Realistic sound = tubes and analogue

[tube fan]

The Maggie's sound great with Audio Research tubes, and I bet the AN Jinro would be a great match.

I go to a lot of blind wine tastings, and I would love to see some blind tube/ss and digital/analogue matchups. I go to a lot of live musical events (at least 3 a week), and neither ss nor digital sound real (of course to me). I still remember going to an audio store long ago that compared about a dozen speakers blind (matched for level). When they got to the AR 3a, I shouted: "that's it!" The rest of the speakers were crap in comparison. I would love to get a group together to do a blind listening event comparing ss/tubes and digital/analogue. BTW, my Audio Research tube units are nothing like "typical" tube sound (slow, fat).

[RGA]

Yes the OTO could not play the Quad very loud for sure, but then quality is not the same as quantity. The N801 sounded marvelous with an 11 watt Set from Wyatech labs or Nuvista can't remember - best actual sound quality I have heard from the speaker. But the money outlay and the volume capability limits would make the scenario unnacceptable - the problem was that they tried McIntosh, Rotel, Bryston, MF, Sim Audio, Classe (all SS brands they carry). All could play loudly to satisfy but none sounded as nice. Certainly a frustrating situation for those of us with good ears who can actually hear the limitations of both the SET and the SS.

The Quad 2905 on the other hand can't play loud and doesn't have any real bass to speak of anyway and it's not like the "typical" buyers are interested in bass and volume. I suppose people who tried stacking them realized the huge failing - wanted the midband but more drive - stack them is the answer. But virtually everyone I know who did that eventually gave up and went to a boxed speaker.

The dealer had a guy travel 500km to listen to the 2905's on their top SS power amps from MF or Classe and the guy kept wanting to turn it up and up and Paul (Soundhounds dealer) just had to say this is all it can do - they'll break beyond this. The fellow was roundly dissatisifed. They're not about loud and they're not about bass so if you play them at low medium levels the OTO can do it. (I should make a correction - this was the OTO PP version not the SE version - my mistake).

But it would be the same as the B&W SET issue that the money outlay would demand something else because you will want to turn it up from time to time. Tube amps do have a knack of sounding a little louder than their watt ratings and they also seem quite fine being pushed beyond their limits(though they distort). I'd probably look more at 40Watt+ tube amps for the Quad. Grant Fidelity's Rita is 45watts but is very powerful sounding and can ramp it up to 450watts - though it has a slightly leaner presentation. BAT makes a 150Watt zero feedback amp (monoblocks) that might be overkill. Andy Grove of Audio Note designed Quad's top amps several years back. Manley Labs also makes less expensive high power amps. Shengya PM 150 monoblocks at 300 watts into 4ohms is a very interesting tube hybrid power amp with better bass depth than the Rita and a fuller sounding presentation. And can hit very very hard. $1600 for a pair and they each weigh in at over 40lbs.

As for people liking Magnepan with Bryston - you are probably correct. I am going by a sample size of one Magnepan dealer who also sells Bryston and my own auditions. Granted subjective opinions are subjective - after all if "majority" votes counted then Bose is the best speaker maker and McDonalds makes the best hamburger. George Bush got a second term and Britanny Spears probably outsold the entire classical musical catalog combined in her big years and Ace Ventura pet Detective made a lot more money at the theaters than The Shawshank Redemption and Quiz Show combined (both nominated for best picture). Like the saying goes "there's no accounting for taste."

Edit: Correction Andy Grove designed the Quad TwentyFour/II Forty preamp power amps. They are designed for the panels and are 40 watts. My prediction of 40 watts plus wasn't too shabby. http://www.allegrosound.com/Quad_II-forty.pdf

[theaudiohobby]

Yes the OTO could not play the Quad very loud for sure, but then quality is not the same as quantity. The N801 sounded marvelous with an 11 watt Set from Wyatech labs or Nuvista can't remember - best actual sound quality I have heard from the speaker.

You've expressed your opinion, and here's mine, I do not regard an amp rated at 10Wch but puts out only 4 'undistorted' Wch as a quality amplifier. If a speaker has audible loudness limitations when driven by a given amplifier, the amplifier is heavily distorting and that's a not quality pairing IMO YMMV but personally do not care for high distortion even if it flatters certain simple music programs, You may like your music with huge dollops of distortion, I don't, But as you say, there's no accounting for taste.

Certainly a frustrating situation for those of us with good ears who can actually hear the limitations of both the SET and the SS

Smacks of someone who strains a gnat but then let's through a camel, doesn't say much for those of you with supposedly good ears.

Edit: Correction Andy Grove designed the Quad TwentyFour/II Forty preamp power amps. They are designed for the panels and are 40 watts. My prediction of 40 watts plus wasn't too shabby. http://www.allegrosound.com/Quad_II-forty.pdf

IMO, your prediction is unreasonably optimistic, 40Wch can barely drive the Quad ESL, claiming it was designed to drive panels is a quite a stretch.

As for people liking Magnepan with Bryston - you are probably correct. I am going by a sample size of one Magnepan dealer who also sells Bryston and my own auditions. Granted subjective opinions are subjective - after all if "majority" votes counted then Bose is the best speaker maker and McDonalds makes the best hamburger. George Bush got a second term and Britanny Spears probably outsold the entire classical musical catalog combined in her big years and Ace Ventura pet Detective made a lot more money at the theaters than The Shawshank Redemption and Quiz Show combined (both nominated for best picture). Like the saying goes "there's no accounting for taste."

All this nastiness and presumption on the basis of your auditions at your local dealer ,

[RGA]

The Quad amplifier was designed for their panels. Same manufacturer - If you think the Quad 24 rig can't drive the Quad then you are calling Quad incompetent - which is fine by me but then if they are stupid why would you buy loudspeakers from them. They have already demonstrated their incompetence in building a 40 watt amp and you now trust them to build your speakers? That illustrates an even dumber consumer.

As for your "theory" I have actually auditioned the OTO with the 2905 - You like making guesses about what things you have never bothered to try. And why on earth would the dealer with all those amplifier choices sit in the big comfy chairs and listen to the OTO driving the Quads? I guess none of the guys working there have good ears right. The 20,000 LPS and almost that in CDs and selling almost every brand for 35 years would decide to just bad-partner gear for the heck of it. Lame posters look at a spec sheet and draw conclusions based on zero experience. The fact that Audio Note's boss owns several Quad electrostatic panels and sold them for decades himself can't be right that the SET tube amp sounds better with Quads.

And Quad has to be clueless as well because they thought so highly of Audio Note UK amplifiers with their Quad Electrostatic loudspeaker that they hired the AN UK amplifier designer and trusted him with arguably the face of their amplifier line. That's not theory - that's fact.

So let's see - You have AN UK'S Boss who sold Quad for decades and tried every amp he sold or made with them. You have Quad like the match so much they hired the AN UK guy to build the amp for the panels - both manufacturers and all the designers think it's a good match. And then my dealer who carries a pile of highly raved about high power solid state designs decide to run a low powered tube cause it sounds better.

All of them are wrong and a guy on a forum with zero credentials and zero actual experience with the actual products is correct because he read a spec sheet.

40 tube watts isn't enough to play the Quads - LOL.

[theaudiohobby]

The slight twist to your story is noted, now the amp is designed to drive Quad stat panels

The Quad amplifier was designed for their panels. Same manufacturer - If you think the Quad 24 rig can't drive the Quad then you are calling Quad incompetent - which is fine by me but then if they are stupid why would you buy loudspeakers from them.

Quad make electrostatic speakers and tube amplifiers therefore their 40Wch tube amplifier is designed to drive panels, a very good example of simplistic thinking. At least your new story is partially correct as the minimum recomended power for the 2905 is 40Wch.

As for your "theory" I have actually auditioned the OTO with the 2905

I do not doubt that you did so, probably sounded nice on some recordings too, it is still a daft pairing, you just done telling us that the pairing could not go loud a few posts ago, i.e. dynamically stunted at 79dB/1m that's unsurprising, a 10Wch amplifier can go only so far before it runs out of puff.

You have AN UK'S Boss who sold Quad for decades and tried every amp he sold or made with them.

He is hardly a disinterested party, the guy's peddling low power tube amps.