What SET amplifiers have Realistic Midrange Magic AND have the Great BASS? Rock your Horns!
- Thread starter caesar
- Start date
I haven't done any tube rolling on the Golden Gate. On the recommendation of a GG owner who auditioned a wide range of tubes on the GG, I went with his recommendation which was the KR-Labs 5U4G rectifier and a quad of KR-Labs PX4 output tubes.
I've posted this elsewhere on the forums, but I highly recommend a complement of Herbies Audo Lab tube dampers. I use three differently sized damping rings on the 5U4G, one on the top "nose", one on the shoulder, and one on the base. For each of the PX4, one on the shoulder and one one on the base. I found that I needed an additional fourth contact disk for the shoulder placements to prevent the ring from gradually slipping either up or down.
I also added a 1" soft support cup (black), flat on one end and concave on the other, on top of each tube. These are also from Herbies and are designed to hold a round ball on top for a component support. I put the concave end contacting the top of the tube and placed a 3" heavy damping disk on the flat end. You have to be careful since the cups and weighted disks are only held in place by gravity, so be careful to keep them centered. You might want to use a dab of silicone glue between the flat end of the cup and the damping disk as a safety measure.
The damping system really helps the GG. I didn't realize how much the vibrations of the tube envelopes impacted its performance. The result is a quieter noise floor, better soundstage, but with no loss of top end air and openness. All the good stuff is still there.
These are the sizes of the damping rings I use.
5U4G -- (top) Rx50, (shoulder) Rx65, (base) Rx35
PX4 (each) -- (shoulder) Rx55, (base) Rx35
Best,
Robert
Hello Robert, Have you ever tried placing the Golden Gate on any brand of active isolation platform?
Ron, no I haven't used active isolation platforms. Though they may provide benefit, keep in mind that sources of tube vibrations include that from the device itself (a DAC in this case) as well as airborne. So, I would still recommend using the tube dampers from Herbies Audio Lab.
One point, over they years I've used various tube damping products. I've found the damping rings from Herbies Audio Lab to be superior. The devices have a very small contact area with the tube via three or four small disks with very small elastomeric rings on perimeter of the disks that actually contact the tube. There is very little vibrational energy transferred from the tube. Think of it as analogous to damping the vibration using your hand, touching the tube with just three fingers.
The worst damping devices that I've tried are the typical thick damping rings that you slide over the tube. These tend to store vibrational energy and then release it back into the tube. This returned energy is delayed and is out of sync with the original, causing a smearing of the sound. For the life of me, I don't understand why large "high end" companies like ARC still use those things (I owned an ARC REF3).
Best,
Robert
One point, over they years I've used various tube damping products. I've found the damping rings from Herbies Audio Lab to be superior. The devices have a very small contact area with the tube via three or four small disks with very small elastomeric rings on perimeter of the disks that actually contact the tube. There is very little vibrational energy transferred from the tube. Think of it as analogous to damping the vibration using your hand, touching the tube with just three fingers.
The worst damping devices that I've tried are the typical thick damping rings that you slide over the tube. These tend to store vibrational energy and then release it back into the tube. This returned energy is delayed and is out of sync with the original, causing a smearing of the sound. For the life of me, I don't understand why large "high end" companies like ARC still use those things (I owned an ARC REF3).
Best,
Robert
Good to know...I too was never happy with the red rings that CJ used on the ACT 2 and then CJ GAT. I use EAT Tube Dampers and found they work extremely well. For the larger PSU tubes, Brent Jessee makes copper rings which 'touch' the tube at 3 silicon strips only. Those also work well.
Thank you Kernelbob, I have the same set of tubes in my B7 with Duelunds for over one year ( SE version so only two output tubes).
In my setup it is a better match then KR 242 with the same rectifier.
If I decide one day to put tube dampers I will follow your recommendation.
Very helpful , thanks a lot.
Last edited:
As far as PX 25 are concerned Lukasz advised me not to go because they have higher gain then PX4.
I had also some EML special Lampi edition ,hardly remember the model, did not like them.
I must have somewhere a picture, If you want I will check it for you.
Last edited:
Audiopax Model 88...
I second that.
I wondered why they wasn't mentioned in the first post. They are made to rock the horns.
I second that.
I wondered why they wasn't mentioned in the first post. They are made to rock the horns.
Empirical Audio
Industry Expert
Arte Forma 805AT monoblocks. 30-35W per monoblock. Beat my extensively modded 1000W JC-1 SS monoblocks for bass extension and control. Amazing reproduction of pipe organ.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio
Steve N.
Empirical Audio
Empirical Audio
Industry Expert
Arte Forma 805AT monoblocks. 30-35W per monoblock. Beat my extensively modded 1000W JC-1 SS monoblocks for bass extension and control. Amazing reproduction of pipe organ.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio
Steve N.
Empirical Audio
sorry, but the Audiopax 88s big weak spot is bass. Its more hidden with Avantgardes with adjustable bass.
the more recent Audiopax amps are much better in this regard.
Could be...I use it with Avantgarde, so no problem with bass here.
I had an Audio Note Quest Silver before with the same horns and the Audiopax is better in almost every regard. In bass too...
I had an Audio Note Quest Silver before with the same horns and the Audiopax is better in almost every regard. In bass too...
The Audiopax doesn't like low impedances, and since I don't know the behaviour of Ron's Gryphons, I didn't even suggest it.
Perhaps the 100W (135W really) Audiopax M100 monos would do the trick, but the 88 really wouldn't work on such big speakers.
Keith, did we try the 88s on your Devores? Or was it still the Zus?
cheers,
alex
Perhaps the 100W (135W really) Audiopax M100 monos would do the trick, but the 88 really wouldn't work on such big speakers.
Keith, did we try the 88s on your Devores? Or was it still the Zus?
cheers,
alex
The impedance of the ribbon driver is suggested by Brad to be a fairly flat and relatively easy to drive 6ohm load with 89dB sensitivity.
Many amplifiers can make sound come out of the Pendragons. But with the option of 150w from a single 833 tube why should I consider any other SET?
Many amplifiers can make sound come out of the Pendragons. But with the option of 150w from a single 833 tube why should I consider any other SET?
Ron - why can't Flemming tell you this information. They are $160,000 speakers for crying out loud. There should be no suggestion and you should know the impedance swings of your speakers at certain frequencies.
Heck, I can call John Devore and get that info in 5 minutes. Sean Casey too. I imagine Flemming will do the same.
Similar threads
