Hi all,
I try to compare the design or sound quality of these three amps, REGARDLESS of price of course:
Audio Note Kageki:
"A pair of mono 8 watt Class A parallel single-ended no feedback amplifiers with all Audio Note silver-wired circuit and power supply, Audio Note silver foil signal capacitors and tantalum resistors, Black Gate caps everywhere, all Audio Note silver wired 0.2mm R36 C-core output transformers. They utilize 4 NOS 2A3, 2 NOS 5692 and 2 NOS 5U4G tubes."
EAR 859
"Enhanced Triode Mode stereo single ended valve power amplifier with control unit built in. 6 line inputs. 13 watts per channel output. Direct coupled circuit. ETM ensures superb linearity, and bullet proof reliability. "Highly Commended" by STEREOSOUND magazine, Japan. Winner of the Stereo Sound (Japan) Component of the Year Award for 1995-96. "
Audio Innovations - The First
"7.5 watt Pure Class A, Direct Heated Triodes type 6B4G or 2A3 , No overall or local feedback employed, Fully hardwired circuit. No Printed Circuit Board, Handmade paper in oil capacitors for best possible signal transfer, Non-magnetic resistors, Signal input wired with Audio Note 99.99% pure silver cable type AN-S, Cathode biased output stage... "
And now my question:
which design and why ?
For now, I prefer the parallel single ended double monoblock version, each monoblock delivering about 7 Watts power with 2 x 2A3 from JJ Electronics.
Does somebody know, if the above mentioned EAR "Enhanced triode mode" amp beats in sonic performance the two other 2A3 models ? (Let's say, I'll do everything perfectly).
I heard just one of them live, The First from Audio Innovations. It was amazing, no classic tube sound which tends to be too soft ... it was just fast, sounded like a transistor amp but in much more details and there wasn't any ear-hurting sound at all... it was just a REALLY beautiful smooth sound. Since I've heard it, I don't know what to say on the EAR .. I should perhaps hear it, too, but I unfortunately can't so I rely on your opinion.
They are also about the same price category - the AN Kageki is something else (ultra expensive) but still 2A3 SE.
So if somebody heard these (or perhaps other) 2A3-built SE amps and remembers on the sound quite clearly AND also have heard the EAR one, well, he could tell me, is the EAR really as succesful and sonically high-end as the reviews say, or is just another "no match" for the Kageki ?
I'm not going to copy them, neither have the circuit diagrams
just interested in that sentence of Tim de Paravicini (designer of EAR 859):
"..most of the fashionable tubes tested (300Bs etc) offered very poor performance. Driven hard in single ended mode, these tubes give 10W, but with poor reliability".
What's the truth? And the Kageki?
!!!
I try to compare the design or sound quality of these three amps, REGARDLESS of price of course:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Audio Note Kageki:
"A pair of mono 8 watt Class A parallel single-ended no feedback amplifiers with all Audio Note silver-wired circuit and power supply, Audio Note silver foil signal capacitors and tantalum resistors, Black Gate caps everywhere, all Audio Note silver wired 0.2mm R36 C-core output transformers. They utilize 4 NOS 2A3, 2 NOS 5692 and 2 NOS 5U4G tubes."
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
EAR 859
"Enhanced Triode Mode stereo single ended valve power amplifier with control unit built in. 6 line inputs. 13 watts per channel output. Direct coupled circuit. ETM ensures superb linearity, and bullet proof reliability. "Highly Commended" by STEREOSOUND magazine, Japan. Winner of the Stereo Sound (Japan) Component of the Year Award for 1995-96. "
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Audio Innovations - The First
"7.5 watt Pure Class A, Direct Heated Triodes type 6B4G or 2A3 , No overall or local feedback employed, Fully hardwired circuit. No Printed Circuit Board, Handmade paper in oil capacitors for best possible signal transfer, Non-magnetic resistors, Signal input wired with Audio Note 99.99% pure silver cable type AN-S, Cathode biased output stage... "
And now my question:
which design and why ?
For now, I prefer the parallel single ended double monoblock version, each monoblock delivering about 7 Watts power with 2 x 2A3 from JJ Electronics.
Does somebody know, if the above mentioned EAR "Enhanced triode mode" amp beats in sonic performance the two other 2A3 models ? (Let's say, I'll do everything perfectly).
I heard just one of them live, The First from Audio Innovations. It was amazing, no classic tube sound which tends to be too soft ... it was just fast, sounded like a transistor amp but in much more details and there wasn't any ear-hurting sound at all... it was just a REALLY beautiful smooth sound. Since I've heard it, I don't know what to say on the EAR .. I should perhaps hear it, too, but I unfortunately can't so I rely on your opinion.
They are also about the same price category - the AN Kageki is something else (ultra expensive) but still 2A3 SE.
So if somebody heard these (or perhaps other) 2A3-built SE amps and remembers on the sound quite clearly AND also have heard the EAR one, well, he could tell me, is the EAR really as succesful and sonically high-end as the reviews say, or is just another "no match" for the Kageki ?
I'm not going to copy them, neither have the circuit diagrams
just interested in that sentence of Tim de Paravicini (designer of EAR 859):"..most of the fashionable tubes tested (300Bs etc) offered very poor performance. Driven hard in single ended mode, these tubes give 10W, but with poor reliability".
What's the truth? And the Kageki?
!!!
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
I was lucky enough to have one of Be Yamamura's 211 AIR amplifiers at home for a couple of years. I had both GE VT4C (US Signals Corp) AND WE versions - which at start-up - had to be pinged with a fingernail to work! This amp design pre-dated any of the other nouveau 211 amps. It really was a most beautiful music maker with efficient speakers which I used then.
The transformers were made to Be's specs by the old Tamura company. A mono set of Tx was massively expensive back then in the early 80s.
Be has come on a long way since then!
The transformers were made to Be's specs by the old Tamura company. A mono set of Tx was massively expensive back then in the early 80s.
Be has come on a long way since then!
That's what I thought, too. I have customer who's trying to wriggle out of the cost of replacing the main PBC and troubleshooting a distortion problem in the left channel with the new PCB in place, because he's arguing that it's an integrated amp and should have enough gain to work with his CD player to make rated 13 watts output.
He brought a new PCB and told me he wanted it installed. Now he's claiming it doesn't play loud enough. Well, if I look at that schematic, there's no way in heck that it's going to have that kind of gain.
I'm very suspicious that the customer is trying to justify a refund. I offered to put his old board back in (which had a broken selector switch, but he says he did it himself. I wonder if he's trying to avoid having me find out the old board had the same gain and that he's trying to rip me off?
I am also curious about this unusual claim. Where did those 7v rms come from? Measurements? The 200mV quoted in KK's review make a lot more sense for an integrated. Is it not broken?
It's a new board from EAR, replacement purchased by the customer.
He's claiming that it's not loud enough.
Frankly, I'm not surprised it takes 7Vrms to make full power, given the fact that most of the amplifier is cathode-driven and the last stage is driven by the screen grid instead of the control grid.
I note that both channels demonstrate the exact same gain. It doesn't seem like there's a mistake in assembly. Both old and new boards have 1200 ohm plate resistors in the cascode, though the schematic says 120 ohm for these resistors. Customer claims the old board played louder than he could stand but he can hardly hear output from the new board. It's a shame I didn't get the opportunity to test the old board before the swap.
Without the overall feedback, it might make full power with less than 1v input.
I wonder how they get 200mV as the sensitivity?
Where does this 7V requirement for the EAR 859 originate?
I've built both the 859 and the upgraded version; the 869.
Both were designed as integrated amps with a built-in volume control.
And both have almost too much gain when driven from a CD player/ dac so I expect the KK figure of 200mV to be more accurate.
Something is wrong with your customer if he thinks the amp doesn't have enough gain.
The original published 859 schematic has a misprint of 4.7K at the input instead of 47K--could that be the problem?
And to Bill--EAR still sell the transformers to joepublic; I bought the updated 869 OPTs recently at a very reasonable price. But might pay to finish (start?) your Mod-86 first
tim
I've built both the 859 and the upgraded version; the 869.
Both were designed as integrated amps with a built-in volume control.
And both have almost too much gain when driven from a CD player/ dac so I expect the KK figure of 200mV to be more accurate.
Something is wrong with your customer if he thinks the amp doesn't have enough gain.
The original published 859 schematic has a misprint of 4.7K at the input instead of 47K--could that be the problem?
And to Bill--EAR still sell the transformers to joepublic; I bought the updated 869 OPTs recently at a very reasonable price. But might pay to finish (start?) your Mod-86 first
tim
We measured 13 watts out with the volume at maximum setting and the input voltage of 7Vrms at 1KHz. With 775mV input, we measure 0.166W output. Both channels within 0.5% in level consistency.
Is it possible the manufacturer put the wrong pot on the PCB? But then how does that explain the negative gain of the first triode stage? 7V at the grid, 3.5V at the plate of the first ECC88. Very odd.
Indeed. There is something wrong. Looking at the circuit a 510k for the plate resistor of the input cascode does not sound right at all. Is it possible to obtain pictures of the board with visible resistor values?
1.2K is the plate resistor value (actual), though the schematic calls out 120 ohms.
I still have a photo of the board that I took to note the positions of all wiring and connections before the swap. But the resistors are not readable.
Here is the 859 schematic
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/tubes-valves/66598-look-ear-859-pictures.html#post3373269
I think we must be talking about different amplifiers as the 859 input is a cascode.
510K is the plate load for the cascode as the pcc88 is run in "starved current mode"---I think it is called.
Starved current mode is unusual I understand but apparently (way over my head) it works very well.
I built mine (both 859 and 869) P2P rather than using a pcb but the circuit works well and is very sensitive so either your board is wrong or we are talking about different amplifiers.
Email me if you think I might be able to help in any way.
Bill--I understand you have other calls on your time these days so having a list of to do projects is understandable.
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/tubes-valves/66598-look-ear-859-pictures.html#post3373269
I think we must be talking about different amplifiers as the 859 input is a cascode.
510K is the plate load for the cascode as the pcc88 is run in "starved current mode"---I think it is called.
Starved current mode is unusual I understand but apparently (way over my head) it works very well.
I built mine (both 859 and 869) P2P rather than using a pcb but the circuit works well and is very sensitive so either your board is wrong or we are talking about different amplifiers.
Email me if you think I might be able to help in any way.
Bill--I understand you have other calls on your time these days so having a list of to do projects is understandable.
Do you need to deal with EAR directly, I can't find transformers mentioned on their web site?
And what is 'a reasonable price'?
Thanks,
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.