I'm posting this knowing that it's provocative and will get a lot of disagreement, but after yet another preamp build I can't avoid this conclusion. So I'm just being honest here, for better or worse!
I've lost track of all the preamps I've built, but some serious comparative listening with fellow builders over several years seemed to repeatedly show that you got good sound out of the following valves: E80CC, ECC40, 6SN7 and all loctal variations, 6J5 and many variants particularly the 7193/2C22, 6N1P, 6N30 and 12B4. No doubt you can add a few but you get the idea - these come up regularly in designs.
Then 2 years ago I started building preamps with DHTs. The best used 26, 01A, 10Y and 1J6G. The first I tried was the 26 and my jaw just dropped about 150 feet. ALL of these were better than ALL the IDHTs I tried. I did repeated comparative tests and got the same results again and again. Topologies varied - I tried teflon cap output, transformer outputs of several types - about four or five different Lundahls and the Hammond 124b nickel. Choke loading, active anode loads, resistor loading, unbypassed cathodes, cathodes bypassed with polypropylene caps. CCSs of several types.
Doubting my sanity in the face of a flood of Aikidos and 12b4 preamps I built two identical balanced preamps. One used 1J6G into Hammond 124b, CCS under. The other used ECC40. I like this valve and use it in the input of my amp, so after the preamp the signal was going through a ECC40 anyway.
No contest - the 1J6G blew away the ECC40. And in exactly the same way DHTs habitually do - timbre, timbre, timbre. The instrumental timbres were rich, realistic, dynamic, vivid. With the ECC40 they were relatively flat. Detail was similar. After the 1J6G it was painful to go back to the ECC40 - this pre goes back on the bench and will be fitted with DHTs.
Clearly the preamp stage is critical - it establishes the sound that then gets amplified through the chain. Lose something and it's lost.
All my experience over 2 years has shown me that I just can't get that vivid, alive, delicate sound with IDHTs, whatever they offer. I'm a professional musician - I've played all my life in orchestras, small groups, theatres, clubs etc. I know what real instruments sound like, and I get this with DHTs.
I rest my case. I just don't know what else to say. Over to you guys.
andy evans
I've lost track of all the preamps I've built, but some serious comparative listening with fellow builders over several years seemed to repeatedly show that you got good sound out of the following valves: E80CC, ECC40, 6SN7 and all loctal variations, 6J5 and many variants particularly the 7193/2C22, 6N1P, 6N30 and 12B4. No doubt you can add a few but you get the idea - these come up regularly in designs.
Then 2 years ago I started building preamps with DHTs. The best used 26, 01A, 10Y and 1J6G. The first I tried was the 26 and my jaw just dropped about 150 feet. ALL of these were better than ALL the IDHTs I tried. I did repeated comparative tests and got the same results again and again. Topologies varied - I tried teflon cap output, transformer outputs of several types - about four or five different Lundahls and the Hammond 124b nickel. Choke loading, active anode loads, resistor loading, unbypassed cathodes, cathodes bypassed with polypropylene caps. CCSs of several types.
Doubting my sanity in the face of a flood of Aikidos and 12b4 preamps I built two identical balanced preamps. One used 1J6G into Hammond 124b, CCS under. The other used ECC40. I like this valve and use it in the input of my amp, so after the preamp the signal was going through a ECC40 anyway.
No contest - the 1J6G blew away the ECC40. And in exactly the same way DHTs habitually do - timbre, timbre, timbre. The instrumental timbres were rich, realistic, dynamic, vivid. With the ECC40 they were relatively flat. Detail was similar. After the 1J6G it was painful to go back to the ECC40 - this pre goes back on the bench and will be fitted with DHTs.
Clearly the preamp stage is critical - it establishes the sound that then gets amplified through the chain. Lose something and it's lost.
All my experience over 2 years has shown me that I just can't get that vivid, alive, delicate sound with IDHTs, whatever they offer. I'm a professional musician - I've played all my life in orchestras, small groups, theatres, clubs etc. I know what real instruments sound like, and I get this with DHTs.
I rest my case. I just don't know what else to say. Over to you guys.
andy evans
Hi Andy,
I think it just depends on the objective. F.e, I am an avowing cheapskater - well, mostly. In this regard my objective is to get decent sound from "cheap TV tubes", standard caps, just well engineered circuits, and so on etc, pp.
So far, nobody laught about my stuff when presenting/demonstrating it at audio fairs or meetings like ETF, so there seems not to be much wrong with my personal idea, objective and approach to tube DIY.
