So what does everyone feed their fullrangers with?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#41
MJK said:


I have two speakers currently loaded with Lowther drivers, including the DX3 ML TL pair and the Lowther OB pair, and neither of which exhibit any shout. I can configure either to shout by mistuning the design or the correction circuit. They are so good that I have stopped listening to my non-Lowther speakers and have sold off some of these pairs.
Click to expand...


Martin, do you think putting my DX-3's into a correctly configured pair of BIB's would tame them?

As they are now I can only handle them for about 45 minutes a sitting.

Rick
 
#43
do you think putting my DX-3's into a correctly configured pair of BIB's would tame them?
Click to expand...

Rick,

I honestly don't know. I have never heard a BIB design or even simulated one. If people are getting good results with other low Qts drivers like the FE-206E or the FE-166E then the DX3 will probably work well in a correctly sized BIB. I don't know what the correctly sized BIB enclosure is for the DX3.
 
#44
MJK said:
I don't know what the correctly sized BIB enclosure is for the DX3.
Click to expand...
Big. 😉

Regarding earlier comments on efficiency, SPL, etc . . . it is quite simple to put together a system that one can listen to "for hours on end." But IMO that's only part of the equation. The name of the hobby is high fidelity. One ought to be able to accurately produce levels that the conductor of a symphony orchestra would hear, across the frequency spectrum.
 
#45
Dumbass said:
Big. 😉

Regarding earlier comments on efficiency, SPL, etc . . . it is quite simple to put together a system that one can listen to "for hours on end." But IMO that's only part of the equation. The name of the hobby is high fidelity. One ought to be able to accurately produce levels that the conductor of a symphony orchestra would hear, across the frequency spectrum.
Click to expand...

I guess depending on the listener it may well be that it's quite simple to put together a satisfying system. For most it seems to be an evolving journey. I know what I want from a system today is far different than what I wanted 20 years ago.


Also in my current smallish listening room I can drive every speaker type I own to sound levels above what I like to listen to.

I'm not sure I get what you're driving at. Obviously you disdain SET's, but that doesn't change the fact of how musical they sound. As you must know there's a lot more to high fidelity than loudness.

Rick
 
#46
Martin- mea culpa - except for my one line

Thanks, Martin for jumping in, but I'd like to add my own thoughts
Click to expand...

the remainder of my comments were directed at the remarks by Dumbass, as I'd quoted earlier in the same post.

It seemed pretty clear to me that he was at the least disdainful of SET's as Rick notes. I could easily be as wrong about that, as I think he is about the entire "no such thing as too much power" approach.

I've been there, done that, and I'm now using the T-shirt for a shop rag 😀
 
#47
MJK said:
I have never said that a SET amp could not produce a great performing system. But I do find it interesting that the true SET believer will continue to argue that the SS amp is not capable of a similar level of performance, I believe the differences are small and a matter of personal taste. If the speaker design is really good and factors in the type of amp being used then the system will also be very good. I also do not believe that a speaker that sounds good driven by a SET amp will necessarily sound good driven by a SS amp, the reverse also holds, which is where I think people make a mistake and form very biased opinions. A poorly designed or sounding speaker is just that, nothing makes up for that fact.
Click to expand...


and:

I don't believe there is a real controversy. I have stated I think either amp option can do an excellent job and then stated my preference for SS, no big deal. I think the "hot button" lies with the SET believers and their conviction that it is the only way, the rattling of the temple of the purists by an outsider.
Click to expand...

Well, for what it's worth, I've had ample opportunity to build and listen to a range of DIY speakers over the past 3 or 4 years, ranging from 4" Fostex of the FE108/126/127 family, to CSSFR125, Visaton B200 and Hawthorne Silver Iris open baffles. Some of these designs have been MLTL's based on your spreadsheet, and have sounded very fine indeed. I'll make no bones or apologies for the fact that my current preference leans to the SET/Horn combo - warts and all.

Amps have ranged from baby-SETS such as Decware Zen & Taboo, numerous DIY EL84s, 45 / 2A3 / 300B kits, clones of Eli Duttman's El Cheapo (EL84 P/P) , to a range of tweaky DIY SS amps ( mini-Aleph / several iterations of Gain clones etc) of up to several times the putative power of most of the tube types (with the exception of a commercial EL34 P/P design).

In every case the SS amps left something behind for me in terms of musicality. Even so, there are several tube amp types that I'd not particularly want to "SET" up permanently in my system, either. (hint one of them was a 300B SE design - just not my cup of treacle)

No doubt there are overly zealous "SET believers" , but I don't believe I've characterized myself as such. Even though many opportunities have arisen in the past few years to question it, so far they have all confirmed my own personal choice. And while I won't avoid the opportunity to testify this others, I don't think I've ever stated that it is the "one true way" - there isn't one
 
#49
All of the SET users I know were once SS amp fans and users. But each had the same epiphany I had. There is something about good tube sound that is very addicting. The only way I can describe what I hear as a difference is that the tubes sound smoother, less harsh, more ear friendly. That's probably not going to be the case for all and that's cool but to denigrate SET's based on wattage seems silly.

In the past I've had SS gear by Sansui, Harmon Kardon, NAD, & Carver. Of that lot the Carver sounded the worst, and the HK the best. Funny thing is, the HK was a lower powered receiver not a big beast of an amp. But it was very pleasant to listen to.

Rick
 
#50
Re: very cool amp Rick J. B.

JandG said:
Looks like one in my Sparton-Spartan, can't remeber how to spell it. ..
Click to expand...


I bought this thing at a yard sale for $2 about 15 years ago. At our previous house I had a good place to display it but since we bought this place it's resided in a closet until a couple of weeks ago when I dug a bunch of old stuff out. I think it'd be pretty cool to get it up and running someday.

Rick
 
#51
Re: GeeK....

TerryO....

I'll bring it to Victoria next year. I'll probably bring my car. Always too much stuff to haul for the bus 😉


JandG said:
Can you tell more of that amp...?
Click to expand...

Sure! 🙂

Here's the schematic and power supply:
http://members.dowco.net/canadageek/geek/baby_amp_6FD7_rev3a.png
http://members.dowco.net/canadageek/geek/baby_amp_power_6FD7.png

The original R&D thread:
http://geek.scorpiorising.ca/GeeK_ZonE/index.php?topic=1827.0

Everyone who has listened to it says it doesn't sound like 2 watts. It does sound full for a dual-dissimilar triode. Edcor iron and a great bench spec.

It also drives non-SET friendly speakers no problem 😉


Zen Mod said:
ps......Geek is my friend.......so ,one day,when I'll grow up,I'll make nice toob amp as his.........:clown:
Click to expand...

Awwww, you're being modest. You make killer amps! 😀
 
#52
Rick J. B. said:
Obviously you disdain SET's, but that doesn't change the fact of how musical they sound.
Click to expand...
I'm not disdainful of SET, by a huge margin. I just believe that SET should be used with efficient speakers.

Am not quite sure how to parse the adjective "musical" in this context. If good music is rendered "unmusical" by a system, then obviously there is a flaw in the system that can be described in precise terminology.
 
#54
Dumbass said:
I'm not disdainful of SET, by a huge margin. I just believe that SET should be used with efficient speakers.

Am not quite sure how to parse the adjective "musical" in this context. If good music is rendered "unmusical" by a system, then obviously there is a flaw in the system that can be described in precise terminology.
Click to expand...


By musical I mean not sounding mechanical, not sounding so much like a machine making sound. Not sure how to describe the difference but for me tubes simply sound better, less fatiguing. Oh and my SET does a nice job of driving even planar speakers when listening near field.

And about the disdainful bit, I really must have misunderstood your meaning because it sure sounded to me like you had no use for them.

Sorry if I got you wrong. 😉

Rick
 
#56
, then obviously there is a flaw in the system that can be described in precise terminology.
Click to expand...

I don't know how precise it can be when circuit designers often argue amongst themselves about what makes for a good circuit or system. One could easily state that in a overly complicated system with to many things in the signal path that that system has several flaws. But unless you're running your signal source directly into an amp consisting of as few pieces as is possible to power speakers with no crossover then you probably won't agree. For me any system chock full of needless items in the signal path is flawed. When you look into the innards of a typical SS amp/preamp rig you'll see 30 times the amount of pieces than what you'll see inside the average SET amp. I'd like to incorporate a turntable into my tube system but I'll have to bite the bullet and add in a line amp of some sort. When I do that It'll have to be a simple one that brings nothing to the table but gain for the turntables output.

Rick
 
#57
Rick J. B. said:


I don't know how precise it can be when circuit designers often argue amongst themselves about what makes for a good circuit or system. One could easily state that in a overly complicated system with to many things in the signal path that that system has several flaws. But unless you're running your signal source directly into an amp consisting of as few pieces as is possible to power speakers with no crossover then you probably won't agree. For me any system chock full of needless items in the signal path is flawed. When you look into the innards of a typical SS amp/preamp rig you'll see 30 times the amount of pieces than what you'll see inside the average SET amp. I'd like to incorporate a turntable into my tube system but I'll have to bite the bullet and add in a line amp of some sort. When I do that It'll have to be a simple one that brings nothing to the table but gain for the turntables output.

Rick
Click to expand...

you always can make phono stage with enough output voltage and driving capabilities for that ; then you just need selector,not real preamp


but I know that you already knew that 😉
 
#59
Rick J. B. said:
Zen Mod, I'll probably end up with one of these.
It'll do what I want it to and nothing else.

http://decware.com/linestage/zp1.htm

Rick
Click to expand...

fine with me
if you need buffer......
you told that you are satisfied with your source even without additional buffering;
in case of phono stage,you can easily implement his own buffer,without need to introduce one in existing signal path.....meaning on your digital (?) source.......
 
#60
paramours into the 206es-r is nice indeed. ill be getting mine up to speed with 45s eventually. the emissions lab.

I certainly do like solid state for alot of things. I feel that in the end, we choose our drive unit with respect to amps.

in general i think it is hard for SS or high power tubes to have the refinement of tone necessary for a high efficiency driver,

and it is hard for an SET amp to have the dynamic drive necessary with lower efficiency drivers.

I think that the short road to great sound is in the early efficient drivers (90-92 honest) driven by, yup - nicely tonal solid state or decently done powerful tube, like el84, (el34 especially).

horns are a tough and expensive build, not to mention the big drivers. then you have expensive tubes, capacitors, etc to finally get around to dynamics on the high efficiency realm. then you need the big room to host the big sound.

it is specially psychadelic in the highly refined tube realm,

but then again, awesome SS can be totally hypnotic.

it is choosing to be taken over with everythingness or nothingness.

presence or lack thereof.

both fairly buddhist and enjoyable concepts even.

every amp has its place. every sperm is sacred.

with my 108esII swans to be built I might build a concept dennis freaker told me about a while ago. an unregulated motorcycle battery powered otl mosfet chip or something like that.

Ill have to play around alot no doubt to get the 108 sounding great with any amp.

Clark
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom