show up in guitar amps and current production preamps, and I don't really like them in anything -- or I should say any gear shipped with them stock can be quickly improved through substitution. We found the missing snap in its replacement.
I didn't have as wide a variety of 12at7s as I have of 12au and a12ax types but I have a narrower range of very good choices. I brought along a pair of Amperex Bugle Boy Holland 12at7, a pair of Amperex Germany 12at7, and a pair of RTC (France) 12at7. The 12at7 position clearly reveals differences in tubes, even very good ones. The RTC 12at7 had the best balance of objectivity, articulation, tone and transparency in that circuit and with the Ampzilla involved. While all the NOS choices I had with me were a large improvement over the stock Russian Gold Lions, the German Amperex overmoothed arpeggio articulation and thickened bass. The Bugle Boy delivered a slightly larger soundstage but did not mitigate the glare as much as I thought possible. The RTC brought everything into balance. Any of them would have been subjectively fine replacing the current production tubes, so I am referencing relatively small differences but they are differences that once heard cannot be unheard. The longer we listened the bigger the advantage offered by the RTCs.
Phil
Last edited:
LMAO! Kinda true for sure. Wilson's I heard have amazing bass as well. Can always add some good subs or a sub array.
I totally respect Alon's desire for ultra crisp, clear and transparent bass. I think Yoav has the same goal hence both having sealed designs. But I do think this can lead to lack of impact and weight. But of course this is highly room dependent.
Which particular tracks do you have in mind that may lack bass impact/weight with YG or Magico speakers compared to bass reflex designs like Wilson or Rockport? Or which instruments?
Keith, I'm sure with all of your speaker auditioning that you are very sure whether you heard the M2 and you heard "no bass". With trying three different amplifiers, may I ask if the speakers were in the same room in the same placement and whoever demoed the M2s connected 3 different amps up for the listening?
I ask because in my experience bass is pretty much all room and placement dependent vs. amplifier dependent. Of course if an amp can't drive a speaker properly then sure you could have bass problems. If your audition of the M2s was with 100 Watt + amps which I would imagine it was then I would bet a pretty penny that what you heard was placement or room issues that provided the results you heard.
I will call it if it's the case, but in this case I know for certain that the M2 deliver VERY satisfying bass to most people. They do not have ported speaker type bass, but for a sealed cabinet design, the bass on the M2 is actually one of the best attributes of the speaker.
I'm not asking you to believe me, I'm asking for anyone to come and listen for themselves. I can connect 5+ amplifiers to the M2 of all variety and know for certain that they all deliver balanced bass with the rest of the frequencies being delivered.
I ask because in my experience bass is pretty much all room and placement dependent vs. amplifier dependent. Of course if an amp can't drive a speaker properly then sure you could have bass problems. If your audition of the M2s was with 100 Watt + amps which I would imagine it was then I would bet a pretty penny that what you heard was placement or room issues that provided the results you heard.
I will call it if it's the case, but in this case I know for certain that the M2 deliver VERY satisfying bass to most people. They do not have ported speaker type bass, but for a sealed cabinet design, the bass on the M2 is actually one of the best attributes of the speaker.
I'm not asking you to believe me, I'm asking for anyone to come and listen for themselves. I can connect 5+ amplifiers to the M2 of all variety and know for certain that they all deliver balanced bass with the rest of the frequencies being delivered.
I guess some people like the power and impact of ported designs. When you say magico m2 bass is satisfying... or good... what are you comparing it to ? And btw I have heard the Magico m2 and it does have incredibly resolving bass! But impactful/powerful.. no. Not compared to even my NS5K.
Could not find that track on Qobuz, played Capable, Think Twice, Dwell. Bass impact/weight on XV is not a problem. Good music on the XVs, thanks.
Just edited to add that yes the bass of M2 is different and very resolving vs many (not all) ported bass speakers, but the M2 imho DOES have bass, like you say very resolving bass and in my experience pleasing to many. Just because a ported speaker has powerful bass, if that bass is not in equilibrium with the rest of the frequencies then it's not my cup of tea. Many ported designs deliver bass in this manner.
Sure lot's of people like ported designs, more than sealed boxes probably, then you have electrostatics, ribbons, horns, open baffle, etc. A lot of people prefer lot's of different designs and presentations.
