I've been perfectly happy ever since I've been building or modifying it myself. I now have the sound that I have not achieved with purchased devices.if something comes my way I'll try it.upgrade stopped
When do you stop upgrading?
- Thread starter thedudeabides
- Start date
I disagree they are just for variety, though they are also for variety. Variety trials last a brief period and the less sonically good sounding tube goes into storage or on sale. If for the gear I mentioned and similar, you do not have 2 or 3 types at least to roll, there is no point auditioning it.
CAT JL 5, 7 is still on my my list and may be NAGRA T audio , Studer C37 and ML 30.6 as is a better noise isolated room
I ll be going to munich in may , may be i ll hear something nice .
May be i will enter a complete new amplification era
when stepping in a room with CH amps lol (or with the new Halcro s)
Last edited:
if you have the opportunity to listen to these amplifiers in highend munich please do it.CAT JL 5, 7 is still on my my list and may be NAGRA T audio , Studer C37 and ML 30.6 as is a better noise isolated room
I ll be going to munich in may , may be i ll hear something nice .
May be i will enter a complete new amplification era
Niko1300S Stereo Amplifier - AccademiaLab
www.accademialab.com
Sure i will , they look very niceif you have the opportunity to listen to these amplifiers in highend munich please do it.
Niko1300S Stereo Amplifier - AccademiaLab
Indeed. I know what I want, and have found what I want.
I have shaped my personal taste in the early 1990s, with liveliness and excitement of sound being top priority (I can enjoy a relaxed sound in other systems, but don't want it in mine, except when the music demands it). Over the years I have only added to my listening priorities, especially in terms of resolution, based on what I have heard in other systems. Yet I have never wavered in the basic premises of the sound I want. And I have consistently found that, within the limits of my budget and room, I can best realize the sound that I want within the context of a monitor/subwoofer system -- even after exposure to quite a wide range of system approaches.
As a result I have changed gear rarely, even after upgrading and system changes substantially picked up again in 2012 (none of the gear I had back then is still in my system). I am at my third speaker, second set of subwoofers, second amp, third preamp, and basically third set of analog signal cables. Only the DAC is my 7th gear of digital player.
I did try to get the most out the gear that I do own. Optimizing setup and room acoustics is key, as well as paying attention to power delivery. All the changes in that respect, large and small, over the years, have resulted in a sound that I could not dream of when I first got my more recent core pieces of gear, especially speakers, power amp, subwoofers and analog signal cables, all about four years ago.
Optimizing what you already own, rather than chasing for the latest and "greatest", is very satisfying in my experience, and can lead to transformative improvements. It also saves a boatload of money.
It does take a lot of patience, time and determination. But the effort is more than worth it.
I have always have had tube gear, and still do not roll tubes. In my previous amp, I did use other tubes that my tube amp repair expert recommended.
That's my impression as well.
Oh for crying out loud bonzo you are in a disagreeable mood ... no one said that changing tubes is JUST for variety. And no, variety 'trials' as you call them are not trials. I swap out 7308s every few months - Seimens, Amperex, Telefunkens - with variety within those brands as well. Some people actually know what they are looking and don't buy 'less goood' tubes. I'm beginning to question your experience on this either that or you think you know everything - and ... wait for it - you don't!
Sorry - you keep saying it is done for variety, and that it does not change the character (a broad term that can be interpreted in many ways). You keep referring to tubes that have not much meaning in the tubes only of Lamm. Please let me know when you get round to some DHTs.
Bonzo, what did you discover when you rolled tubes with Lamm gear? Were you bold enough to ask ddk or Tang if they would let you do it?
I never said anything about Lamm gear, and have no interest in rolling on it. I quoted 4 people who tube rolled it (provided links) to when they found differences rolling. I never started this discussion. This started because you, who never tube rolled, posted that you have concluded tube rolling is something you are not interested in without having done it. Tima then came on to expertly say how it does not change anything (giving a broad definition of character without being specific). I only countered these claims. I never started this making any claim.
My world of tubes is rolling those tubes mentioned in the link I posted.