Granted, multi-kilo-Euro DHT and fancy iron stuff often enough will beat my stuff soundwise, but often enough I cannot resist a grin about what can be done using tubes for a few cents and two-digit Euro OPTs. But not without quite some research and effort to get there. Well, just my idea of a satisfying hobby - and my idea of "sportsmanship" in tube DIY, so to say.
Again, it just depends on the (personal) objectives. And even within the "same" hobby, there are different views, opinions, even schools.
Definitely, I would say!
Regards,
Tom Schlangen
I think it just depends on the objective. F.e, I am an avowing cheapskater - well, mostly. In this regard my objective is to get decent sound from "cheap TV tubes", standard caps, just well engineered circuits, and so on etc, pp.
So far, nobody laught about my stuff when presenting/demonstrating it at audio fairs or meetings like ETF, so there seems not to be much wrong with my personal idea, objective and approach to tube DIY.
Granted, multi-kilo-Euro DHT and fancy iron stuff often enough will beat my stuff soundwise, but often enough I cannot resist a grin about what can be done using tubes for a few cents and two-digit Euro OPTs. But not without quite some research and effort to get there. Well, just my idea of a satisfying hobby - and my idea of "sportsmanship" in tube DIY, so to say.
Again, it just depends on the (personal) objectives. And even within the "same" hobby, there are different views, opinions, even schools.
Definitely, I would say!
Regards,
Tom Schlangen
Hi Andy
I've recently started experimenting with DHTs as preamp tubes.
I'm currently using a 46, feeding a 12B4A driving PX25 DRD power amp
The 46 blows any IDHT preamp I've ever built, into the weeds.
I have a pair of 26s to try, but I love the 46 preamp so much, I can't seem to get around to altering anything at the moment; too busy listening to the thing to tinker.
Steve
I've recently started experimenting with DHTs as preamp tubes.
I'm currently using a 46, feeding a 12B4A driving PX25 DRD power amp
The 46 blows any IDHT preamp I've ever built, into the weeds.
I have a pair of 26s to try, but I love the 46 preamp so much, I can't seem to get around to altering anything at the moment; too busy listening to the thing to tinker.
Steve
Have you tried comparing output to input?
There's a well-known designer for whom I have the greatest respect who believes (not unreasonably) that much of the attractive "vivid" quality of DHT comes from the mechanical resonance of the cathode. That's OK, but it is an addition and signal processing, so should be recognized as such. Which means that there is certainly a reason to use another technology- if you want the electronics to not add "niceness" to the sound but merely to amplify.
There's a well-known designer for whom I have the greatest respect who believes (not unreasonably) that much of the attractive "vivid" quality of DHT comes from the mechanical resonance of the cathode. That's OK, but it is an addition and signal processing, so should be recognized as such. Which means that there is certainly a reason to use another technology- if you want the electronics to not add "niceness" to the sound but merely to amplify.
A few points here:
1) Economy. Parts for a 1J6G preamp are pretty basic and all cheap. 1J6G is about a 5 dollar part, the Hammond 124b is about 20 dollars, but you can use cap output - Russian teflons were a dollar each last time I bought. Add the usual cases, resistors, caps and things and I don't think this is an issue.
2) Haven't tried a 46 in a preamp - it's a lovely tube! Thanks for the tip. Haven't tried 49 either. I have both.
3) Euphonics and "added realism". Well, I'm not an EE so comparative measurements may be a bit difficult. I build circuits to sound good, so my ears are the arbitor of what stays and goes.
But the thing is this - I'm a psychologist in my day job (play music at nights) so I'm pretty sceptical about comparative tests, and I do regularly have to weigh up evidence and determine what validity to give to one thing or another. So this isn't an airhead post about "don't know much about it but I know what I like" if you see what I mean.
So my line of reasoning is:
"If this is added realism and vividness, then by what fortuitous accident does it get closer to the timbre of acoustic instruments than IDHTs do?". I 'm not excluding this but it seems far fetched. It's not even as if it's like using Velvia for color photos to get extra vividness through colour saturation. Though it is a LOT like using Kodachrome 25 with Leica glass. It's exactly that crystalline fresh reproduction.
Do you see my difficulty with this line of reasoning? I'm not saying it's wrong - it's certainly interesting. Maybe there are other factors at work here?
andy
1) Economy. Parts for a 1J6G preamp are pretty basic and all cheap. 1J6G is about a 5 dollar part, the Hammond 124b is about 20 dollars, but you can use cap output - Russian teflons were a dollar each last time I bought. Add the usual cases, resistors, caps and things and I don't think this is an issue.
