• WARNING: Tube/Valve amplifiers use potentially LETHAL HIGH VOLTAGES.
    Building, troubleshooting and testing of these amplifiers should only be
    performed by someone who is thoroughly familiar with
    the safety precautions around high voltages.

Hammond or James OPT for SE 300B ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
ashok

ashok

Member
Joined 2002
Paid Member
#1
Which OPT , a Hammond or James , would be suitable for a SE 300B amp. Is the James audibly far superior to the Hammond ?

I want to keep costs sensibly down. Since this is experimental in nature , I don't want to go overboard. But the iron is really crucial here. Any opinions on this choice ?
Thanks,
Ashok.
 
#2
hi,

hammond trannies are good value for money. the 30Hz to 30kHz freq. range specs are at full rated power, so this is pretty decent considering their price...

i have not heard James trannies, so canot coment, but i get the feeling they are considered superior to hammonds but are more expensive? so i guess it's a question of what's more important... money, or a bit of an improvement in sound.

cheers
 
#4
Weight differences.

This is not a conclusive way of determining the capacity of a transformer , but weight would roughly indicate the amount of core material in a transformer. That would determine it's power handling capacity and possibly it's LF capability.

The James 6123HS weighs 3.2 Kg and the Hammond 1627SE weighs about 5Kg . Apart from slight power handling differences , would this imply that the Hammond will go lower than the James ? Of course the James might use a core that can handle much higher flux and hence use less material in the core resulting in lower weight.
What is the correct explanation?
Thanks.
 
#5
OPT

redwine1118 said:
I prefer James, outstanding performance in compare with Tango.😎
Click to expand...


I seccond that!
But to be honest, Plitron/Amplimo (Menno van der Veen) is the winner but costs much more than the James OPT.

James transformers looks nice/cute!
And Plitron/Amplimo are well build and to my taste the most beautyfull one.

So if you want to keepcosts low and build a good amp I'd go for James OPT!


Best regards,


Audiofanatic 😉
 
#6
I prefer James, outstanding performance in compare with Tango.
Click to expand...

Have you measured the performance or have you only compared paper specifications?

I found this on the net which made me wonder...

http://www.sacthailand.com/transformerTest1.html

Quote "James Model JS-6123HS Universal output transformer with EI core that performs far behind Tango U-808" end quote.

Note that Tango U-808 is a low cost transformer with much lower performance than Tango XE-20S.


I have found it almost impossible to compare transformers from the data sheet as manufacturers are not consistent in the way they measure the performance, a classic example is the way to specify primary inductance in push-pull transformers wheter it is at low signal level, at peak magnetic flux or close to saturation, the values achieved are naturally very different and most manufacturers don't even specify the measurement conditions...

Regards Hans
 
#10
James 6123HS is one of the cheapest model. (Mylar insulation)

Mostly for James transformer, if you are looking for better performance model (teflon insulation), try 6133H(T)S, the specification is just like 6123HS with 30W ouptut power. But this model is a tailor make one.
 
#11
My 10 cents worth

I bought some Lundahl 1664/80mA
from K&K Audio in the USA
www.kandkaudio.com
It is the best SE transformer I have used or heard for that matter.
Price was reasonable $115.00 as of today.
I have used Hammond and One Electron which were both good but the Lundahl 1664/80mA is much better.
I can't speak for the James, as I have yet to use or hear one.
 
#14
Oooops!

Ooooooooooops!
My mistake.
He mentions about the 'smallest' one.
Sorry,:dead:

PS: are you sure that they have "Mylar insulation? A dealer in Hong Kong says that it has teflon insulation...😕 And also, 6113HS is the cheapest, not 6123HS.
 
#15
Hi James,

I am sure 6123HS is mylar insulation.

I order James Trans. from Taiwan not in Hong Kong.

Smallest one is the one that you mentioned. What I say is the "cheap version" (6123HS) not the smallest one.

I have ordered one 6133HTS (not selling in HK) in which the trans. is teflon insulation. (T) stands for teflon.

Rgds,
Red.
 
#17
Redwine1118,
Does the manufacturer sell the transformers cheaper than local dealers?
Could you please make a price comparison between the Manufacturer and THL audio in Taipei?

I tried to access the manufacturer's website, but I can't understand Chinese and the ENGLISH BUTTON doesn't work:dead:

How could I contact them?😕

PS: Their transformers look like bulletproof...😀
 
#19
jamesjung21 said:
Redwine1118,
Does the manufacturer sell the transformers cheaper than local dealers?
Could you please make a price comparison between the Manufacturer and THL audio in Taipei?

I tried to access the manufacturer's website, but I can't understand Chinese and the ENGLISH BUTTON doesn't work:dead:

How could I contact them?😕

PS: Their transformers look like bulletproof...😀
Click to expand...

English website:

http://jianshin.myweb.hinet.net/%ad^%a4%e5%ad%ba%ad%b6.htm
 
#20
Re: Weight differences.

ashok said:
This is not a conclusive way of determining the capacity of a transformer , but weight would roughly indicate the amount of core material in a transformer. That would determine it's power handling capacity and possibly it's LF capability.

The James 6123HS weighs 3.2 Kg and the Hammond 1627SE weighs about 5Kg . Apart from slight power handling differences , would this imply that the Hammond will go lower than the James ? Of course the James might use a core that can handle much higher flux and hence use less material in the core resulting in lower weight.
What is the correct explanation?
Thanks.
Click to expand...

The James 6123HS, along with all their Orient Hi-B core transformers, uses a very high grade lamination which is only 0.23mm thick (available as grade M3 or above). Hammond, I suspect, uses the more common 0.35mm M6 lamination.

The thinner lamination (among other things?) should explain the lesser weight.

Keith
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom