tube power enough?

[SIDEWALKSISSY]

all my home audio and musical gear was stolen out of a storage unit. in the market for new stuff. this time i wanna try a tube amp. my only concern is power. is it enough to power full range speakers with 88 db efficiency? everybody i know that uses tube amps listen to stuff like jazz and classical. i listen to 80% metal, 10% industrial, and 10% war theme classical. i like a forward in your face sound, good bass, and clean highs without making your ears bleed. for speakers, i've always wanted some klipsch rf-7's. i had the rf-83's and i couldn't stand them. loud as hell, but lacked solid bass. kick-drum wasn't too good with those speakers. better for ht, rather than 2ch. i also wanna build my own tube amp. not toally from scratch because i'm a noob. i wanna do a trial session to see if i even like tube sound. will this be a good diy kit? any suggestions on which direction i should go would be greatly appreciated. i dont wanna spend no more than $1000 on my first tube amp. thanx.

TriodeElectronics Dynaco ST-70 Tube Amp Kit

[SY]

An ST70 would be a good choice, IMO.

[Loren42]

Yes, the ST-70 is a good amp for the price. It's 35 WPC. The Mark III would better suit your power requirements (they are 60 Watts each), but a pair of those will set you back a little more than your budget.

It may be worth reconsidering your budget. Every 3 dB in sound level increase requires doubling your amp's power.

With speakers of 88 dB/Watt you will require almost 4 times the power that I do to drive my 93 dB/Watt speakers I built. Given 80% of your listening is hard rock, I would err on the side of more power rather than getting something underpowered and then selling it at a loss to buy something with more power.

However, if you are really thinking of rolling your own amp from scratch and want to get your feet wet first and can live with 35 WPC on a temporary basis (assuming 35 WPC is not enough), then the ST-70 is not a bad choice to learn from.

[SIDEWALKSISSY]

Originally Posted by Loren42

Yes, the ST-70 is a good amp for the price. It's 35 WPC. The Mark III would better suit your power requirements (they are 60 Watts each), but a pair of those will set you back a little more than your budget.

It may be worth reconsidering your budget. Every 3 dB in sound level increase requires doubling your amp's power.

With speakers of 88 dB/Watt you will require almost 4 times the power that I do to drive my 93 dB/Watt speakers I built. Given 80% of your listening is hard rock, I would err on the side of more power rather than getting something underpowered and then selling it at a loss to buy something with more power.

However, if you are really thinking of rolling your own amp from scratch and want to get your feet wet first and can live with 35 WPC on a temporary basis (assuming 35 WPC is not enough), then the ST-70 is not a bad choice to learn from.

sooo... your saying i would be better off buying two mark lll's, running them mono? i think the rf-7's are 92 db, but i hear they like power. if i run the mark lll mono, will that give me 120 watts x 1 @ 8ohm?

[Loren42]

Originally Posted by SIDEWALKSISSY

sooo... your saying i would be better off buying two mark lll's, running them mono? i think the rf-7's are 92 db, but i hear they like power. if i run the mark lll mono, will that give me 120 watts x 1 @ 8ohm?

"i think the rf-7's are 92 db, but i hear they like power."

Huh? I don't know what that means, "like power". If a speaker puts out 92 dB/Watt at one meter and another puts out 88 dB/Watt at one meter, the second set of speakers will require just over twice the power in Watts to generate the same sound pressure level (SPL). Maybe "likes power" means that they won't self destruct if driven hard?

If you get two Mk IIIs, connect each one to each speaker (left and right) and play them in stereo. The MK III should have 4 and 8 Ω taps, so use whichever tap matches the speaker you connect it to. Two MK IIIs will give you almost twice the power than the ST-70. If you use KT-88 output tubes for the MK III you will get a little more balls to your bass than the ST-70 delivers. That is a little subjective, but most people agree.

[rknize]

Go find some KLFs. I have the 10s (98dB), but the 20s are even better (100dB). I like rock, metal, and trance/techno as well. Wall shaking bass with just 8WPC. The ST70 shakes the house.

[ultrachrome]

RF-7 is 102dB @ 2.83 volts/1 meter. You could probably get away with an ST-70 in triode mode.

Klipsch Classic RF-7 Floorstanding Speaker - Tower Speaker, Floor Speaker, Loudspeaker, Home Theater - Free Shipping - 30 Day Satisfaction Guarantee - Specifications

[SIDEWALKSISSY]

Originally Posted by rknize

Go find some KLFs. I have the 10s (98dB), but the 20s are even better (100dB). I like rock, metal, and trance/techno as well. Wall shaking bass with just 8WPC. The ST70 shakes the house.

klf 20's are hard to find, i also think the rf-7 would have a better compression driver. they look almost identical. teo 10" midrange drivers and a horn...

[SIDEWALKSISSY]

Originally Posted by ultrachrome

RF-7 is 102dB @ 2.83 volts/1 meter. You could probably get away with an ST-70 in triode mode.

Klipsch Classic RF-7 Floorstanding Speaker - Tower Speaker, Floor Speaker, Loudspeaker, Home Theater - Free Shipping - 30 Day Satisfaction Guarantee - Specifications

i never got a chance to listen to some rf-7's... like i said above, i didnt like the rf-83's. whats the bass responce on your rf-7's? sound good in 2ch. mode with no sub?

[rknize]

They come up on Craigslist from time to time. They weigh a ton, so eBay isn't realistic unless they are local. I got my KLF-10s for $150, which I only discovered later was a steal. They usually go for 300-500, depending on condition. Still, I would like to find a pair of 20s someday as the 10s are lacking in the midrange somewhat.

RF-7 looks like a fine modern substitute if you can afford them (I can't).