Why is the recent generation of tube gear so much more resolving?

[RogerD]

So how do you tell when you listen to a system (or yours) whether the issue is with the system or the system revealing something in the recording that your equipment doesn't?

I would say that no matter how far up the chain your equipment is, the (system) can always be improved. That being said,you reach a point that a good system get's closer to the actual source(master tape or digital master) and incremental steps get smaller.

Depends how you listen and what you focus on. Some will not hear any difference,but for a critical listener making a change,provided knowing if a change should yield a improvement,the listener will notice. I listen for clarity,weight,fulllness,dynamics,PRAT,ambient retrieval and soundstage width,depth,placement,ect. How close are you to the master tape? Now I listen to a lot of tape and make changes to the tape electronics. That is where I can really tell the difference between a transformer,cap and resistor. YMMV

Myles...your ?? was not directed toward me,but happy to answer

 

[MylesBAstor]

The post was just thrown out there

 

[MylesBAstor]

Thing is and MEP said this roo, parts aren't going to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

 

[RogerD]

Thing is and MEP said this roo, parts aren't going to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Well I agree,somewhat, Radioshack.....why bother. Now Mark might not like how my Ampex 350's sound,and 98 pct of Ampex owners would never do what I do,but my equipment, aren't museum pieces. My main focus is "how I think music sounds". Pretty straight foward and that's why there is a audio industry....I just take the path less traveled.

 

[flez007]

Fixing that variable a supose Myles, I try to evaluate a system with familiar recordings - my intent was to bring up the fact that some just build up preliminary conclusions without looking into a larger picture.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Sorry wasn't at you directly but a more general question

 

[mep]

Well I agree,somewhat, Radioshack.....why bother. Now Mark might not like how my Ampex 350's sound,and 98 pct of Ampex owners would never do what I do,but my equipment, aren't museum pieces. My main focus is "how I think music sounds". Pretty straight foward and that's why there is a audio industry....I just take the path less traveled.

Since we both own 350s, I can't imagine why I wouldn't like the way yours sound.

 

[RogerD]

Since we both own 350s, I can't imagine why I wouldn't like the way yours sound.

Mark....that was kinda tongue n cheek...of course you would like my 350's....

Most Ampexians think orange drops are all that is needed.

 

[Bill Hart]

Caesar- what a good question! I've been using tube gear since the early-mid 70's and there has been a dramatic improvement in resolving power, less bloated, tubby bass, far more midrange information- not just a romantic 'gloss.' I don't know the technical answer to your question, but have a couple observations:
-for a few decades, starting in the early-mid-70's through the 90's, I used ARC gear. It went from gloriously tubular (the pinnacle for me being the SP-10 mk ii preamp) to that bleached out sound that they eventually moved away from. I never lived with C-J gear, although heard it back in the day (it was a Hertz v. Avis thing, wasn't it?) and I gather C-J went through an evolution as well (though i can't characterize what that is).
-back in the day, I used to buy what are now considered to be pricey NOS tubes for a little more than the standard shlock. So, it wasn't the tubes, in my case-
-the circuits may be better or different, but in different directions: my line stage, the Veloce, is a more modern circuit, my phono stage, the Allnic, is an archaic circuit; both do wonderful things, far better than what I had, which was considered SOTA a decade ago.
-although I keep buying more vinyl, some of my source material has been in my collection, i.e., the particular records, for literally decades. I seem to be able to keep extracting more information from the same record(s) as the gear improves.

 

[RogerD]

I remember the first time I heard a ARC SP3A....man that thing was terrible.

The Allnic phono stage,is that nuvistor based?

 

[Bill Hart]

I remember the first time I heard a ARC SP3A....man that thing was terrible.

The Allnic phono stage,is that nuvistor based?

When I first heard the SP 3, in around 1973 or so, it was a revelation compared to what else was available. I had an SP3-a -1 for a number of years. It was classicly euphonic in an old-school tube way. In its day, I don't think it was terrible, but it was dated after several years.
Allnic has a nuvistor phono product that one of the other members here owns- Carl- who wrote a review and could tell you more than I could about it. The Allnic I'm referring to is their LCR phono stage.

 

[RogerD]

When I first heard the SP 3, in around 1973 or so, it was a revelation compared to what else was available. I had an SP3-a -1 for a number of years. It was classicly euphonic in an old-school tube way. In its day, I don't think it was terrible, but it was dated after several years.
Allnic has a nuvistor phono product that one of the other members here owns- Carl- who wrote a review and could tell you more than me about it. The Allnic I'm referring to is their LCR phono stage.

In it's day the SP3 wasn't terrible I agree. A friend purchased one in early 1980's....pretty excited about it. He wanted to compare it to some others,so I told him to bring it over. Comparing it to my Accuphase C200...it was terrible...."tubey and very colored,it was embarrassing. My friend was convinced that the preamp was in need of repair,maybe it was.

I have read the review....thanks.

 

[microstrip]

I think it is parts. Particularly caps. I have a few DIY amps using decades old circuit designs. Put in teflons and up goes the resolution. Just my very limited experience experimenting with a few different coupling caps.

Jack,
I must agree with you one the parts, but would add the liberal use of these parts in many places of the preamplifier where they were not supposed to make any difference ...

Also one important aspect is the evolution of the power supplies of modern tube preamplifiers - some of them keep the same basic amplifying circuits circuits but have had noticeable changes in the power supply topologies and components.

 

[mep]

I think that power supplies have had the greatest influence in improving the sound of audio equipment. In the old days, both preamps and power amps had marginal power supplies compared to today's gear. With tube circuits, this is especially true. You were lucky to have a total of 100mfd of capacitance in old tube amps in the power supply. Having big and beefy power supplies is the main reason that modern tube amps now have much better bass than tube amps from yesteryear. Tube rectifiers sag under load, SS diodes pushing big filter banks don't share that problem. As much as David Manley loved tubes (God rest his soul), David knew that tube rectifiers were simply no match for SS diodes and he was never going to achieve the stiffness he wanted in his power supplies if he used a tube rectifier.

 

[mep]

Compared to other nuvistors, maybe. compared to other non-nuvistor tubes, afraid not.

Facts please.

 

[mep]

Ask Roger its his concept.

You can't back up the statement you made?

 

[RogerD]

I am sure roger can answer if he wants. facts can be found on a google search, try, uhm, most linear tube or something like that...

No pissing match for me on this one.

I'll agree maybe not all nuvistors are the most linear of devices.....but the triodes are damn good. Conrad Johnson thought so.....

"The HV-1 Pre-Preamplifier was the first active phono pre-preamplifier from conrad johnson. It was a simple linear gain stage designed to provide the added gain required by low output moving coil cartridge. The HV-1 used the latest in vacuum tube technology, the nuvistor. Nuvistors are small metal-enclosed triode vacuum tubes noted for their extraordinary linearity and low noise."

http://www.conradjohnson.com/It_just_sounds_right/a-hv1.html

I have probably the best nuvistor preamp ever made. The sound is exceptional even for being built 50 years ago.

Ampex AES papers MR70 Master Recorder

http://www.ilk.org/~ppk/Manuals/Ampex_Misc/Ampex-AES_papers.pdf

The nuvistor is the most amazing tube design ever. Definitely the pinnacle of the thermionic art. However, it was too little and too late.....

Scott Dorsey.

 

[RogerD]

None intended of course. Actually, low microphonics is a big asset for nuvistors due to the way they were built sort of like tanks, and the first stage in a phono amp needs to be quiet. You have a pretty unique tape deck.

Thanks Tom

 

[flez007]

I have a custom-made preamp as a backup, sounded quite decent off the shelf and some months later I decided to upgraded it with Mundorf caps, the mod brought it three steps back in sound quality.

 

[MylesBAstor]

No pissing match for me on this one.

I'll agree maybe not all nuvistors are the most linear of devices.....but the triodes are damn good. Conrad Johnson thought so.....

"The HV-1 Pre-Preamplifier was the first active phono pre-preamplifier from conrad johnson. It was a simple linear gain stage designed to provide the added gain required by low output moving coil cartridge. The HV-1 used the latest in vacuum tube technology, the nuvistor. Nuvistors are small metal-enclosed triode vacuum tubes noted for their extraordinary linearity and low noise."

http://www.conradjohnson.com/It_just_sounds_right/a-hv1.html

I have probably the best nuvistor preamp ever made. The sound is exceptional even for being built 50 years ago.

Ampex AES papers MR70 Master Recorder

http://www.ilk.org/~ppk/Manuals/Ampex_Misc/Ampex-AES_papers.pdf

CJ also made another unit, I believe the Evolution pre, that used nuvistors. I had one and was glad to get rid of it because the nuvistors constantly went noisy.