2) Haven't tried a 46 in a preamp - it's a lovely tube! Thanks for the tip. Haven't tried 49 either. I have both.
3) Euphonics and "added realism". Well, I'm not an EE so comparative measurements may be a bit difficult. I build circuits to sound good, so my ears are the arbitor of what stays and goes.
But the thing is this - I'm a psychologist in my day job (play music at nights) so I'm pretty sceptical about comparative tests, and I do regularly have to weigh up evidence and determine what validity to give to one thing or another. So this isn't an airhead post about "don't know much about it but I know what I like" if you see what I mean.
So my line of reasoning is:
"If this is added realism and vividness, then by what fortuitous accident does it get closer to the timbre of acoustic instruments than IDHTs do?". I 'm not excluding this but it seems far fetched. It's not even as if it's like using Velvia for color photos to get extra vividness through colour saturation. Though it is a LOT like using Kodachrome 25 with Leica glass. It's exactly that crystalline fresh reproduction.
Do you see my difficulty with this line of reasoning? I'm not saying it's wrong - it's certainly interesting. Maybe there are other factors at work here?
andy
Search original Soviet 6N30P-DR, 1970 - 1980.
Together with TAMURA A4714 it is a tube gives unique sounding (it is necessary to choose without a microphone effect). I had to compare with preamp on 10, 26, E81L, E55L, C3m, E280F, many other tubes (with matching transformers for internal resistance the tube).
Together with TAMURA A4714 it is a tube gives unique sounding (it is necessary to choose without a microphone effect). I had to compare with preamp on 10, 26, E81L, E55L, C3m, E280F, many other tubes (with matching transformers for internal resistance the tube).
I prefer Zeiss, but then again both hobbies are about doing what you like. You only need to satisfy your preferences, and budget. Remember the original Kodachrome advertising stated that Kodachrome delivers pleasing color rendition, not accurate color rendition. Worked well for Kodak.
I haven't finished a DHT preamp yet. In fact I didn't finish any amplifier last year. A little over a year ago I was experimenting with a line stage. I need a little gain and the ability to drive several amplifiers at once. This way I can leave them all hooked up and just turn on the one that I want to hear. I tried several tubes and circuits nearly settling on a 12B4. Then I tried an 01A with a mosfet follower. I must admit that it sounded nice and had just the right amount of gain. I do have some 1J6's and 46's maybe I'll try them.
Nothing got finished, and I was trying to sort out the phono stage when all progress stopped. My current phono stage uses an opamp.
Andy,
I have to agree with you, nothing sounds better than a DHT. I'm also a musician, play cello and nothind can beat a DHT. I'm running VERY rare CX-340, CCS and parafeed OTPs. I tried all the others, 01, 26, 1H4, 1H5, 1J6, 10, 45, 801, 811, etc. The CX-340 really sing with the right PS and parts. For years I ran it with a Lambda Tube regulator and all kinds of LC networks, CCS etc. It really improved with the Salas HV shunt reg. (yes I know, sand is BAD), but now it really sings! Now it has the timbre, speed and depth that are so critical when you are a musician. I tried the Janus Tube shunt reg, but the Salas blows it away. It sould work great with the 1J6. I will not put sand or IDHTs in the signal path.
I have to agree with you, nothing sounds better than a DHT. I'm also a musician, play cello and nothind can beat a DHT. I'm running VERY rare CX-340, CCS and parafeed OTPs. I tried all the others, 01, 26, 1H4, 1H5, 1J6, 10, 45, 801, 811, etc. The CX-340 really sing with the right PS and parts. For years I ran it with a Lambda Tube regulator and all kinds of LC networks, CCS etc. It really improved with the Salas HV shunt reg. (yes I know, sand is BAD), but now it really sings! Now it has the timbre, speed and depth that are so critical when you are a musician. I tried the Janus Tube shunt reg, but the Salas blows it away. It sould work great with the 1J6. I will not put sand or IDHTs in the signal path.
cygnus x1 said:
I think I tried all those on your list except 1H5, but also added 3a5, 1G4, 30, 31, 12A, X99, 1E4 and a few more. Never came across the CX-340. I'll have to look out for it. I also have some European ones to try like RE074, RE034 and RE134.
