3 topics I retain from commenting:
1.- Politics
2.- Religion
3.- Tube vs. SS debates
What else is there?:b
SS Sound vs. Tube Sound (for the umpteenth time)
- Thread starter mep
- Start date
What else is there?:b
3 topics I retain from commenting:
1.- Politics
2.- Religion
3.- Tube vs. SS debates
Why do you have an exception on commenting digital versus LP or tape?
Worthless. A bunch of engineers trying to justify their existence.
Someday they'll take a biology course and find they've been rediscovering the wheel.
3 topics I retain from commenting:
1.- Politics
2.- Religion
3.- Tube vs. SS debates
In all 3 cases people normally try to rationalize something they subjectively prefer as having some kind of objective justification. Best to stay away I agree
A lot of that SS grundge toob aholics talk about was due to poorly designed speakers, which made SS gear sound bright and toobs open and extended ...
So some went for that toob sound as Myles stated , hey they had to eat ........
So some went for that toob sound as Myles stated , hey they had to eat ........
It is interesting however when one looks at the old Audio magazine Bible, 605+ of preamplifiers and amplifiers were of the tube persuasion. Not everyone was an idiot.
Some speakerdesigners design lower efficiency speakers that also have impedance curves that dip quit low , its merely a combination of the drivers used and type of crossover design i think , a certain type of crossover will make that impedance drop .
Nowadays you see unitmanufacturers design high eff units , with which more high efficient speakers can be built .
Avalon in my opinion has been in the forefront of designing very coherent speakers /crossovers although they are not that easy to drive ,( just add more power and that problem is solved ).
I think the market for very high power amps will become less and less in the future
Nowadays you see unitmanufacturers design high eff units , with which more high efficient speakers can be built .
Avalon in my opinion has been in the forefront of designing very coherent speakers /crossovers although they are not that easy to drive ,( just add more power and that problem is solved )
.I think the market for very high power amps will become less and less in the future
I honestly don't think that you need to be an idiot to be heavily influenced by prejudice and a device's appearance on how you perceive its sound.
Really? Never crossed my mind. Only thing that did occur to me is most of its butt ugly.
Really? This tube amplifier is bandwidth limited?
POWER OUTPUT: 750 watts per channel continuous from 20Hz to 20kHz. 1kHz total harmonic distortion typically 0.5% at 750 watts, below .04% at 1 watt. Approximate actual power available at “clipping” 850 watts (1kHz). (Note that actual power output is dependent upon both line voltage and “condition” i.e.: if power line has high distortion, maximum power will be affected adversely, although from a listening standpoint this is not very critical.)
POWER BANDWIDTH: (-3dB points) 15Hz to 150kHz.
FREQUENCY RESPONSE: (-3dB points at 1 watt) 1 Hz to 200 kHz.
INPUT SENSITIVITY: 4.6V RMS Balanced for rated output. (24 dB gain into 8 ohms.)
INPUT IMPEDANCE: 200K ohms Balanced.
OUTPUT TAPS: 4, 8, 16 ohms.
OUTPUT REGULATION: Approximately 0.5dB 16 ohm load to open circuit (Damping factor approximately 17).
OVERALL NEGATIVE FEEDBACK: 13dB.
SLEW RATE: 20 volts/microsecond.
RISE TIME: 1.5 microseconds.
HUM & NOISE: Less than 0.2mV RMS – 110dB below rated output (IHF-A weighted, input shorted, 16 ohm output).
POWER SUPPLY ENERGY STORAGE: Approximately 1300 joules.
POWER REQUIREMENTS: 105-130VAC 60Hz (260-750VAC 50Hz) 2100 watts at rated output, 2400 watts maximum, 800 watts at “idle”.
TUBES REQUIRED: 8 Matched pair KT120 Power Output; 1 6550WE Regulator; 1 6H30 Regulator Amplifier; 1 matched pair KT120 Driver; 1 6H30 follower.
DIMENSIONS: 13.5" (34.3 cm) W x 23" (58.4 cm) H x 20.8" (52.8 cm) D. Handles extend 1.5" (3.8 cm) forward and rearward.
WEIGHT: 170 lbs. (77.2 kg) Net; 395 lbs. (180 kg) per pair shipped weight.
Or this one?
Output power
500 watts per channel, 2-16? load before clipping
Impedance
Input Impedance: 100 K? single-ended, 200 K? balanced
selectable to 600 ohms
Input
2.5 V sensitivity
RCA and XLR true balanced differential input
Tube complement
(per channel) 42 x 6AS7G output tube
12 x 6SN7 driver tube
Power Bandwidth
1-100KHz within ½ dB
Power Storage Capacity
1/4 Farad per channel (more than any production amplifier)
Frequency response
(1 watt, open loop) 20 Hz squarewave tilt: unmeasureable even at full power
1Hz-200KHz within 1/2 dB
Tom,
You are using arguments from the 80's that do not apply to many modern designs of both techniques. Should we start a thread "SS Sound vs. Tube Sound (NOT for vintage or SE equipment)"?
The MC3500's were very capable amplifiers and did not have bandwidth issues , circa 1969 ......
Touché! The MC3500 was really an incredible design. Its circuit and output transformer were something fantastic - 50% cathode coupled and several windings for distributed feedback, including crossed feedback. Unhappily I never saw one or listened to it. Would not mind getting a pair to refurbish with current state of the art components - yes, I know it could be a nonsense, but it could increase bias expectation a lot!
You referred to having "100% feedback", now only address "having no feedback" - there is a strong difference between the two requests you point and it is the key to the difference.
Anyway I can refer a few - conrad johnson solid state designs, DartZeel, Ayre, Jeff Rowland, some Electrocompaniet designs and many others.
My comment also addressed the amplifier used in the Carver challenge, as marked in bold in my answer.
And I add that IMHO it is unwise to refer to a tube or solid state sound addressing characteristics of long ago!
I dont want to start a dog fight over amplifiers and whatsbest or not .
But the couple of times i heard mc intosh , i find them very tubey /rolled of sounding so yes i would prefer good quility SS over those .
This is just my opinion please dont shoot me
it was an integrated that drove dynaudio c2 and sophias iirc
But the couple of times i heard mc intosh , i find them very tubey /rolled of sounding so yes i would prefer good quility SS over those .
This is just my opinion please dont shoot me
it was an integrated that drove dynaudio c2 and sophias iirc
I dont want to start a dog fight over amplifiers and whatsbest or not .
But the couple of times i heard mc intosh , i find them very tubey /rolled of sounding so yes i would prefer good quility SS over those .
This is just my opinion please dont shoot me
it was an integrated that drove dynaudio c2 and sophias iirc
Ok see what you did there . You took a specifc example and made a general rule. In essence you generalized from the specifcic. Now don't you see I could do the same thing in reverse.
Other mac intosh amps may sound different to me i dont know , i just described what i heard.
I dont want to start a dog fight over amplifiers and whatsbest or not .
But the couple of times i heard mc intosh , i find them very tubey /rolled of sounding so yes i would prefer good quility SS over those .
This is just my opinion please dont shoot me
it was an integrated that drove dynaudio c2 and sophias iirc
Sonically , there is nothing produced today by Mac at any price better than the MC3500's . they had no tooby sound, had no square wave tilt from 20 -30 K ( i measured) AND WAS AS STABLE AS A ROCK ON CAPACITIVE LOADS.. we tried ..
I only moved on because the custom built SS amp ( 2 pc, fully regualted SS/1979) I had was superior and did not require 16 6LQ6 tubes every two years , in retrospec , it was the bass which was superior to the MC3500 and yes, i have always had big full bandwidth speakers from way back when and it made the difference when switching between amplfiers, regardless the mac had glourious dynamics and no sleepy tooob sound ...
When i was offered 3 times what i paid for them in 87 , it was a no brainer, well so i thought, looking at today prices , who would have thunk it ....
Regards,
