Yes, the smaller OPTs at around 1.4kg are more for the 45 and 2a3. The LL1663,64,82 are rated 50mA. There is a 100mA version of the LL1664 which would suit a 300b.
There are a few more smaller designs at around 60mA and 1.4kg, like James JS6112 and JS6113, Hashimoto 507S and 203S, Softone RW20, Silk S-502
For 80-100mA you are looking at 2 to 4 kg. Monoliths are more like 5kg.
There are a few more smaller designs at around 60mA and 1.4kg, like James JS6112 and JS6113, Hashimoto 507S and 203S, Softone RW20, Silk S-502
For 80-100mA you are looking at 2 to 4 kg. Monoliths are more like 5kg.
I would just like to add that for equal performance, C-core transformers (as sold by Lundahl and others) should be lighter than their E-core counterparts since they use their iron more efficiently.
Regards,
Kranis
I tried out the LL1664/70mA today in my PSET 4P1L amp (2x 4P1L outputs, 26 input).
It sounds very nice - clean and detailed. Definite recommendation. Similar to the LL1682/50 which I use with a single 4P1L SET. Same family.
2 x 4P1L with the LL1664 is cleaner, tighter and a better match for my Alpair 10s.
1 x 4P1L with LL1682 is a little better for timbre - more seductive vocals. It kind of "lets go" more. But there's no doubt that it's really on the limit for driving the Alpairs.
I'm pretty happy with either option - hard to choose. Both were better than using the LL1620, and others have said the same. The LL1664 can be had in different current options. 70mA is perfect for me. They do 50mA and 100mA versions going by their website.
It sounds very nice - clean and detailed. Definite recommendation. Similar to the LL1682/50 which I use with a single 4P1L SET. Same family.
2 x 4P1L with the LL1664 is cleaner, tighter and a better match for my Alpair 10s.
1 x 4P1L with LL1682 is a little better for timbre - more seductive vocals. It kind of "lets go" more. But there's no doubt that it's really on the limit for driving the Alpairs.
I'm pretty happy with either option - hard to choose. Both were better than using the LL1620, and others have said the same. The LL1664 can be had in different current options. 70mA is perfect for me. They do 50mA and 100mA versions going by their website.
Andy,
I used the 1664 and the Monolith Etude1 on my PSE 4p1l ( 2x4p1l, 4p1l driver). I like them both. Quite different sound signature. I can say that the 1664 was a better match with my Alpair12Ps. 1664 was as you described very clean and tight, but the Monolith excelled in details at both ends. I still have the barebone of that amp and thinking of buying back the transformers ( I used them for other projects). I am stuck to make a decision between LL1664/70mA , Etude 1 / 80mA or James 6123HS/90mA.
I used the 1664 and the Monolith Etude1 on my PSE 4p1l ( 2x4p1l, 4p1l driver). I like them both. Quite different sound signature. I can say that the 1664 was a better match with my Alpair12Ps. 1664 was as you described very clean and tight, but the Monolith excelled in details at both ends. I still have the barebone of that amp and thinking of buying back the transformers ( I used them for other projects). I am stuck to make a decision between LL1664/70mA , Etude 1 / 80mA or James 6123HS/90mA.
You could do what I just did - put the line stage and the output stage in different chassis. I also like it because it makes the units lighter to move about. I now have:
Output stages:
- 4P1L into LL1620/80mA at 5K
- 4P1L into LL1682/50mA
- 2x4P1L into LL1664/70mA
I could add more - I have a couple of O-netics at 3.5K and a big Audio Note at 2.5K... Haven't started on PP yet!!
Line stages:
- 4P1L with plate choke and FT-3 cap
- 26 with LL1660/5mA
Pending:
- 01A with Ale's gyrator. Heard his one in my system and it's the best yet
- 26 and 4P1L with gyrator
Tell me more about the Monolith Etude - sound quality and any further comparisons with the LL1664. I've been considering that one myself.
Output stages:
- 4P1L into LL1620/80mA at 5K
- 4P1L into LL1682/50mA
- 2x4P1L into LL1664/70mA
I could add more - I have a couple of O-netics at 3.5K and a big Audio Note at 2.5K... Haven't started on PP yet!!
Line stages:
- 4P1L with plate choke and FT-3 cap
- 26 with LL1660/5mA
Pending:
- 01A with Ale's gyrator. Heard his one in my system and it's the best yet
- 26 and 4P1L with gyrator
Tell me more about the Monolith Etude - sound quality and any further comparisons with the LL1664. I've been considering that one myself.
I'm not good at describing the sound. I also think that is not accurate anyway and it is a matter of personal preference. We are talking about high quality designed and built transformers and I think both are great choices. From a price perspective One can always stay with Lundahl. Monolith is a great sounding transformer too, very well balanced, excellent details at any signal level.
For my needs I will probably buy the Lundahl again because it matches better the impedance with 2x4p1l.
For my needs I will probably buy the Lundahl again because it matches better the impedance with 2x4p1l.
i tried out an amorphous core OPT yesterday, with interesting results. I won't name what it was, and in fact I don't even know where it came from, but it was serious and well built. Comparison was with my Lundahl LL1664/70mA which is used with two 4P1Ls in parallel, with 01A Gen 2 inputs.
What's interesting is that my listening impressions (Mark Audio Alpair 10s) were exactly the same as Juanitox's in previous posts. I'll add his remarks to the end of this post. So sound with the LL1664s was sweet, no listener fatigue at all, and quite enough inner detail. I like the voices, which are natural and relaxed, and the strings which have a nice sheen. these things are non-negotiable, since I listen to a lot of opera.
With the amorphous core the presentation was more immediate and vivid. The detail was similar, possibly a touch better. But there were downsides which ruled it out for me. The strings were coarser and the voices lost their natural relaxed quality and were more strained, so there was a noticeable listener fatigue. The general listening experience was less enjoyable.
I'd be interested in other experiences here. Juanitox solved the issue by getting Monolith S9s, and only money prevents me doing the same - especially since the pound has got weaker. So as I see it to better the LL1664, which I like a lot, it needs a conventional core but a very well-designed and well-built OPT.
Here's the original review, which is really good and expresses my own feelings exactly, except I haven't heard the Monoliths in my system.
"I have finally received my LL1664 AM, and after few hours of listening I have a mixed feeling with them. Sure it"s more refined and detailed, even in the low end but sometimes I find it a little harsh. The normal 1664 seems more warm. I will give them few more days before putting one pair of them in the classified.
20h of listening on my LL1664AM and no change or psycho adaptation. I wouldn't say it"s an upgrade at this moment just a change in presentation - more details and micro dynamics for sure but a sort of unbalance between low medium and high frequency and less impact on bass.
After 2 weeks with my LL1664AM I have swap it with the normal core to see the effect and yes the amorphous core is better – with the standard core the sound is smaller, less definition but I have the sweeter sound that I am used to. So I will sell the Amorphous transfo and keep the cheaper ones. Make no mistake the LL1664AM is better everywhere, but it has a color I don"t like or perhaps it’s the color of the iron core that I 'm used to. The only place where the iron core is better is in the low end power. I'm pretty sure that the LL1623AM with the better inductance will be perfect for my needs. With my little experience with OPT I would say that the LL1664 is equal to a Hashimoto and better than my James .
I have a very special amplifier, it's a E55L spud with minimum parts in the schematic. ALPS RK50 passive preamp (grid choke, grid Bias lithium Cell) LCLC (MKP PIO) tube power supply. So every minor change of component become dramatic and a real nightmare. Sometimes you want to put it in the trash, that was what I feel the Amorphous LL1664. But I can't say that if I didn't like it in this amp I would not like it in another tube Amp and I don't want to bash Lundahl transformers too. The normal LL1664 is real performer, cheap and far better than the James 6123.
So today I have mounted the Monolith magnetics Summit S9 in place of the Lundahl LL1664. I have sold the 1664AM because I didn’t like their sound balance - too clear for me. First thing to say with the Monolith is how big and heavy they are compared to the Lundahl. so i have to rebuild my amp to fit them. First minutes on, they sound totally different than the LL1664. The load is not the exactly the same - 3.3K vs 3K. I feel a little less gain. Sweet sound, a little softer too but refined highs with good detail. Is Monolith better than the Lundahl? I don't know but I will not go back.
I like very much the LL1664 for the tonal balance, the strong bass and the detailed highs. I already prefer the Monolith S9 for the smoothest and most refined highs, the separation of instruments and the controlled low end. But what I notice now with more volume is the "easy" distortionless sound. Impressive with complex parts of the music. So and end to the Blah Blah talk about the amorphous adventure , l will sell my LL1664 as well and keep the Monolith S9."
What's interesting is that my listening impressions (Mark Audio Alpair 10s) were exactly the same as Juanitox's in previous posts. I'll add his remarks to the end of this post. So sound with the LL1664s was sweet, no listener fatigue at all, and quite enough inner detail. I like the voices, which are natural and relaxed, and the strings which have a nice sheen. these things are non-negotiable, since I listen to a lot of opera.
With the amorphous core the presentation was more immediate and vivid. The detail was similar, possibly a touch better. But there were downsides which ruled it out for me. The strings were coarser and the voices lost their natural relaxed quality and were more strained, so there was a noticeable listener fatigue. The general listening experience was less enjoyable.
I'd be interested in other experiences here. Juanitox solved the issue by getting Monolith S9s, and only money prevents me doing the same - especially since the pound has got weaker. So as I see it to better the LL1664, which I like a lot, it needs a conventional core but a very well-designed and well-built OPT.