I must look at the Salas. I've been using a mesh plate AZ1 with choke and polypropylene caps.
andy
SY said:
I think this is exactly right. However, the best sounding thing I have ever produced is a 71-A based headphone amp. It is lovely to listen to. I am never concerned that there are musicians in the room, however. The notion that a stereo will ever depict realism, or indeed even come close, is a fallacy.
As such, the goal to me is to produce something that sounds good and that evokes the emotion of the music, not something that reproduces some situation in my house. Really, the "distortion" between a live event and a recording is huge -- the same as a distortion between a photograph and an experience. It is dumb to even compare.
andyjevans said:
Sure, it is predicated on the belief that either the DHT or IDHT has a chance of sounding real, at all. If one sounds better to you than the other, why does it need to do more?
tubelab.com said:
Me too, for exactly the reason I prefer DHTs, oddly enough.
tubelab.com said:
The analogy is apt. I love Kodachrome, too.
Fwiw, I say that good solid state sounds like Velvia looks
andyjevans said:
I think confusion and friction often arises because terms like accuracy and realism are not defined in context. SY is referring to accuracy of reproduction, and it can be defined objectively. "Realism", as used here, refers more to the effectiveness of the illusion. Not saying that's inferior or undesirable, as one cannot accurately reproduce all the sounds that would reach our ears, with all the correct timing in in the right proportion, and with all the correct directional cues. So we make do. Case in point: I never hear the some kind of directional cues live that I hear in a stereo recording, especially with large ensembles. But, in the live event, I have my eyes and the venue effects to add to what I hear. So is a good recording accurate? Well, only the recording and amplification chain can be accurate. Once it hits the speaker and goes into the room, it's not. So if the system adds a little here or there to fill in some of the missing pieces and create a more realistic seeming illusion, then great. But, the illusion that triggers the "real" in you, might not be the same one that works for others.
DHT's are certainly no more accurate than IDHT's, as a class. But perhaps they can they add something that enhances the illusion for at least some. SY suggests a mechanism.
andyjevans said:
OK. Such as?
Sheldon
I have an inherent distrust of my ears. Actually, not so much my ears as my brain, to which my ears are connected.
If they are more accurate(meaning that they produce a scaled up version of the input and nothing more), it should be easy to provide some evidence of this in the form of measurements. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that they aren't more accurate. I'm just saying that it sounds like a cop-out to say on one hand that they are more accurate but on the other hand that one will only accept one's own listening experiences as evidence of their accuracy, which I hear all the time.
woodturner-fran said:
Here you is:
27 Parafeed Preamp
http://nullspace.us/27.html
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Enjoy,
-- josé k.
DHT's are certainly no more accurate than IDHT's, as a class. But perhaps they can they add something that enhances the illusion for at least some>>>>>
I believe I'm saying that as far as I can hear, DHTs ARE more accurate in terms of timbre, and are so as a class. I'm not talking about illusion either, like situating speakers in such a way to create a "soundstage". And I think a good sound system can come quite close to live instruments. I'm only talking acoustic instruments here - nothing miked up or amplified. Such instruments as drumkits, oboes, clarinets and Steinway pianos have quite distinctive sounds, and I think musicians who hear such sounds on a daily basis and in close proximity can recognise when the timbre of these instruments is close or closer to the original.
The bit I personally have diffidulty with is that in the recording chain there are God knows how many solid state devices and transformers. So the difficult part is believing that a recording can go through all that lot, and when it encounters a single preamp DHT somewhere in the chain the sound reverts to a more realistic timbre.
Against that, I have found that if I replace all the tubes with DHTs - preamp and amp - the timbre gets better and better.
So I'm still stuck over the theory here, even though I can hear the results quite plainly.
andy
I believe I'm saying that as far as I can hear, DHTs ARE more accurate in terms of timbre, and are so as a class. I'm not talking about illusion either, like situating speakers in such a way to create a "soundstage". And I think a good sound system can come quite close to live instruments. I'm only talking acoustic instruments here - nothing miked up or amplified. Such instruments as drumkits, oboes, clarinets and Steinway pianos have quite distinctive sounds, and I think musicians who hear such sounds on a daily basis and in close proximity can recognise when the timbre of these instruments is close or closer to the original.
The bit I personally have diffidulty with is that in the recording chain there are God knows how many solid state devices and transformers. So the difficult part is believing that a recording can go through all that lot, and when it encounters a single preamp DHT somewhere in the chain the sound reverts to a more realistic timbre.
Against that, I have found that if I replace all the tubes with DHTs - preamp and amp - the timbre gets better and better.
So I'm still stuck over the theory here, even though I can hear the results quite plainly.
andy
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.