Dumbass said:
Not in my case it isn't. I find harshness and smearing extremely fatiquing, and get tired of most systems quite quickly. I'd gladly trade soft and abnormally listenable for loud and conventional any day. 😀
Zen Mod said:
Sorry Zen Mod, I linked the wrong item. But no I need nothing for the digital source.
I will need one of these to introduce a turntable into the system.
http://decware.com/newsite/ZP3.htm
Rick
{Cheap Phono or CD} --> NAD 1020
NAD 1020 has low and high level output.
LL --> S-5 Electronics Tube Amplifier --> BD-Pipes with Radio Shack 40-1197
HL --> SE 50EH5 Tube Amplifier --> Radio Shack 40-1310 Super Tweeters
I am pretty happy with the amplification and speakers. I need to get better sources. The NAD1020 is tired and needs some work, mostly pot/switch cleaning.
NAD 1020 has low and high level output.
LL --> S-5 Electronics Tube Amplifier --> BD-Pipes with Radio Shack 40-1197
HL --> SE 50EH5 Tube Amplifier --> Radio Shack 40-1310 Super Tweeters
I am pretty happy with the amplification and speakers. I need to get better sources. The NAD1020 is tired and needs some work, mostly pot/switch cleaning.
Zen Mod said:
you can probably make even better for half of muuuuni
Hmmmmmmmm.......
Give me an idea of what you would do given the equipment I have and considering I'd like to add in a turntable Zen Mod.
Suddenly curious.
Rick
My wife has a system in the laundry room that I put together for her that has an old NAD 5020 as it's digital source.
I never really liked that player, nothing specific just something...
Rick
MJK said:
Point well taken Martin - the answer is no, and clearly this speaks to my bias against trying any such type of passive circuitry with a FR system.
Come early spring, after some house reno's etc - I've got two sisters asking for help in tuning up their systems. That would be the perfect opportunity for such experimentation - at least one of them is a definite candidate for 167 or even 207 MLTL's
.
Rick J. B. said:
If this new Decware model sounds as good as the earlier ZP1, it'd be quite good indeed, but if you're game to try a DIY / kit, I think the best buy can be summed up in two words:
Bottlehead Seduction
http://www.bottlehead.com/et/adobespc/Seduction/seduction.htm
(definitely order the C4S at the same time)
With a little creativity and chassis work, it probably shouldn't be particularly difficult to add a single dual triode cathode follower/buffer stage and the extra inputs and switching to turn this into a fully functioning pre-amp.
Rick J. B. said:
sorry if I'm not informed,but -for exact recommendation I need to know your level of expertize,or experience........
you are capable to make phono section from bits'n'pieces or you are more kit-oriented?
in first case I'll recommend schmtc,in other case I'll try to find on net best value/money offer
chrisb said:
one 6DJ8 per channel.......nowhere near needed gain for MC head,which Rick plan to use,if I remember that OK
😉
agree with other part of post
Chris,
I am not surprised at your results, I probably would have arrived at the same conclusion. But if you want a fair apples to apples comparison between the two types of amps then you need to use the BSC with the SS amp. I believe that if you run this experiment, that the listening results will be a lot closer. That is the only point I want to make, run the apples to apples listening session. It has surprised a number of people in the past.
chrisb said:
Hey Chris,
I'd probably go with the Decware unit. I love my SE84C-S amp very simple and built like a tank.
Plus Steves shop is within driving distance for me. I've been to his place twice to audition gear. When I ordered the amp I went and listened to it for a few hours before I decided to buy it.
The second time I was there Steve had just completed his prototype of the RL-1.5 speaker. Very nice, smooth sound not harsh in any way. Those things image amazingly well. Steves listening room is only about 12 to 15 feet wide yet the sound stage with those things at times seemed 20 feet wide. Good depth too. I of course took my own music, stuff I was really familiar with. Anyway the presentation of the RL-1.5's was very impressive. There also a really odd design. I can't really describe how their made but it's unique. If you get the spare time I believe Steve has a lengthy write up on them explaining the design.
You know Steve is now producing his own full range driver. He had been offering modified Fostex units but as I understand it he is now making his own. If I had the $300 to burn I'd get a pair and try them in a BIB.
Steves full ranger - http://decware.com/newsite/mainmenu.htm
Rick
Zen Mod said:
Zen Mod,
I might be able to pull off a kit if it was quite simple but one from scratch no, not at this time. Some of the cheap little tube amp kits have caught my attention, I hear their pretty easy for the novice.
Another note when I do get a TT integrated into my set up I'll go moving magnet not coil.
Take care.
Rick
Feeding and care of FR drivers.
All i am still using is my original Dallas BLH cabs with the 208 and ribbon tweets. Not as efficent as the Dallas II, but in my smaller living room it works. Someone recently asked me to see on a web site my designs, well sorry i rarly build and just rely on programming to accomplish the task. I have never heard the A126 or the A166 or for that matter the Dallas II except for one test cab i built for data accumulation.
For amps i am using a battery P/S LM3875 NIGC with seperate P/S for each amp. This gives around 5 watts/channel (+/- 12 VDC) but is more than adequate for proper cone control throught the frequency range. Most ppl get hung up on watts, but from what i have studied a really powerful current avalibility works. Pre-amp is also battery powered. Total effect is a black hole background in which the sound jumps out at you, detail is increadable. Each chip is pressure loaded to a .7 lb block of gold plated brass with a small oak bar and the blocks are suspended by tensioned filliment in the likes of the old high end TT designs.