Here's the original review, which is really good and expresses my own feelings exactly, except I haven't heard the Monoliths in my system.
"I have finally received my LL1664 AM, and after few hours of listening I have a mixed feeling with them. Sure it"s more refined and detailed, even in the low end but sometimes I find it a little harsh. The normal 1664 seems more warm. I will give them few more days before putting one pair of them in the classified.
20h of listening on my LL1664AM and no change or psycho adaptation. I wouldn't say it"s an upgrade at this moment just a change in presentation - more details and micro dynamics for sure but a sort of unbalance between low medium and high frequency and less impact on bass.
After 2 weeks with my LL1664AM I have swap it with the normal core to see the effect and yes the amorphous core is better – with the standard core the sound is smaller, less definition but I have the sweeter sound that I am used to. So I will sell the Amorphous transfo and keep the cheaper ones. Make no mistake the LL1664AM is better everywhere, but it has a color I don"t like or perhaps it’s the color of the iron core that I 'm used to. The only place where the iron core is better is in the low end power. I'm pretty sure that the LL1623AM with the better inductance will be perfect for my needs. With my little experience with OPT I would say that the LL1664 is equal to a Hashimoto and better than my James .
I have a very special amplifier, it's a E55L spud with minimum parts in the schematic. ALPS RK50 passive preamp (grid choke, grid Bias lithium Cell) LCLC (MKP PIO) tube power supply. So every minor change of component become dramatic and a real nightmare. Sometimes you want to put it in the trash, that was what I feel the Amorphous LL1664. But I can't say that if I didn't like it in this amp I would not like it in another tube Amp and I don't want to bash Lundahl transformers too. The normal LL1664 is real performer, cheap and far better than the James 6123.
So today I have mounted the Monolith magnetics Summit S9 in place of the Lundahl LL1664. I have sold the 1664AM because I didn’t like their sound balance - too clear for me. First thing to say with the Monolith is how big and heavy they are compared to the Lundahl. so i have to rebuild my amp to fit them. First minutes on, they sound totally different than the LL1664. The load is not the exactly the same - 3.3K vs 3K. I feel a little less gain. Sweet sound, a little softer too but refined highs with good detail. Is Monolith better than the Lundahl? I don't know but I will not go back.
I like very much the LL1664 for the tonal balance, the strong bass and the detailed highs. I already prefer the Monolith S9 for the smoothest and most refined highs, the separation of instruments and the controlled low end. But what I notice now with more volume is the "easy" distortionless sound. Impressive with complex parts of the music. So and end to the Blah Blah talk about the amorphous adventure , l will sell my LL1664 as well and keep the Monolith S9."
I will throw in a dissenting opinion here. Having participated in measuring some O-netics transformers, my conclusion was that they were not of a sufficient quality to use in a single ended amplifier (not enough inductance, too rolled off on top). The same goes for Hashimoto, they just don't have sufficient primary inductance for adequate low frequency response (IMO). 9H for a 3.3K transformer is almost guitar amp territory. The One Electron output iron also belongs in this group.
The Magnequest FS-030 is a good place to start, as is the Sowter SE-08.
Lundahl also belongs in the group of gapped transformers that I like.
I have yet to use James Iron, or really any of the Chinese stuff, so I can't say much about how they stack up.
The Magnequest FS-030 is a good place to start, as is the Sowter SE-08.
Lundahl also belongs in the group of gapped transformers that I like.
I have yet to use James Iron, or really any of the Chinese stuff, so I can't say much about how they stack up.
I bought a set of Plitrons for my amps back in 2012. I purchased the 5000 ohm models and later a set of 2500 ohm models both for 300B amps. I feel after splitting some hairs that the 5000K set sound the best, they create a slightly better sound stage. For my time and money they have proven to be the best available transformer on the market. The issue would be if your amp is good enough for a transformer as revealing as the Plitron. I will always stay open minded to new innovation but for now the road stops here for me.
Remembers me what i feel about different headphones. Now with Stats, microdetail blew up seriously. Acoustic music, 80´s etc - lots of fun.
Downside is similar like yours -- this detail increase is painful. Modern dance music -- lots of synths; squarewaves, white noise..
1,4µm foil has no problem to play each harmonics loudly to the ears.
Stats changed my music taste. Now when i take the Beyers..they sound terribly muffled !😱
Maybe if you spent month with amorph... you would "hate" normal iron (?)
Quite likely IMO the "better core material" output transformers reveal the weak points of the loudspeaker; especially the drawbacks of full range single cone speakers. Treble is not their strongest property, and this becomes more apparent when the amplifier is able to deliver more detail.
In case of high quality treble (air motion transformers or ribbon tweeters) the higher quality of amorphous core transformers (and nowadays even better nanocrystalline) is immediately apparent (also on strings).
I remember that many years ago replacing a stock step up transformer of a Stax SR5 headphone by an amorphous core one was a revelation; it convinced me of the impact an audio transformer has on the final sound.
In case of high quality treble (air motion transformers or ribbon tweeters) the higher quality of amorphous core transformers (and nowadays even better nanocrystalline) is immediately apparent (also on strings).
I remember that many years ago replacing a stock step up transformer of a Stax SR5 headphone by an amorphous core one was a revelation; it convinced me of the impact an audio transformer has on the final sound.
OK guys - I'll try to persevere with the amorphous core. It will mean finding out and dealing with anything else in the system that's harsh. Standard core is the easy way out - everything smooth and agreeable. But as you say, may not be getting the ultimate out of the system.
That's exactly the point Andy.
There is nothing wrong with "everything smooth and agreeable", and for maybe the majority this is most important and what they are looking for.
When you are more of the "hifi" variety (I am one of those), which means you are looking for a sound which comes nearest the original, individual components of a reproduction system can never be "good enough".
A couple of years ago a customer found my inductive volume control sounding too detailed, which for me was a compliment, but for him a restriction.
I dare to say that in 99+ % of reproduction systems the loudspeaker is the weakest link; it remains the subject where most progress can be made. Higher quality components are apparently "higher quality" only when the loudspeaker can reveal them.
There is nothing wrong with "everything smooth and agreeable", and for maybe the majority this is most important and what they are looking for.
When you are more of the "hifi" variety (I am one of those), which means you are looking for a sound which comes nearest the original, individual components of a reproduction system can never be "good enough".
A couple of years ago a customer found my inductive volume control sounding too detailed, which for me was a compliment, but for him a restriction.
I dare to say that in 99+ % of reproduction systems the loudspeaker is the weakest link; it remains the subject where most progress can be made. Higher quality components are apparently "higher quality" only when the loudspeaker can reveal them.
The transformer selection and tube selection go hand in hand. I started to hear the weakness in tubes when I installed the Plitrons, I bought a set of Sophia Royal Princess 300B tubes and let me tell you, you get what you pay for.
I suspect that finding the harshness in the system might be a little difficult...
1. I use Audirvana+ Ver 2. This is smoother than the Ver 1, but it's still digital. But all my music is on my Mac so that part is not negotiable.
2. The Alpair 10 speakers are full range as has been mentioned. It's possible to imagine that ribbons would be smoother.
3. I use 01A and 4P1L tubes in filament bias, so adding chokes to the filament supply increase smoothness
4. I use a gyrator on the 01A, and maybe an interstage would be a tiny bit smoother. This is the easiest to check.
Any or all could be factors. There is a fifth factor...
5. I have some tinnitus in my left ear, and some hearing loss at upper frequencies. The impression I get is that the "harshness" irritates my left ear.
The other thing I'm wondering is that since I have some loss of upper frequencies, the harshness my be lower down than 20Khz.
Alpair 10 shows some + 6 dB over an important octave: 7 - 15 kHz.
That might, unless you did some correction, make the system rather harsh sensitive, and to me it seems that the loudspeaker strongly reveals it's character.
Your amplifier (and source) is much more neutral in comparison.
That might, unless you did some correction, make the system rather harsh sensitive, and to me it seems that the loudspeaker strongly reveals it's character.
Your amplifier (and source) is much more neutral in comparison.
That makes sense. A speaker peak could easily be more than you'd expect from amplification.
I'm reluctant to use a crossover - a lot of extra work. I do have a nice ribbon tweeter I could use. I have the Alpair 10 ver 1. Not the later versions. It's well broken in, and the bass response is certainly better than when new. I don't know how break-in affects the treble, if at all.
Hi
I am testing a full Litz trafo for s.e.
Primary 2500 ohm secondary fix to 6 ohms
It seems to be fine.
Manifactured in Italy with double C core
Next future I will post the results
Walter
I am testing a full Litz trafo for s.e.
Primary 2500 ohm secondary fix to 6 ohms
It seems to be fine.
Manifactured in Italy with double C core
Next future I will post the results
Walter
Speaker or output transformer?
See this is the thing; many builders make choices to suit their flawed speaker system and make pronouncements based upon an idiosyncratic sounding speaker. Most of these belong to the single driver crowd.
Perhaps the better transformer will sound the worse because it does not mitigate any flaws downstream. Surely worth pondering.
Best, Kris
See this is the thing; many builders make choices to suit their flawed speaker system and make pronouncements based upon an idiosyncratic sounding speaker. Most of these belong to the single driver crowd.
Perhaps the better transformer will sound the worse because it does not mitigate any flaws downstream. Surely worth pondering.
Best, Kris