I am comparing the M2 bass against listening to music on all of these mentioned designs, which I have or had all, and hearing a full bodied sound but texture a clear bass lines being able to clearly hear between 3 or 4 bass instruments playing at the same time.
I have approximately 20 speakers and I don't feel that the M2s lack bass or do I feel the need to turn on one of 3 sets of subs that I have. I do have the sub desire with several other speakers that also are spec'd down into the 20s.
I am comparing the M2 bass in my room and 5+ rooms that I have set M2s up in as well. Additionally the reaction of maybe 50 visitors that have heard the M2s in my space over the last year. Listening personally and observing the reactions of the M2 visitors and customers and their satisfaction NOT with just bass but equilibrium from the top frequencies to the lowest.
I was just commenting on the comment that Magico sells M2s for $60K that have no bass. That has NOT been my experience. If Keith had made the comment that he did not prefer the bass on the M2s then I never would have commented, his comment was derogatory in my estimation by saying "Magico sells a $60K speakers with no bass". This comment precipitated my response.
Last edited:
When I visited Keith to hear the Ampzillas for the first time I heard a "clinical sound" which was "lacking in transparency" and "slightly digital-ish."
I visited Keith a second time a couple of months ago to compare the Rowland to the Ampzillas. I thought then that the Ampzillas are amazingly capable for $5,000. I heard slightly greater clarity and, I think, transparency from the Rowland. I heard the same level of detail and information from both.
On Jennifer Warnes' "First We Take Manhattan" the Rowland had a greater ability to disentangle complex musical threads. On Stevie Nick's "Landslide" and most vocals I felt vocals were a bit more forward and emphasized with the Rowland (which I like). Conversely I felt vocals on the Ampzilla got a little bit lost in the mix.
I felt the Rowland was more dimensional-sounding, and the Ampzilla a bit flatter-sounding. I felt the Ampzilla had fewer gradations of nuance. I heard the Rowland offer an overall warmer presentation from the bass frequencies to at least the lower treble frequency range.
Overall I felt the Rowland was a more sophisticated, a more refined presentation. Cost and sound for value considerations aside the Rowland played right to my personal sonic preferences.
I visited Keith today (my third visit with Ampzillas) to listen to the Ampzillas fronted by the Linear Tube Audio Micro ZOTL line stage rather than the passive TVC. The slight dryness and flattish presentation and slightly clinical sound I heard from the Ampzillas compared to the Rowland were gone! The LTA provides a little bit of warmth and body and harmonic richness to the Ampzillas.
This combination sounds wonderful, and it has it all! I played my usual test tracks and everything sounded how I would want them sound. This combination totally works!
I said to Keith over the last few months that I simply cannot believe the Haileys can be driven only by D'Agostino or Gryphon amplifiers. I said there's no way the Haileys know the price of the amplifiers being used to power them.
I, personally, would tack a little bit more towards an even richer harmonic presentation, but I think that, at long last, Keith has found an electronics chain to drive the YG Hailey to achieve his sonic objectives (and in an extremely cost-effective, and high sound quality per dollar manner).
Congratulations, Keith!
I visited Keith a second time a couple of months ago to compare the Rowland to the Ampzillas. I thought then that the Ampzillas are amazingly capable for $5,000. I heard slightly greater clarity and, I think, transparency from the Rowland. I heard the same level of detail and information from both.
On Jennifer Warnes' "First We Take Manhattan" the Rowland had a greater ability to disentangle complex musical threads. On Stevie Nick's "Landslide" and most vocals I felt vocals were a bit more forward and emphasized with the Rowland (which I like). Conversely I felt vocals on the Ampzilla got a little bit lost in the mix.
I felt the Rowland was more dimensional-sounding, and the Ampzilla a bit flatter-sounding. I felt the Ampzilla had fewer gradations of nuance. I heard the Rowland offer an overall warmer presentation from the bass frequencies to at least the lower treble frequency range.
Overall I felt the Rowland was a more sophisticated, a more refined presentation. Cost and sound for value considerations aside the Rowland played right to my personal sonic preferences.
I visited Keith today (my third visit with Ampzillas) to listen to the Ampzillas fronted by the Linear Tube Audio Micro ZOTL line stage rather than the passive TVC. The slight dryness and flattish presentation and slightly clinical sound I heard from the Ampzillas compared to the Rowland were gone! The LTA provides a little bit of warmth and body and harmonic richness to the Ampzillas.