As I thought. I’ll add you to the rather long list of people who seem to have no interest in experimenting with different tubes in the Lamm gear I own. I must have misinterpreted your comments as criticism of my approach with my first tube gear. I appreciate this clarification.
It's happened before - you read sloppily and then misquote.
How is that relevant? I've owned quite a few other pieces of gear where I rolled tubes.
I said
and then I clarified
Here's my advice: stop digging.
Crazy just crazy. If your sound is really good just enjoy the music. I’m guessing it ain’t.
Hey Cableman, thanks for responding to the post. For myself, as well as I'm sure others, what drives the hobby is the trip rather than the destination. My sound is very satisfying but there is always something else around the corner. I took in a Luxman EQ 500 phono preamp in trade. Sounded OK'ish until I used it with my vintage Audio Note step up into the MM stage. Spectacular sound! In the past few weeks, I've played more records than I have in the past two years. This is what keeps me engaged and the hobby alive.
My other Luxman electronics models are almost 12 years old. They sound amazing and I'm pretty sure I can't do better - for the money. But I can do better. I'm on the hunt...it's crazy...but it's what I do!
What drives the endeavour is enjoying the music. Everything else is just commentary.
The discussion about upgrading prompted me to write something about the strategy I have been following recently. I hope you find it interesting:
My 45 year working background is with complex analytical systems like Gas Chromatograph- Mass Spectrometers and Liquid Chromatograph Mass Spectrometers, so obviously that has very much influenced my approach to building hi-fi systems. Firstly I try to understand the overall goal, which for me is to generate oodles of musical joy and happiness from recorded music in the listening room I have available. I then take a system rather than component approach. That is for 2 reasons: 1. Single manufacturers rarely produce complete systems that would maximise the qualities I’m seeking and 2. There is a synergy between certain components that is essential to maximising the result I’m looking for.
So my basic system is built around selecting the ideal speakers for my room (within my budget) with ancillaries that synergize with those speakers.
The above approach has been interesting in that over the years I‘ve had several different rooms so my systems have included Linn Isobariks (perfect living room speakers designed to be placed against a wall), Sonus Faber Extremas (wonderful when you have oodles of space but want relatively near-field listening), Avantgarde Trios (ideal when you have tons of space and very reflective surfaces, Sonus Faber Guarneris and Magico S1 MkIIs (Both perfect for small rooms and near field listening) Similarly the synergy angle has led to electronics from Naim, Balanced Audio Technology (both humongous SS and Tube) and more recently Devialet, which synergise wonderfully with the Magicos thanks to SAM (Speaker Active Matching), ultra low distortion, high instant power and incredibly fast class A/D amplification
When it comes to the rest of the system….cables, resonance control, network, power supplies etc. I very much take a system builder‘s approach. Firstly I standardise as much as I can on a single brand for each category that meets my goals for overall performance, transparency and neutrality. Here I apply 3 criteria. 1. It must perform exceptionally well, preferably best in class. 2 It must be entirely neutral and transparent such that when I add several units in series I don’t start hearing any particular colouration or identity and 3. The manufacturer should offer a scalable range of products built around the same concepts but increasing in sophistication and specification. There’s a reason for doing this which relates to system architecture which I’ll get to later. In my current system, ALL power supplies bar the Devialet come from Sean Jacobs, all the cables are Synergistic Research, the mains supply is built around ultra-high purity copper, high ampage, stranded conductors and gold plating. All DC cabling, both internal and external is Mundorf silver/gold (thanks to Nenon ).
While building my most recent streaming system, I realised that the Network is a critical part of the hi-fi. Sure it needs to transport digital data but far more than that, it offers the means to refine that data in a way that was completely impossible with analog. As I built my system I came to identify a few engineering criteria that seem to be absolutely essential to the final outcome of thrilling, exciting, highly emotional, feelings-rich music, namely
power supply quality (noise, ripple, DC cabling, impedance), resonance control, EMI minimization, EMI isolation, minimised timing inaccuracies, minimised cable losses, highly effective cable screening and component isolation. When I started to address these issues on my system and network, my level of enjoyment and involvement and the intensity of emotion and feelings all gained massively, so I figured I was on the right track.