All in all a very good sounding system with a great deal of detail and huge dynamics that is easy to listen to for a long while.
Next project is to refine the Houston for the new 206 driver.
ron
All i am still using is my original Dallas BLH cabs with the 208 and ribbon tweets. Not as efficent as the Dallas II, but in my smaller living room it works. Someone recently asked me to see on a web site my designs, well sorry i rarly build and just rely on programming to accomplish the task. I have never heard the A126 or the A166 or for that matter the Dallas II except for one test cab i built for data accumulation.
For amps i am using a battery P/S LM3875 NIGC with seperate P/S for each amp. This gives around 5 watts/channel (+/- 12 VDC) but is more than adequate for proper cone control throught the frequency range. Most ppl get hung up on watts, but from what i have studied a really powerful current avalibility works. Pre-amp is also battery powered. Total effect is a black hole background in which the sound jumps out at you, detail is increadable. Each chip is pressure loaded to a .7 lb block of gold plated brass with a small oak bar and the blocks are suspended by tensioned filliment in the likes of the old high end TT designs.
All in all a very good sounding system with a great deal of detail and huge dynamics that is easy to listen to for a long while.
Next project is to refine the Houston for the new 206 driver.
ron
NI 3875 chip amp. BrianGT boards, IAG chassis, very stripped down circuit, expensive parts. PEC carbon pot, grayhill switch, no preamp. 330VA Avel transformer. Chips are screwed to a big copper block. Nearly all of the chassis holes are tapped, only a couple of nuts are used (to hold down chassis ground and tranfo, for example.) All fasteners are stainless or brass. It has changed a bit since the pics were taken: new grounding scheme (it hummed quietly with the stock scheme), some internal wiring replaced (cleaned up) and a better finish on the wood sides. I like it. Someday I'd like to get a SET as well, perhaps the Bottlehad S.E.X. kit.
Attachments
Less is more, keep the path from source to ear as uncluttered as possible. The few things that have to be there should be rock solid and no compromise. Cool thing is this approach doesn't need to cost that much either.
Pjanda, that's a good looking amp. For SS that is. 😉
Rick
Rick J. B. said:
Rick - fair enough - as I said, while I haven't heard the ZP3, I have heard the earlier model - very fine indeed.
Note, that the stock gain of the ZP3 is only 42dB (similar to the Seduction IINM), and both definitely require input transformers for use with LOMC.
There's no doubt that the tube rectification and voltage regulation, and the high quality of parts contributes to the sound quality, and it's certainly prettier than my first several scratch builds & BH kits.
FWIW, the DFR8 looks to me to be a highly modified FE206E, - a Dectex if you will
My $00.02.
I went pretty much the route described my most SET users - solid state to PP pentode to PP triode to SET. My favorite was the PP triode, a pair of Quicksilver 90W Silver Monos modifed to run in triode (30W) by Dennis Had of Cary Audio. I didn't realize how good they were until I bought a publically-well-regarded SET, which was full and smooth and sweet, even with horns built around Fostex 166s, but lacking something the Quicksilvers had. I can only describe it as "realism," maybe some combination of speed and drive that manages to capture the ictus of each note.
At any rate, I have regretted selling the Quickies ever since, and no SET I've heard yet has tempted me to "upgrade." So, when recently I grew disenchanted with the constant tweaking and tube rolling and the seemignly endless breakdowns, I actually carried the SETs out to the street and began working on getting the best sound from GCs. What I have found is that my GC monos, in the state of development they're now in after months of experimenting, may not have the midrange bloom of the SETs but are extremely realistic, "immediate" and musical through fullrange horns. I feel that I'm finally on to something that works FOR ME.
But why, why, why, despite the fact that sound is so room, system, hearing and musical taste dependant, do some folks on these forums waste so much bandwidth claiming that they have discovered everyman's holy grail, and that anybody who takes a different path is (fill in the blank). If your system sounds good to you, tell me and if I'm interested (as with GCs) I'll try it. Please don't make me wade through reams of petty recriminations and counter-recriminations to find something that might help me make MY SYSTEM sound better.
I went pretty much the route described my most SET users - solid state to PP pentode to PP triode to SET. My favorite was the PP triode, a pair of Quicksilver 90W Silver Monos modifed to run in triode (30W) by Dennis Had of Cary Audio. I didn't realize how good they were until I bought a publically-well-regarded SET, which was full and smooth and sweet, even with horns built around Fostex 166s, but lacking something the Quicksilvers had. I can only describe it as "realism," maybe some combination of speed and drive that manages to capture the ictus of each note.
At any rate, I have regretted selling the Quickies ever since, and no SET I've heard yet has tempted me to "upgrade." So, when recently I grew disenchanted with the constant tweaking and tube rolling and the seemignly endless breakdowns, I actually carried the SETs out to the street and began working on getting the best sound from GCs. What I have found is that my GC monos, in the state of development they're now in after months of experimenting, may not have the midrange bloom of the SETs but are extremely realistic, "immediate" and musical through fullrange horns. I feel that I'm finally on to something that works FOR ME.
But why, why, why, despite the fact that sound is so room, system, hearing and musical taste dependant, do some folks on these forums waste so much bandwidth claiming that they have discovered everyman's holy grail, and that anybody who takes a different path is (fill in the blank). If your system sounds good to you, tell me and if I'm interested (as with GCs) I'll try it. Please don't make me wade through reams of petty recriminations and counter-recriminations to find something that might help me make MY SYSTEM sound better.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.