This combination sounds wonderful, and it has it all! I played my usual test tracks and everything sounded how I would want them sound. This combination totally works!
I said to Keith over the last few months that I simply cannot believe the Haileys can be driven only by D'Agostino or Gryphon amplifiers. I said there's no way the Haileys know the price of the amplifiers being used to power them.
I, personally, would tack a little bit more towards an even richer harmonic presentation, but I think that, at long last, Keith has found an electronics chain to drive the YG Hailey to achieve his sonic objectives (and in an extremely cost-effective, and high sound quality per dollar manner).
Congratulations, Keith!
Last edited:
I've found that the combination of some modern woofers, amps and cables have such low distortion the bass takes on a different quality, it's so different it can sound like there is much less bass than there actually is and it takes some time to acclimate to it. Because of the low distortion it's much harder to tell exactly how loud the bass is, and it's easy to lose track of volume altogether. You can end up listening pretty loud without realizing it. In fact with my speakers (that use a separate woofer amp) I prefer to use an amp that adds a bit of warmth because it matches the mids and highs better, which are driven with a SET tube amp.
Care to name some specific speakers when you say the M2s do not lack bass? Also what were the room sizes you were setting them up in ?
I think Keith just ordered Pass X350.8 to pair with the Hailey. Interested to see what the result is!
Last edited by a moderator:
I never thought that it was a matter of dollars, but a matter of trying a wider variety of things on the YGs. The D'Agostino + ARC combo was the one that Keith enjoyed all along on the YGs, but we all knew that it wasn't the only available option.
Early on, I had demonstrated to Keith how the speakers are utterly transparent to *anything*, even a little cable change can render dramatic results. Pieces that "sound fine" elsewhere would simply not on the YGs.
So, it really came down to finding the right components *to Keith's preferences*. No right or wrong here, just finding a combo that ticks all the boxes, for him.
Over time, I came to understand that Keith likes a little tube in his sound... So, as good as his existing preamp is (and it IS good), he had *no tubes* in the chain anymore, as using a tube amp proved tricky given the speaker's power demands.
So, enter the tube *preamp*, and I'm glad it did what it's supposed to!
I was already curious to hear the Ampzillas, now I'm twice as curious
cheers,
Alex
Early on, I had demonstrated to Keith how the speakers are utterly transparent to *anything*, even a little cable change can render dramatic results. Pieces that "sound fine" elsewhere would simply not on the YGs.
So, it really came down to finding the right components *to Keith's preferences*. No right or wrong here, just finding a combo that ticks all the boxes, for him.
Over time, I came to understand that Keith likes a little tube in his sound... So, as good as his existing preamp is (and it IS good), he had *no tubes* in the chain anymore, as using a tube amp proved tricky given the speaker's power demands.
So, enter the tube *preamp*, and I'm glad it did what it's supposed to!
I was already curious to hear the Ampzillas, now I'm twice as curious
cheers,
Alex
Yes, the next and final amp (for now) arrived yesterday- Pass X350.8. Thanks to Ron and Phil for getting it setup as it’s a 130lb beast! Dwarfs the Ampzillas in person.
The amp requires a few days of break in before serious listening can begin.
The amp requires a few days of break in before serious listening can begin.
I wish, Peter!
I'm currently stuck outside the US, only reason why I haven't been following Keith's trials more closely!
Similar threads
Members online
- pkaemmerer
- Elliot G.
- drrsutliff
- Another Johnson
- MPW
- andromedaaudio
- R Johnson
- Toymanmark
- Salectric
- MRJAZZ
- cdka
- Armsan
- Scott W
- 7ryder
- Emilzebira
- Wjhen
- Hessec
- Bonesy Jonesy
- mtemur
- oldvinyl
- GroovySauce
- John T
- leyenda
- Avidlistener
- af428
- analogsa
- nirodha
- mainelotus
- Mike Lavigne
- Michael S.
- EverHatrax
- Juiced
- Erikl
- Opabin
- Tuckia
- shakti
- Don Reid
- Jpowell
- crosswind
- Zdude
- cjfrbw
- luca.pelliccioli
- HansW
- VPN
- ticktock
- Nicktube
- simorag
- marty
- Emorante
- Alex G
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |