Tube Amps!

[johny747]

Hi,
I'm new to tube audio. Planning on buying a tube amplfier. What r the aspects I should look at when i'm buying?
Appreciate you help!

[risabet]

Tube type-- EL-34, KT-88 (my choice), 300B, and many others.
Topology-- Single-ended, Push-Pull, triode, ultralinear, etc.
Biasing-- self-biasing, manual biasing
Power
You speaker/amp interface

These are some of the more important aspects of tube amp buying, IMO

[Feanor]

Hi,
I'm new to tube audio. Planning on buying a tube amplfier. What r the aspects I should look at when i'm buying?
Appreciate you help!
If the latter, there is no real reason for tubes in this day & age. Better to go with at fine quality SS amp.

For fine quality I think you're looking at $1000+, (same would be true for a decent tube, so little difference in that respect). For SS, don't spend too much time on the likes of NAD, Rotel, Adcom, Parasound lower price models. Instead, I'd check out the "digitals" first:

PS Audio
Bel Canto
Accoustic Reality

Jjaz
NuForce
H2O
Other than these, lots of people like Odyssey.

[JoeE SP9]

Hi,
I'm new to tube audio. Planning on buying a tube amplfier. What r the aspects I should look at when i'm buying?
Appreciate you help!
Whatever you do always audition it first. I use tube amps and a tube preamp. To my ears tubes sound better in the midrange and treble. I have found that solid state works better for bass. The higher current output of SS (solid state) amps is the reason. If you are going to go with tubes the earlier they are in the amplification chain the more benefit you will get. A tube preamp will have more benefit than a tube power amp. Tube preamps generally do not like driving long leads so keep that in mind. I found audio nirvana with my ARC SP-9.http://forums.audioreview.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

[Feanor]

First of all let me say: Nice system you've got :D. Secondly, if I could afford an Audio Research tube pre-amp, I might just go for it.

You're one who thinks that tubes do more earlier in the amplification sequence, i.e. the pre-amp stage. (I won't get into whether tubes actually sound better than SS -- maybe it's true.)

However tubes earlier in the chain seems to dilute the oft-cited argument for the superiority of tube over SS. This explaination goes that SS amps have notch distortion and need high levels of global feedback. So let me ask, were that the actual reason tubes are better, wouldn't it be more advantageous to put the tubes where the most amplification occurs, that is at the power amp stage?

I don't have a lot of experience with tubes but it is my suspicion that the real reason tubes improve the sound is that they filter nasty sounds, especailly high frequency ones, and/or add agreeable low, even order distortion????

[risabet]

Having used both SS and tubes (currently all tube) I find tubes to be more consonant with the gestalt of the music, IMS. That being said, unless you are willing to deal with tube issues than go with a good SS amp and a tube preamp for about 70% of that tube magic.

[RGA]

Feanor...the preamp is still an amplifier and controller. Remember that saying the first watt is the most important watt -- well the preamp is the first .1watt. SS is more effective at high level and worse at low levels.

Tube amplifers are not worse in the power amp stage - but tube amps "generally" don't like impedence swings. So On my speakers my OTO has no trouble driving treble impedence dips or bass impedence dips (where impedence dips generally occur in most speakers) simply because my speakers never fall outside a very narrow 9 ohm range 5ohms to 14ohms. My amp on a speaker that goes from 2ohm to 40ohms is going to be a rather futile attempt and will cause both frequency shifts as well as a pure and simple lack of power which means a lack of bass and a lack of treble.

This is why I dislike it when people say tubes are better as if this is some automatic in the high end world. It is a total disaster with the wrong speakers being matched up at volume levels many would deem acceptable And some tube amps just are not all that good -- just as not all SS amps are all that wonderful. Though SS amps tend to be "closer" to one another across the board than tube amps. Take a listen to the Jolida 302B and the ASL AQ1003DT - bioth use the same gernal topology and the same tubes -- they could not be more different in sound -- the ASL is a smoother than SS razor edge grip a speaker solid state-ish sounding tube amp. Indeed, it's a safe amp in that Solid State lovers could put this on and not feel a compromise with most speakers. The Jolida is more stereotypical with a full tubey sound with a big midrange softer bass and a slightly recessed treble. It is a "pleasing" and a little veiled amp. I recommend both because hey I don't know what someone is going to like. I would buy the ASL because while I hate added in grain of SS billowy softness can be having one want to hear more crisp detail of attack on instruments. SS tends to do decay badly low level resolution badly and treble generally badly to me at the givn price range.

I don;t think you're being fair to tubes as you have stated you've heard few of them.

The ASL and the Jolida are very nice entry level Tube amps -- but they are certainly not the end all of the technology and even here as entry level as they are under $2k US they're in with anything SS I've heard and considering both are only $1k - to me that;s saying a lot. And unlike the SS counterparts -- at least these you can actually upgrade and make substantially better from what I understand.

We had a shootout a while back and the owner of a digital amp HCA 02 or whatever it's called much preferred a set of Oddysey Stratos amps. Now for the speakers being run (gershman's) I would take the Stratos monos over a 30 watt tube amp sure -- but if you have sensitive speakers -- then I'd take the 30 watt tube amps on pure sound quality over the Stratus which are muscle amps -- not the least bit subtle or insightful. The low powered tube though would just huff and puff and bag out on the speakers so all things considered big SS is better with those speakers.

SO if you have those speakers you have to go SS and it will likely sound better. If you have easy to drive speakers and tubes -- you probably will never ever go back.

[JoeE SP9]

First of all let me say: Nice system you've got :D. Secondly, if I could afford an Audio Research tube pre-amp, I might just go for it.

You're one who thinks that tubes do more earlier in the amplification sequence, i.e. the pre-amp stage. (I won't get into whether tubes actually sound better than SS -- maybe it's true.)

However tubes earlier in the chain seems to dilute the oft-cited argument for the superiority of tube over SS. This explaination goes that SS amps have notch distortion and need high levels of global feedback. So let me ask, were that the actual reason tubes are better, wouldn't it be more advantageous to put the tubes where the most amplification occurs, that is at the power amp stage?

I don't have a lot of experience with tubes but it is my suspicion that the real reason tubes improve the sound is that they filter nasty sounds, especailly high frequency ones, and/or add agreeable low, even order distortion????
Good tube amps do not filter high frequency sounds. Neither I nor do most other tube users want an amplifier that is a tone control. You can get rid of most if not all notch distortion by biasing a solid state amp heavily into class A. Feedback has nothing to do with notch distortion. Notch distortion is caused by the output transistors being switched of and on. Lots of feedback is used to lower harmonic distortion and to help with stability. A pure class A amp has no notch distortion. The transisters conduct current all the time unlike standard amps.

I bought my SP-9 used. I buy lots of gear used. You can save a bundle of money that way. I am not the only one who thinks that tubes give more benefit earlier in the chain. Most tube-o-holics prefer tubes as early in the amplification chain as possible. Tube power amps that have output power in the 100 watt and above range are very expensive. I personally believe that tubes are better almost every where. I use SS on my head amp for the low noise level. I am currently building a tube head amp that should have acceptable noise levels. I also use SS to drive my subs. The only tube amps I know of that can control a 12" woofer (high damping factor needed) are the OTL amps. If I could afford it I would use OTL's for all my power amps. Although I am a batchelor I do have other interests and obligations so cost is a factor. It may be a small factor but it is a factor.http://forums.audioreview.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

[theaudiohobby]

Feanor...the preamp is still an amplifier and controller. Remember that saying the first watt is the most important watt -- well the preamp is the first .1watt. SS is more effective at high level and worse at low levels.


The tone of your post is generally okay, but please this oft-repeat myth is just that a myth, Many amplifiers do worse at high levels than low levels irrespective of active component topology, it is all about optimal operating conditions, Some amplifiers perform much more poorly when driven outside these conditions, some are more graceful, it all about the distortion signature and clipping characteries of the overdriven component. The most important watts are the watts that are in continuous use, as any inherent distortion will be passed along.

Johnny, if you are minded to buy a tube amplifier, then as RGA mentioned, make sure that you try them with your speakers, output and input impedance interaction between the amplifier and speaker is very important , The sound quality will be very much determined by this interaction, as a rule tubes amplifiers have a much higher output impedance than SS cousin and as a consequence are more sensitive to speaker input impedance characteristics, however these can lead to some rather very surprising euphonically pleasing and (sometimes ideally compensated) pairings.

[Feanor]

... Most tube-o-holics prefer tubes as early in the amplification chain as possible. ...
I didn't me mean to imply that you were unusual in that opinion! I know it's widely held.

I know that notch distortion and the effects of high global feedback aren't the same. From what I've heard and understood, gobal feedback has a couple of common problems, and I like to hear what you have to say about it.

First, it stands to reason the global feedback might limit transient response. Secondly, I have heard that it causes relatively high, (compared to tubes), high order and odd order harmonic distortion which have been shown to be detrimental to good sound.

I would like to do some listening to tube equipment but I don't know anyone with a good system around where I live. (I haven't lived in the area for very long.) Given that I am very please with the sound of my current integrated amp, a Bel Canto eV02i, I'm not likely to go out an by a tube kit on speculation. But as a matter of interest the Bel is a digital hence doesn't have any notch distortion per se, also its design doesn't employ global feedback.

[E-Stat]

If the latter (a music lover), there is no real reason for tubes in this day & age. Better to go with at fine quality SS amp.
Funny, I have the exact opposite reaction. While tubes can be expensive and cranky, I find them worth the hassle for what I find to be a superior rendering of unamplified music and voice.

rw

[E-Stat]

Hi,
I'm new to tube audio. Planning on buying a tube amplfier. What r the aspects I should look at when i'm buying?
Appreciate you help!
The most important consideration is compatibility with your speakers. As previously mentioned, tube amps usually have a lower damping factor than SS amps. For speakers having a roller coaster impedance curve, the result can be a couple db variation at various frequencies. Stereophile magazine speaker reviews usually show the impedance curve.

Consequently, I prefer using a Threshold Stasis with Double New Advents and the tube amps with the Sound Labs. I'll agree with theaudiohobby concerning RGA's statement about SS amps and low level resolution. I found the reverse to be true when comparing my Stasis to a Conrad Johnson MV-75A long ago. While the CJ was arguably better in the mids at higher levels, it lost its cool at low levels. Conversely, the Stasis runs cascode class A below a couple of watts (where it always runs in that system) and excels at low level resolution. You really need to audition the candidates.

Like JoeE SP9 (I also have a MK III myself), I would not hesitate to buy a used amp if it is from an established company. Since you live in the states, I can highly recommend Audio Research and VTL as they have been in the market for decades and their products can be maintained for as long as you please. I have no experience with the crop of lower cost models coming from China like the Jolidas.

Good luck hunting!

rw

[Feanor]

Funny, I have the exact opposite reaction. While tubes can be expensive and cranky, I find them worth the hassle for what I find to be a superior rendering of unamplified music and voice.

rw
My point is only an hardcore audiophile is likely to care about the difference between as good SS amp and a comparably priced tube machine. So why not avoid the hassle? You feel its worthwhile; you are an audiophile: OK :)

[E-Stat]

My point is only an hardcore audiophile is likely to care about the difference between as good SS amp and a comparably priced tube machine.
Perhaps you'd think differently if you had more exposure to tubes.

What I responded to is your suggestion that musiclovers and audiophiles are mutually exclusive groups. I've been on vacation for the past ten days and listened to my Sony Walkman CD player virtually every day to get my music fix.

rw

[RGA]

JoeE

I run the ASL MG head -- it's the quietest amplifier I've ever owned -- so for that matter is my Oto. In fact when my house had some kind fo cable grounding problem my SS amps were the ones humming along and the ASL was unhampered. The ASL MG head is so quiet in fact that I could run it as a preamplifier using a 1/4 oin to rca adapter ($15.00 cable) to my Arcam Delta 290 (used as power amp). You'd be impressed. The only let down is that it doesn;t have tremedous bass capability but ASL has upgraded the unit to provide an OTL switch and so it gives more bass but at the cost of midrange purity from what I've read.

The problem with tube versus solid state arguments is that when discussing technical merrits of tube amplifiers they're simply going to lose. If you read the review in the latest issue of Hi-fi News Martin Colloms reviews the $29,000.00GBP Audio Note Ongaku (UK) -- the thing measures from the stone age - is incredibly fussy to the speaker (read match it to an Audio Note or other 95db real flat impedence or don't bother) and nor is it free from hums and other anomolies. Yet he notes

"It(Ongaku) addresses our instinctive love for harmony and spatiality, for vitality and musical artistry. It provides a tantalising glimpse as to how good reproduced sound really can be. Achieving this in practice will require a compatible temperment, some tolerance for hopefully minor flaws, consonant programme, a compatible system, and care with location and use. The remarkable sound quality commands admiration and respect.../...Verdict -- With such limited power outpu, this amplifier needs to be properly matched with sensitve speakers. But in the right system, and certain kinds of music, is is surely a contender for the title of world's best."

Looking purely at the measurement's it's nothing special(in some cases not even particularly good) -- but then again I owned a Pioneer Elite receiver that measured brilliant ala krell and sounded awful. This is why I'm not an uber fan of the measurements currently being done -- if you take JA of Stereophile if a speaker measures great or it measure weak -- the long term listening sessions don;t favour either measured result. The wonky measured De Capo is wonderful sounding and planty of flatter ones don't sound even remotely good to me -- Stereophile likes both. You have Magie and John Marks doesn't like them.

The moral is that few agree which is why there is so vast an array of design.

If you get more musical enjoyment out of whatever it is you're choosing to go with then it doesn't matter if it uses tubes or not.

[JoeE SP9]

JoeE

I run the ASL MG head -- it's the quietest amplifier I've ever owned -- so for that matter is my Oto. In fact when my house had some kind fo cable grounding problem my SS amps were the ones humming along and the ASL was unhampered. The ASL MG head is so quiet in fact that I could run it as a preamplifier using a 1/4 oin to rca adapter ($15.00 cable) to my Arcam Delta 290 (used as power amp). You'd be impressed. The only let down is that it doesn;t have tremedous bass capability but ASL has upgraded the unit to provide an OTL switch and so it gives more bass but at the cost of midrange purity from what I've read.

The problem with tube versus solid state arguments is that when discussing technical merrits of tube amplifiers they're simply going to lose. If you read the review in the latest issue of Hi-fi News Martin Colloms reviews the $29,000.00GBP Audio Note Ongaku (UK) -- the thing measures from the stone age - is incredibly fussy to the speaker (read match it to an Audio Note or other 95db real flat impedence or don't bother) and nor is it free from hums and other anomolies. Yet he notes

"It(Ongaku) addresses our instinctive love for harmony and spatiality, for vitality and musical artistry. It provides a tantalising glimpse as to how good reproduced sound really can be. Achieving this in practice will require a compatible temperment, some tolerance for hopefully minor flaws, consonant programme, a compatible system, and care with location and use. The remarkable sound quality commands admiration and respect.../...Verdict -- With such limited power outpu, this amplifier needs to be properly matched with sensitve speakers. But in the right system, and certain kinds of music, is is surely a contender for the title of world's best."

Looking purely at the measurement's it's nothing special(in some cases not even particularly good) -- but then again I owned a Pioneer Elite receiver that measured brilliant ala krell and sounded awful. This is why I'm not an uber fan of the measurements currently being done -- if you take JA of Stereophile if a speaker measures great or it measure weak -- the long term listening sessions don;t favour either measured result. The wonky measured De Capo is wonderful sounding and planty of flatter ones don't sound even remotely good to me -- Stereophile likes both. You have Magie and John Marks doesn't like them.

The moral is that few agree which is why there is so vast an array of design.

If you get more musical enjoyment out of whatever it is you're choosing to go with then it doesn't matter if it uses tubes or not.
I am in total agreement with you on this. That's why my motto is "The Ears Decide"

[JoeE SP9]

I didn't me mean to imply that you were unusual in that opinion! I know it's widely held.

I know that notch distortion and the effects of high global feedback aren't the same. From what I've heard and understood, gobal feedback has a couple of common problems, and I like to hear what you have to say about it.

First, it stands to reason the global feedback might limit transient response. Secondly, I have heard that it causes relatively high, (compared to tubes), high order and odd order harmonic distortion which have been shown to be detrimental to good sound.

I would like to do some listening to tube equipment but I don't know anyone with a good system around where I live. (I haven't lived in the area for very long.) Given that I am very please with the sound of my current integrated amp, a Bel Canto eV02i, I'm not likely to go out an by a tube kit on speculation. But as a matter of interest the Bel is a digital hence doesn't have any notch distortion per se, also its design doesn't employ global feedback.
The idea that you can cut and or reduce distortion by feeding an inverted portion of the output to the input to reduce distortion is what feedback is. To my ears and many others global feedback tends to smear the sound. The better sounding SS amps use little or no feedback and what is used is usually confined to a stage. There may be feedback in the driver stage or the output stage or both but usually there is not a global feedback loop. I use an ARC SP-9 because it is/was the best sounding preamp I could afford at the time. I use my radically modified Dyna MKIII's to drive my ES panels because they just sound better driven by tubes. My MKIII's have only the transformers and output tubes in common with the originals. So they are not representative of any amps commercially available. My SS gear has also undergone substantial modification. If anyone is interested I would suggest reading The Audio Amatuer, POOGE article. POOGE means progressive optimization of generic amplifiers. Any switching amplifier ie:digital has notch distortion by definition. Notch distortion being that caused by switching a transistor on and of. In digital amps the switching frequency for the transistors is high enough that notch distortion becomes a non issue. Switching amps usually don't need very much if any feedback. that's the nature of the beast. If you are happy with what you have it doesn't matter if it is a LIRPA, a Conrad Johnson, a Pioneer or a Krell. Pleasing your ears is what matters.

[Feanor]

Joe, you comments confirm my understanding of these aspects. As I mentioned, my current amp has no global feedback, and if I understand what I read, no feedback at all in the final stage -- and it sounds anything but smeared :).

I'm reallynot antagonistic towards tubes, I just want to understand their appeal. Unfortunately I have little opportunity to listen.

Your system looks, and I have no doubt, sounds, fabulous. At my age and state of wallet, I'm never likely to attain such a level of quality.

[RGA]

The Thing is you have to simply go with the ears. Lynn olsen is one of the best engineers around and he was even surprised that the best amp ever on his stats was the worst measuring Ongaku (original). People can blather about no feedback regeneration global feedback natural regeneration slew rates, THD power the works. But the bottom line is the very worst measuring lowest powered amp he had on hand sound best with stats (which are noted for almost always being relatively ruthless to schlock).

People can argue they add warmth while others will just say the warmth in the original music was gutted -- your view will depend on which you PREFER.

[theaudiohobby]

With all due respect, we should be more considered when using terms such as "best engineer". This thread is beginning to take on a deja vu feeling but here goes comments from Lynn Olsen quoted from his musings "True Stories from Positive Feedback" (http://www.nutshellhifi.com/library/reviewer.html),


a pair of amplifiers arrived at David's door from an unknown company back East called R. E. Designs. They made their way to my house, and they turned out to be two big 75-watt monoblocks. Each LNPA-150 chassis
...SNIP...
This was the first thing since the lamented departure of the Ongaku and Reichert SE-DHT amplifiers that really brought the music back again. She had really soured on transistor amps after that, and was surprised to see no glowing tubes anywhere in the room. I was too. No grain, no grit, none of the dreaded lifeless transistor sound, instead it was sparkling, lively, and very dynamic. Very much in the same league as the Ongaku and Reichert, and much superior to any of the visiting transistor or PP pentode amps that followed. And they sounded that way from the first turn-on. In fact, there was no sonic difference between afternoon and 2 in the morning, which was the first time I'd ever heard such a thing. Usually the "quiet hours" resulted in much better sound thanks to less noise and hash on the power line. Not so with the LNPA-150's - they sound good all the time; just turn them on and listen. There must be something to the regulation after all!

What I am saying here, it is all well and good to state preferences, but is a tube amplifier really superior to a transistor amplifier on purely sonic terms, even in SET-friendly systems? I do not think so, the implications of Lynn's comments here are considerable, He is saying that this simple and very unassuming transistor power amplifier is in the same league as a DH-SET that is considered to be one of the best implementations available. The issues becomes more poignant when you consider that the amplifier in question will run rings around DH-SET amplifier in system flexibility, you have much greater choice of speakers to choose from and the overall component is cost is considerably lower. And "Class D" amplifiers are breaching the efficiency and form-factor frontier, My SM SX100 drives Quad ESL excellently and its stays cool, A lot of Apogee Scintilla owners are reporting excellent results with certain "Class D" implementations. Recently, a poster on AudioCircle reported in a DIY amplifier shootout conducted a while back, the digital amplifier (not his) gave nothing away, IOW it sounded better, to it's glowing glass cousins. In conclusion, the gestalt ;) of music can be realised in any of the available technologies, provided you know what you are doing.

[hertz]

The odyssey you liked….was it the stereo power amp or the dual-mono model ? Could you point me to the exact model ?

[RGA]

I don't know the model -- they were stereo power amps each run as a monoblock.

Tah -- I'm not going to get into a debate from you -- what was YOUR thought on YOUR A/B listening session with the Ongaku and the SS amp in question?

One has to go with what one hears. I have heard the top of the line amplifiers from a very small fraction of what is on the market and until it is PROVEN to me via the ONLY way it can be which is in MY listening session then at this point I have to draw the conclusions I draw. I have not heard the Ongaku or the SS amp in quesiton -- nor did I hear his stats. It may very well be that on HIS speakers I would draw the identical conclusions that he draws or I may differer. My only point to this thread was purely about measurements - the FACT is that at the time of his talking about the Ongaku (which has been around along time) he stated that it was the very best sound he heard from his Stats even though Krell he had heard. The point being that despite the measurements it came out on top.

This and I know you are trying to "read-in" to what I'm saying in no way means that I'm calling it the BEST amp...the fact also remains that he never saud that SS was better -- he said is in league with. Well my Beloved Blue Jays are "in League" with the New York Yankess but we're still not quite as good."

There are several ducks that need to be in a row. Lets say I hear his speakers and like the AN E Sec more. Let's say he likes his speakers more. Now we listen to the Ongaku on the E and the SS amp on the E. He may very well change his mind - not on the speakers per se but on the amp. the SS amp may sound very much dreadful on these speakers and the Ongaku raises the bar a little.

That is my impression from what Colloms had to say scoring the Ongaku from an 80 to over 100 to a in the world class contender as best amp -- contender not winner just to note" Seems to me Colloms is making a number of guesses.

Just as I have said so many times -- one needs a SYSTEM approach. IF my reference amplifier is my OTO and someone gives me a 75db sensitive 1 ohm speaker...and I blast the speaker for having no bass and is highly distorted when I turn it up I'm not being fair to the speaker maker. I see this happen to tube amp or low power amps many times being reviewed by a reviewer with power pig speakers.

This is why I don't get on a number of SS amps I've heard like Bryston because they WORK on my dead easy to drive Wharfedales but have sounded thin and lifeless on many other speakers. Is it the amp's fault or the speaker's or Neither or both? Listening to a Rotel on the AN K/spe to be blunt was a fatiguing experience -- My dealer heard the K/LX (I didn;t even know they made a copper K) and he said was so poor compared to the Spe that they were not going to carry it. Yet that very same amp sounded quite nice on copper version E's. The Valve amp performed far better on the K/Spe that it did on the copper E.

Bryston has performed well for me on Martin Logan but badly with B&W. Classe I'm harder on only because I have tried it with several and I've never enjoyed a set-up with them -- same for MF. But hey maybe MF is great with Von Sweikert -- and if so and I hear it then I'll change my tune.

Basically I want it to me clear that this is a synergistic opinion based direct experience stuff -- I note others usually to make the point of measurments vrsus the actual listening experience. It is not really important if Lynn likes a Krell model X more than the Ongaku or all the SET's they've ever heard. It is enough to note that when Lynn is reviewing amplifiers -- that he is using stuff like the Reichert and Ongaku as a baseline reference for those comments. Even if you perceive what he wrote as saying I heard model XYZ and it is up there with the Ongaku -- the point is that the Ongaku is the thing that is up there to start with and with its totally pathetic to the industry way of doing things measured response says much about what is being measured...and pretty much every single reviewer that has ever reviewed those big sets says pretty much the exact same things. There is no technical argument because the industry standard illustrates that the Ongaku isn;t even as good as any $99.00 amp you can buy at Wal-mart.

I think even you might like the Ongaku more than a $99.00 amp at wal-mart. Maybe not - until we actually hear it I'll take the reviewers' words that even though the measurements are total crapola relative to the worst SS amp on the market that it still sounds wonderous that they may at least have a plausible ear for this stuff.

There is no argument one can make for preference -- Colloms uses the Quad ESL 63 as a reference and I don't think it's even a good speaker let alone a great one that could possibly be considered a standard for anything. I respect that Mr. Colloms feels otherwise - he hears it different from me that is obvious - and it's his coin. Then again he may have had a stupendous match that if I heard would change my mind.

I don;t think it's good to be stagnant in one's views -- I'm ready to shift mine when and if something wrestles me from my views -- but it MUST come from the audition room -- not a chat-forum or a technical argument. The technical arguements have not shown up at Soundhounds or in my home auditions -- the best measuring stuff sounds the worst and vice versa. Obviously some poor measurers also sound very bad -- exceptions abound.

[theaudiohobby]

A few points, listening is the key, but some forward planning goes a long way to help you make informed choices, and there measurements help a lot, the right measurements will give you clues as to which components are a good match but you need know which measurements matter and with all due respect, you past performance suggests that you do not have this knowledge. For those that are not phased by technical jargon, a bit of preparatory technical groundwork pays dividends in listening sessions, allowing to pick good and something unlikely but successful product combinations for your listening sessions.

And a few points to note, Olson did not test the Ongaku or the LNPA with a Stats but with a dynamic speaker, the Ariel, one of his own designs. The ESL 63 is not Martin Colloms only reference, and reading his review it is highly unlikely that he tested the Ongaku with the ESL 63. Lastly The Ongaku measured badly only with respect to THD, <a href="http://ai.kaist.ac.kr/~suh/DIY/feedback.html">Olson</a> was discussing THD and power measurements and comparing it measurements to a couple of amplifiers he had around at the time, As has been cited in papers since the 50s, the distortion spectrum of an amplifier has a huge bearing on the sound, if the original Ongaku has a distortion speaker similar to the Lamm or new Ongaku, then it should sound very sweet indeed. On a side note, In HiFi News this month, a reader concluded that Martin Colloms's review of the Ongaku was useless (vague?), and the editor agreed, and promised changes to the review regime.

Peace!

[RGA]

I'm pretty sure I can read frequency graphs -- operating and working badly designed web-sites with non-full information is another matter. If you are going to provide measurements provide ALL of the ones that are useful - or don't bother -- The only way to base ANYTHING off of a measurement is to listen to 100 loudspeakers and order them from best to worst -- then get full battery measurements on ALL of them and look for correlation of how they measure to one's preference. THEN you you are in good shape on speaker number 101 to generalize where roughly it will fall on the line of preference.

I'm also not convinced by most magazines as they lack consistency -- Hi-fi Choice is one of my favorites but on this front they are pretty atrocious not only contradicting themselves in the SAME review but also across several issues.

Even Lynn is a bit of puzzle -- considering that his site says this is dated 2005(after what you just posted). And it is also worthy of note that he is heavily biased to his Ariels

"The real awakening came with my Positive Feedback review of the Audio Note Ongaku and the Reichert Silver 300B (the personal amp of Herb Reichert of Sound Practices magazine). I had never heard a triode amp with the Ariels before, and was stunned at what I heard. My reactions are in the Summer 1994 issue of Positive Feedback, if you'd like to read the whole thing.

Direct-heated triode amplifiers transformed the entire character of the Ariel, giving the speaker an electrostatic speed that called to mind stacked Quad ESL57's. There was also a "Cinerama" quality of realism, presence, and room-filling three-dimensionality that brought back long-forgotten memories of attending wide-screen premieres of "Ben-Hur," "West Side Story," and "Lawrence of Arabia" in the original 70mm six-track versions. A thrilling experience indeed, lasting an all-too-brief two weeks, then back they went.

I wasn't just any magazine reviewer. I was an experienced speaker designer, and thought I knew my creation pretty well. The radical - and wonderful - transformation of the Ariel showed me that it had a secret beauty that came to light with the right amplifier. I've heard a lot of amplifiers since I wrote the original review in the fall of 1993, and most fell short of that first experience. Ten years later, there are many good DHT alternatives to the Reichert Silver 300B, but none to the Ongaku. A few are on a similar plane to the Ongaku, and do things it doesn't do. The WAVAC 833 is one of them, and is a truly stunning tour-de-force of amplifier design.

[notice the contradiction in this?]

Looking back on the Nineties, I've concluded that speakers are actually better than we realize, and that amplifiers have a long way to go. This flies in the face of atrocious speaker measurements and good amplifier measurements, but that's what I hear. I surmise that we haven't come up with amplifier measurements that correlate with what we hear, and that feedback fools the meter a lot better than it fools the ear. As with speakers, parts and materials matter, along with skill and taste on the part of the designer.

[Notice that what is in Bold is almost verbatum to what Peter Qvortrup argues]

Direct-heated triodes have one-half to one-third the distortion of triode-connected pentodes, and this is immediately audible as clarity, realism, and a "you-are-there" quality. Pentodes, although not my favorite device, are better than transistors, which have even higher distortion as well as complex nonlinear problems with capacitance. Modern transformers, which are heavy, expensive, and measure poorly in the bass, sound better than any capacitor! It's a strange world.

[what is in bold is again contradictory]

I'm still interested in speakers, but the more efficient drivers I was hoping for in the early Nineties haven't appeared. To my dismay, the latest Scan-Speak drivers are less efficient than the ten-year-old Vifa drivers in the Ariel! "


You are trying to lead this to an argumentative thread - as usual -- so I shall not be reading your replay if any here.

[theaudiohobby]

I'm pretty sure I can read frequency graphs -- operating and working badly designed web-sites with non-full information is another matter. If you are going to provide measurements provide ALL of the ones that are useful - or don't bother -- The only way to base ANYTHING off of a measurement is to listen to 100 loudspeakers and order them from best to worst -- then get full battery measurements on ALL of them and look for correlation of how they measure to one's preference. THEN you you are in good shape on speaker number 101 to generalize where roughly it will fall on the line of preference.
Your comments underscore my point that you do not understand measurements ;) ...I will it leave at that ;)


I'm also not convinced by most magazines as they lack consistency -- Hi-fi Choice is one of my favorites but on this front they are pretty atrocious not only contradicting themselves in the SAME review but also across several issues.

This is puzzling, if they lack consistency, and I agree that some do, why do you repeatedly quote them to support your viewpoint? You cannot have your cake and eat it, you gotta chose one.

Even Lynn is a bit of puzzle -- considering that his site says this is dated 2005(after what you just posted). And it is also worthy of note that he is heavily biased to his Ariels
- SNIP-
I agree with some of your observations about the contradictions, Lynn said this somewhere else (http://www.nutshellhifi.com/Arieltxt2.html)

I know of exactly one transistor amplifier that avoids the trap of grain-n-grit on one hand and audiophile flatness on the other ... in short, it sounds just like a really good triode amp, but with more power! Unfortunately, it's not well known, so don't expect to see it at most dealerships. This unit is: the R.E. Designs LNPA-150. This 75-watt transistor power amplifier has the immediacy, the clarity, and the musical rightness of direct-heated triode amps ... but is a completely different technology. How is it done? Don't ask me ... transistor electronics are not my specialty. But it is possible if you move away from universe of conventional high-end audio.
My guess is that Lynn could not make the paradigm shift necessary to accept that some of his long held beliefs about electronics components were faulty despite the credible evidence(his own ears ;) ) available...a pity.


You are trying to lead this to an argumentative thread - as usual -- so I shall not be reading your replay if any here.
Thanks!