"power limitations" is an understatement.
I cannot understand why some people use equipment that is handicapped in a crucial area. How much headroom does 3.2W allow? Pretty much, none.
Abs
I like listening to WMUC (88.1 FM) on Saturdays using the system in the picture. The speakers are back loaded horns for bass and Altec Lansing 811's for midrange and treble. I have an Espey 200 tubed AM/FM radio and a tubed dynamic range expander on top of the right 811. A Pilot 100 stereo demodulator is to the right of the radio and expander and is connected using silver coax cable to the radio. The power amp is a Fisher 800c connected to the speakers using 10 gauge O2 free cables. O2 free cables also connect the stereo demodulator, expander and Fisher 800c. The Fisher 101B is for driving two rear speakers for quad (CD4 and SQ records). There's solid state dynamic range expanders on top of the 800c and under the 101B which enhance quad separation and ambience. I use the projection screen for watching things from the internet.
Attachments
Also, in the speakers I'm using a 3 position double pole switch connected to taps on the crossover network which has 3 different crossover settings. I changed the middle inductor to a foil inductor and put in a polypropylene capacitor for that setting and use that one most of the time. The volume on the Altec Lansing horn is controlled by an L-pad in the back loaded horn enclosure. I came up with this set up basically through experimentation. Try out a set of horn speakers and see what you think.
Last edited:
WOW!!!!!! A little wine, the cute little girl from next door, music .... music.... more wine! More music.....!
Hold the presses!
The caveat of all caveats. Do you think there might have been why solid state technology might have been embraced so enthusiastically by the whole world (I do understand the argument by numbers fallacy).
I would be more than happy to take your inferior tube equipment. I could offer some commercial SS amplifiers and cover your shipping costs to me. The sooner you get rid of that tube gear the better you will feel.
I am really reluctant to get involved in such discussions, but tubes for the most part are a much more enjoyable experience for me.
Case in point, I picked up a mid 60's Fisher 400 the other weekend. I threw caution to the wind and used it at work for a few days without restoration. Gorgeous little amplifier indeed. It has best bass sounding bass out of any of my amps to date.
Tonight I just picked up a basic SS Sony 2 channel receiver. Amazon.com: Sony STRDH130 2 Channel Stereo Receiver (Black): Electronics
I wanted something "out of the box" so that I can do some speaker measurements, sure I could have made due with a tube rig, but I wanted to eliminate any unknown variables or fading bandwidth.
It should make a decent bench top amp for testing etc for minimal effort.
Anyhow the Sony is nice and all, perhaps it may sound better after a few days, but it does not paint the mental portraits that the old Fisher does.
I think it is a fairly reasonable comparison even though the Sony is a lower end 2-channel amp.
Yes I haven't given it much time, but the experience is the typical to past experiences.
The Sony sounds much more subdued.
The sound is more of a thick humid fog that fills the room vs the vivid blue sky imaging of the 400.
Don't get me wrong the Sony is not bad it's a perfectly usable receiver for lots of people.
Now the Fisher in it's un-restored current condition did not do quite as well as a SE with the female voice, but I will reserve judgement until after it is restored and tubes are checked for condition. The killer bass makes up for it in this case.
As it has been mentioned before, the speakers are a big part of the equation.
My tastes have evolved away from plasticy speakers to finer paper speakers.
Obviously I like the bass SPL from a foam surround high excursion woofer, but I would not trade it off for the tactile mid and mid bass that paper cones produce.
Forgive my colourful descriptions.
Case in point, I picked up a mid 60's Fisher 400 the other weekend. I threw caution to the wind and used it at work for a few days without restoration. Gorgeous little amplifier indeed. It has best bass sounding bass out of any of my amps to date.
Tonight I just picked up a basic SS Sony 2 channel receiver. Amazon.com: Sony STRDH130 2 Channel Stereo Receiver (Black): Electronics
I wanted something "out of the box" so that I can do some speaker measurements, sure I could have made due with a tube rig, but I wanted to eliminate any unknown variables or fading bandwidth.
It should make a decent bench top amp for testing etc for minimal effort.
Anyhow the Sony is nice and all, perhaps it may sound better after a few days, but it does not paint the mental portraits that the old Fisher does.
I think it is a fairly reasonable comparison even though the Sony is a lower end 2-channel amp.
Yes I haven't given it much time, but the experience is the typical to past experiences.
The Sony sounds much more subdued.
The sound is more of a thick humid fog that fills the room vs the vivid blue sky imaging of the 400.
Don't get me wrong the Sony is not bad it's a perfectly usable receiver for lots of people.
Now the Fisher in it's un-restored current condition did not do quite as well as a SE with the female voice, but I will reserve judgement until after it is restored and tubes are checked for condition. The killer bass makes up for it in this case.
As it has been mentioned before, the speakers are a big part of the equation.
My tastes have evolved away from plasticy speakers to finer paper speakers.
Obviously I like the bass SPL from a foam surround high excursion woofer, but I would not trade it off for the tactile mid and mid bass that paper cones produce.
Forgive my colourful descriptions.
Tubes were really something before electricity was invented. I'm too lazy to tap on my tubes to get them to work, Also I like to sleep with the sound on But I'm not really into having my house burn down while I'm doing it. I don't doubt they have a great sound, but like a Ford I don't feel like pushing my system through life. 😱
After building Scott 17's KT88 amp there was a moment where I realized that the Tube amplifier was "only" marginally better than my Sony integrated amp. Then I realized that my speakers and cd player hadn't yet been upgraded.
I'm not sure what you mean by "tube sound" other than muddy 50s-60s consumer amplifier tube sound with original capacitors and transformers/components. Which I myself have previously loved when coming from a set of SE 6BM8s. That is something anybody can do on any amplifier, you just need to swap out a few components to simulate a muddy sound.
Tube amps which are built properly should be as transparent as their transistorized equivalent, to call them less transparent than solid state amps is offensive to the hard work that people have done over in Tubes / Valves for the last 10 years.
I'm not sure what you mean by "tube sound" other than muddy 50s-60s consumer amplifier tube sound with original capacitors and transformers/components. Which I myself have previously loved when coming from a set of SE 6BM8s. That is something anybody can do on any amplifier, you just need to swap out a few components to simulate a muddy sound.
Tube amps which are built properly should be as transparent as their transistorized equivalent, to call them less transparent than solid state amps is offensive to the hard work that people have done over in Tubes / Valves for the last 10 years.
Last edited:
It was almost inevitable that this thread would eventually become SS vs Tubes.
There are some excellent SS amps and some diabolical ones.
There are some good tube amps and also some terrible ones.
I would hazard to guess that the SS / tube fans have not tried listening to the Rolls Royce versions of their unfavoured amp choice.
There are some excellent SS amps and some diabolical ones.
There are some good tube amps and also some terrible ones.
I would hazard to guess that the SS / tube fans have not tried listening to the Rolls Royce versions of their unfavoured amp choice.
It is not a tube vs SS thread.
Listening to "Rolls Royce" versions of anything does not demonstrate what the masses have available to them.
Tubes don't have a sound, topologies do.
If anything I would say that SS imparts a tone that tubes do not.
If you build similar topologies with both technologies, you will find that most will prefer the "tube sound", or more accurately, lack of SS tone.
Nobody does this though, nobody wants to compare a 2A3 to a 2N3904.
They would rather pick a multi-hundred watt SS amp with a smiley face EQ'ed, then proceed to claim some superiority, becoming overzealous about bass and virtually meaninglessly low THD numbers.
Listening to "Rolls Royce" versions of anything does not demonstrate what the masses have available to them.
Tubes don't have a sound, topologies do.
If anything I would say that SS imparts a tone that tubes do not.
If you build similar topologies with both technologies, you will find that most will prefer the "tube sound", or more accurately, lack of SS tone.
Nobody does this though, nobody wants to compare a 2A3 to a 2N3904.
They would rather pick a multi-hundred watt SS amp with a smiley face EQ'ed, then proceed to claim some superiority, becoming overzealous about bass and virtually meaninglessly low THD numbers.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.