I also came to realise that as I addressed each of these issues, the order and way in which they were addressed was critical. You don‘t ever want your data stream moving from better to worse. The recipe for success in hi-fi is based on a single concept……..better signal in = better signal out. But this only works when you have things in the right order. If you push out a data stream with a clock accuracy of 10ppb and you route that into another device, a switch say with a 10ppm accuracy then the same concept applies, only backwards…..worse signal in = worse signal out. So what you want is a system and network where every stage is an improvement on the prior stage. Do this and essentially what you get are compounding improvements, where the input and therefore the output of every stage improves SQ.
How does this translate into system building? Lets say I have a £2000 to spend on an upgrade. When I look at my system I may decide to go for system-wide fuses. I have 8 powered components in my system, each with an onboard fuse and a power plug 15amp fuse, so 16 fuses in all
I could take my budget, divide 2000 by 16 and spend £125 on each fuse. but what i have found is that I‘d be much better off SQ-wise by spending £35 per fuse for modem and router LPS, £80 per fuse for network bridge and first switch, £100 for 2nd and 3rd switch and £200 for the server and 2 mono block amplifiers. The £35 fuses are substantially better than the standard OEM fuses and that would improve the quality of the output from the router into the network bridge. The network bridge, with its £80 fuse would take the improved output from the router and improve it, so that the output from the bridge to the first switch is twice improved, this improved input will of course improve the switch’s output and so on, so what you get are compound improvements as the initial improvement ripples through the system. By the time you get to the £200 fused components, the input is massively better, so the benefits of the final fuse are massively increased. Now you could argue that putting a £200 fuse in the router would improve SQ and it would. But that improvement would be partially lost in downstream components powered by lesser fuses. I hope you the get the picture so far.
What you’ll see from the above is that the entire process is highly scalable….whether I’m spending £10,000 or £100,000, in fact even a £million, following the same logic will always be beneficial. And not only is the concept scalable, it also makes upgrading very straightforward because all I need to do is take a better component from my chosen manufacturer and place it where it has the most effect. Let me illustrate using the above. Let’s say I had £500 to spend….I’d upgrade the modem, router and bridge fuses.
If I wanted to spend say £1100 I’d upgrade the above plus switches 2 and 3.
So, when do you stop upgrading?
1. Whenever you run out of money
2. Whenever you have other priorities for that money
3. Whenever you lose the desire to improve your system, for example when you’re reaching an almost overwhelming level of enjoyment with each listening session.
4. Whenever you’ve reached the top of the scale with your chosen manufacturers so there’s nowhere left to go with your current system
My 45 year working background is with complex analytical systems like Gas Chromatograph- Mass Spectrometers and Liquid Chromatograph Mass Spectrometers, so obviously that has very much influenced my approach to building hi-fi systems. Firstly I try to understand the overall goal, which for me is to generate oodles of musical joy and happiness from recorded music in the listening room I have available. I then take a system rather than component approach. That is for 2 reasons: 1. Single manufacturers rarely produce complete systems that would maximise the qualities I’m seeking and 2. There is a synergy between certain components that is essential to maximising the result I’m looking for.
So my basic system is built around selecting the ideal speakers for my room (within my budget) with ancillaries that synergize with those speakers.
The above approach has been interesting in that over the years I‘ve had several different rooms so my systems have included Linn Isobariks (perfect living room speakers designed to be placed against a wall), Sonus Faber Extremas (wonderful when you have oodles of space but want relatively near-field listening), Avantgarde Trios (ideal when you have tons of space and very reflective surfaces, Sonus Faber Guarneris and Magico S1 MkIIs (Both perfect for small rooms and near field listening) Similarly the synergy angle has led to electronics from Naim, Balanced Audio Technology (both humongous SS and Tube) and more recently Devialet, which synergise wonderfully with the Magicos thanks to SAM (Speaker Active Matching), ultra low distortion, high instant power and incredibly fast class A/D amplification
When it comes to the rest of the system….cables, resonance control, network, power supplies etc. I very much take a system builder‘s approach. Firstly I standardise as much as I can on a single brand for each category that meets my goals for overall performance, transparency and neutrality. Here I apply 3 criteria. 1. It must perform exceptionally well, preferably best in class. 2 It must be entirely neutral and transparent such that when I add several units in series I don’t start hearing any particular colouration or identity and 3. The manufacturer should offer a scalable range of products built around the same concepts but increasing in sophistication and specification. There’s a reason for doing this which relates to system architecture which I’ll get to later. In my current system, ALL power supplies bar the Devialet come from Sean Jacobs, all the cables are Synergistic Research, the mains supply is built around ultra-high purity copper, high ampage, stranded conductors and gold plating. All DC cabling, both internal and external is Mundorf silver/gold (thanks to Nenon ).
While building my most recent streaming system, I realised that the Network is a critical part of the hi-fi. Sure it needs to transport digital data but far more than that, it offers the means to refine that data in a way that was completely impossible with analog. As I built my system I came to identify a few engineering criteria that seem to be absolutely essential to the final outcome of thrilling, exciting, highly emotional, feelings-rich music, namely
power supply quality (noise, ripple, DC cabling, impedance), resonance control, EMI minimization, EMI isolation, minimised timing inaccuracies, minimised cable losses, highly effective cable screening and component isolation. When I started to address these issues on my system and network, my level of enjoyment and involvement and the intensity of emotion and feelings all gained massively, so I figured I was on the right track.
I also came to realise that as I addressed each of these issues, the order and way in which they were addressed was critical. You don‘t ever want your data stream moving from better to worse. The recipe for success in hi-fi is based on a single concept……..better signal in = better signal out. But this only works when you have things in the right order. If you push out a data stream with a clock accuracy of 10ppb and you route that into another device, a switch say with a 10ppm accuracy then the same concept applies, only backwards…..worse signal in = worse signal out. So what you want is a system and network where every stage is an improvement on the prior stage. Do this and essentially what you get are compounding improvements, where the input and therefore the output of every stage improves SQ.
How does this translate into system building? Lets say I have a £2000 to spend on an upgrade. When I look at my system I may decide to go for system-wide fuses. I have 8 powered components in my system, each with an onboard fuse and a power plug 15amp fuse, so 16 fuses in all
I could take my budget, divide 2000 by 16 and spend £125 on each fuse. but what i have found is that I‘d be much better off SQ-wise by spending £35 per fuse for modem and router LPS, £80 per fuse for network bridge and first switch, £100 for 2nd and 3rd switch and £200 for the server and 2 mono block amplifiers. The £35 fuses are substantially better than the standard OEM fuses and that would improve the quality of the output from the router into the network bridge. The network bridge, with its £80 fuse would take the improved output from the router and improve it, so that the output from the bridge to the first switch is twice improved, this improved input will of course improve the switch’s output and so on, so what you get are compound improvements as the initial improvement ripples through the system. By the time you get to the £200 fused components, the input is massively better, so the benefits of the final fuse are massively increased. Now you could argue that putting a £200 fuse in the router would improve SQ and it would. But that improvement would be partially lost in downstream components powered by lesser fuses. I hope you the get the picture so far.
What you’ll see from the above is that the entire process is highly scalable….whether I’m spending £10,000 or £100,000, in fact even a £million, following the same logic will always be beneficial. And not only is the concept scalable, it also makes upgrading very straightforward because all I need to do is take a better component from my chosen manufacturer and place it where it has the most effect. Let me illustrate using the above. Let’s say I had £500 to spend….I’d upgrade the modem, router and bridge fuses.
If I wanted to spend say £1100 I’d upgrade the above plus switches 2 and 3.
So, when do you stop upgrading?
1. Whenever you run out of money
2. Whenever you have other priorities for that money
3. Whenever you lose the desire to improve your system, for example when you’re reaching an almost overwhelming level of enjoyment with each listening session.
4. Whenever you’ve reached the top of the scale with your chosen manufacturers so there’s nowhere left to go with your current system
Last edited:
What an exceptionally well thought and written post!
Great list and totally summarizes the issues. Thank you.
Similar threads
