) Babelfish M2 ..... but - I need 4 small bjts ,one opto , one pot and two big caps ...... to have 2 minute bias slide ..... 
Listening to the M2
Got a chance to plug in the M2 and the J2 at RMAF. Listening to both was a lot of fun, and a little bit of an education.
Both have some of the characteristics of "tube sound", but in completely different directions. The J2 has the sweet midrange that seems to come from tubes, but is very clean and extended. The highs are crystal clear, and yet natural. Never over the edge and into hardness. To me, it sounds like the very cleanest of modern tube amps. It lacks the 2nd order harmonic distortion of an SET, but otherwise sounds very similar to that type of amplifier. Where it seems to trump tubes is in coherency from top to bottom.
The M2 on the other end, sounds like a step back into older tube design. Not way back, to where the sound was soft and the bass was muddy, but it does seem to lightly soften things. Highs and leading edges are ever-so-softly rounded, and I believe a touch of extra "warmth" (i.e. 2nd order harmonics) is added. The bass has similar characteristics, never muddy, but ever so softly rounded. I will call it a slightly romantic view of music, and one which makes everything a little easy on the ears. It is very musical, has the proper tonal colorations, and you can listen to it forever.
Both are very enjoyable. My taste tends to run to the J2, but I completely understand the value of the M2, and could happily live with it.
Got a chance to plug in the M2 and the J2 at RMAF. Listening to both was a lot of fun, and a little bit of an education.
Both have some of the characteristics of "tube sound", but in completely different directions. The J2 has the sweet midrange that seems to come from tubes, but is very clean and extended. The highs are crystal clear, and yet natural. Never over the edge and into hardness. To me, it sounds like the very cleanest of modern tube amps. It lacks the 2nd order harmonic distortion of an SET, but otherwise sounds very similar to that type of amplifier. Where it seems to trump tubes is in coherency from top to bottom.
The M2 on the other end, sounds like a step back into older tube design. Not way back, to where the sound was soft and the bass was muddy, but it does seem to lightly soften things. Highs and leading edges are ever-so-softly rounded, and I believe a touch of extra "warmth" (i.e. 2nd order harmonics) is added. The bass has similar characteristics, never muddy, but ever so softly rounded. I will call it a slightly romantic view of music, and one which makes everything a little easy on the ears. It is very musical, has the proper tonal colorations, and you can listen to it forever.
Both are very enjoyable. My taste tends to run to the J2, but I completely understand the value of the M2, and could happily live with it.
You're only saying all these nice things so I'll ask you how great
the field coil drivers were at RMAF.
So how great were they?
Nelson:
In my opinion, they did a much better job of making music than almost anything else at the show. With your electronics, we had a wonderful, organic sound that you could listen to for days. And I did, and enjoyed every moment. A few minor hickups on Friday, but that is expected.
The one thing that the Field Coils do, that few drivers can do, is properly reproduce the ambient field and the full harmonics of instruments and voices. This is a subtle difference, that many do not even listen for, but it presents a full sonic picture. The net effect is that things are so much more real. Vocalist, in particular, sound more alive, more cut from whole cloth.
I cheated, using the FC for a wide range. The Visaton tweeter on top extended and delineated the highs very nicely. A 15" sealed woofer extended bass down below 20 hz. The system was +/- 3 dB from under 20 Hz to over 25 kHz.
Interestingly, I caught the ear of a few designers who wanted to use the driver. So that worked out well. A large number of people who I truly respect loved the sound. So overall, I consider it a large success.
Really enjoyed the perplexed faces on listeners when I informed them there was not a single tube in the signal path. They would actually stop, go through the chain, and then agree with me, but stating that it sounded so tube like in terms of richness and sweetness.
For a slightly less biased view
Nelson:
You could look here for a slightly less biased review:
Stereophile: Lowther and First Watt
Nelson:
You could look here for a slightly less biased review:
Stereophile: Lowther and First Watt
You can modify a Mac 2505 solids state amp. Made in the late 60's early 70's. It sounds like a great tube amp. And by that I mean a tube amp that is NOT rolled off on the top or bottom. That is a function a bad tube design. The Mac 2505 is a transistor design of 50 watts(75 peak) and transformer coupled at the output. You would never know a transformer is there by listening. The mod is simple. The preamp needs to be removed. And the speaker switch taken out of the signal path. This leaves only the amp section connected. I intend to build an F5 as soon as I can find someone with matched pairs of input FETS I can buy? And compare the two.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.