|
Post by bub on Apr 16, 2015 9:13:53 GMT -5
I have been eyeing those very amps. Did bob built them for you as well. Congrats on the purchase. Hi soundofrockets. I had mine built for me even though I've heard if you're proficient with a soldering iron its relatively easy. . Well written step by step instructions www.tubes4hifi.comPm me and I'll give you more information. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Apr 16, 2015 10:58:18 GMT -5
I have been eyeing those very amps. Did bob built them for you as well. Congrats on the purchase. Hi soundofrockets. I had mine built for me even though I've heard if you're proficient with a soldering iron its relatively easy. . Well written step by step instructions www.tubes4hifi.comPm me and I'll give you more information. Thanks. Precisely! I think the only challenge could be you vision. In my case my eyes are not very good but a mgnifier and a good source of light can greatly help.
|
|
|
Post by soundofrockets on Apr 16, 2015 20:29:11 GMT -5
Well vision is ok. Never soldered anything in life. I think I am a quick learner and can follow directions well.
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Apr 16, 2015 20:37:38 GMT -5
Well vision is ok. Never soldered anything in life. I think I am a quick learner and can follow directions well. So make yourself a big favor and get a pair. They will potentially be the last amps you will ever buy...
|
|
|
Post by soundofrockets on Apr 16, 2015 20:53:54 GMT -5
Will try sir. I am planning on powering the Danny Richie designed Line array ls9. Hope those monos have enough juice to power them.
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Apr 16, 2015 20:58:10 GMT -5
Will try sir. I am planning on powering the Danny Richie designed Line array ls9. Hope those monos have enough juice to power them. Those are a lot of drivers....
|
|
|
Post by jerrin on Apr 16, 2015 21:09:49 GMT -5
Will try sir. I am planning on powering the Danny Richie designed Line array ls9. Hope those monos have enough juice to power them. As long as you have around 150 watts of overhead you'll be fine.
|
|
|
Post by soundofrockets on Apr 16, 2015 21:14:27 GMT -5
I believe they are rated at 125 watts @ 8 ohms. Is that enough?
|
|
|
Post by jerrin on Apr 16, 2015 21:30:18 GMT -5
Should be ok. The number Danny always cites is 150. I've used them on 100, 200, and 500. They were fine at 100, but I prefer 500. Not for sheer volume, but overhead.
|
|
|
Post by soundofrockets on Apr 17, 2015 0:23:03 GMT -5
500 watts from tubes! That must be one heck of a amp! Who makes them?
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,941
|
Post by KeithL on Apr 17, 2015 0:24:44 GMT -5
The whole question of "Tubes vs Solid State" is really pretty simple... and there's no reason to over complicate it. But you really need to stop turning it into an argument that sounds like "specs vs some intangible something". There are no fairies living in the garden, there are no unicorns, and there is no intangible something. When you're talking about power amps (and excluding the very few output-transformerless tube amps out there) tube power amps are NOT accurate. With a good solid state amp, what comes out is generally pretty close to what went in - only larger (the proverbial "straight wire with gain"). If you measure a tube amp, you will find that what comes out is usually not really very close to what went in. The specs will tell you how much of that is because of what distortion harmonics, and other types of distortion, and how much is due to phase shift, and how much is due to noise... but there's no question that the tube amp is changing the sound of what you feed into it. Think of a tube amplifier like sunglasses.... there are crappy sunglasses which make things look funny, and there are good sunglasses that can make walking around in the sun much nicer than it was without them, and make things a lot clearer and easier to see. The fact that ALL sunglasses alter what you're seeing, and therefore aren't accurate, doesn't mean that they don't sometimes improve your viewing experience. It doesn't even mean that you shouldn't wear them in the house if you like the way your living room looks better with them on. (But you would be misleading yourself if you were to imagine that sunglasses were more accurate than clear glass; in fact, you really can't judge which sunglasses are better until you accept the fact that you're buying them because they alter things in a way that you find pleasant. You can't do a very good job of picking out which color of sunglasses you prefer if you keep insisting that they aren't colored.) In the case of things like "warmth" and "dimensionality", what's happening is simply that the tube amp is adding changes to the sound that sound nice. In some cases, even though the amp is not being accurate to the signal you feed into it, it may even actually produce a result that is more accurate to the original experience. For example, modern close-miked multi-track recordings are somewhat "dry" in terms of harmonic overtones; by altering the signal and adding some second harmonic distortion, a tube amp may end up being closer to what you would have heard if you were actually at the concert than what is on the recording. Likewise, if the actual recording was lacking in "depth" or "dimensionality", the phase shift that most tube amps cause may actually "create" a convincing enough illusion of dimensionality to compensate for that lack. (Just like many modern TVs can produce a convincing and pleasing illusion of "3D" from a 2D source - even though we all know they're faking it, they do an excellent job, and the result looks good.) Reading Bub's impressions, I agree it's the reality of the presentation with a quality tube amp tube that impresses. That's quality, not the bargain basement stuff. Forget specs, "distortion", ear destroying volume, ad nauseum. Leave all that for others. Just sit and stare, with dropped jaw, at the near visual musical presentation laid before you. A leap of faith for some, but a conversion experience for many!
|
|
|
Post by brubacca on Apr 17, 2015 5:24:51 GMT -5
Mongo like music through tube amp. Mongo sad when listening to all SS system.
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Apr 17, 2015 6:45:40 GMT -5
So, Keith, how will you explain the Emotiva tube amps so very many here are clamoring for?
I'm looking forward to that.
I, for one have learned to trust my ears and senses.
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Apr 17, 2015 14:30:41 GMT -5
Admittedly, I only read the first word and the last word of Keith's post... I did too much reading at work today and I now just want to play some tunes...
|
|
|
Post by bluemeanies on Apr 18, 2015 6:41:30 GMT -5
Deceived Is the wrong noun to to tag tube amplifiers. A good steak tasting pleasing to the palate, is not an illusion. It's the real thing. Likewise listening to and comparing Tubes to SS the listener gets to taste audible subtlies that exist in one format over the other. Let's deal with REAL tangibles when comparing the pros and cons of tube amplifying, instead of rallying to the side of what one person thinks is real and is what is an illusion. One can use the same formula with comparing hi end speakers to bargain basement or vintage stereo. The fact is the warmth with listening to tube amplifiers and the life-like presence of an artist being full center in your listening room is a combination of many things, correct speaker placement, the right ascoutics and the right monitoring system. Tube amplifiers do more than this, they add IMO more to digital, they add harmonics and that makes digital recordings sound not so digital. IMO the richness and warmth of a recording was replaced by tinniness and splash with the advent of SS. SS has its place but when compared to the original format of listening from the beginning "TUBES ARE KING".
|
|
|
Post by ncred02 on Apr 18, 2015 7:29:12 GMT -5
Question - this thread has focused on tube versus SS amps, but what about tube preamps? Could one expect the same effect by using a tube preamp with a SS amp? Or does one need to use tubes in both the preamp and amp stage? I went from a umc1 with xpa2, added class d monos ( heard an audible change). Then added usp1 pre, and again heard a change. Then finally added a tube pre and loved what I heard. I did switch back and forth every time I added a new piece of equipment and listened to the same cd evey time. Im now debating tube mono blocks and check out what happens. My amps sound very good matched with the tube pre. My only beef with tubes is the warm up they need. I let my pre run for 30 min before I turn on my amps. And yes I can hear the difference. If I dont I get a nasty buzz/hum
|
|
|
Post by brubacca on Apr 18, 2015 7:44:12 GMT -5
Question - this thread has focused on tube versus SS amps, but what about tube preamps? Could one expect the same effect by using a tube preamp with a SS amp? Or does one need to use tubes in both the preamp and amp stage? According to my dealer tube amps are faster to respond to transients than solid state. I think that it would be an interesting comparison, and I woulda't say this as an absolute. I'd be willing to guess that this may be true for standard products from Emotiva, like upa line or some lower x series. As has been discussed before the XPA-2 and XPA-1l have an elevated output device count which helps them respond faster to transients. Again I think that this would be a very interesting comparison. I was at a dealer listening to a Rogue Cronus vs Rogue Sphinx. The Cronus was much better with the same speakers/room/CD player. In my demo it was very noticeable with a Pearl Jam and the snare drum. I forget the exact song now but the attack of the snare drum was absolutely incredible on the Cronus. On the sphinx it sounded like my other amps and kind of run together. The general gist is that a lot of the tube flavor (distortion) that people like comes from the pre-amp stage.
|
|
|
TubesRUs
Apr 18, 2015 10:34:24 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by bub on Apr 18, 2015 10:34:24 GMT -5
Question - this thread has focused on tube versus SS amps, but what about tube preamps? Could one expect the same effect by using a tube preamp with a SS amp? Or does one need to use tubes in both the preamp and amp stage? I went from a umc1 with xpa2, added class d monos ( heard an audible change). Then added usp1 pre, and again heard a change. Then finally added a tube pre and loved what I heard. I did switch back and forth every time I added a new piece of equipment and listened to the same cd evey time. Im now debating tube mono blocks and check out what happens. My amps sound very good matched with the tube pre. My only beef with tubes is the warm up they need. I let my pre run for 30 min before I turn on my amps. And yes I can hear the difference. If I dont I get a nasty buzz/hum I've heard about this hiss/hum issue. This is my first exposure to tubes. My SS pre/DAC is always on. I'm pretty much up and running within minutes. Like I said in my first post. I can put my ear right on the woofer and detect the very slightest of something ( hiss/hum ? ) These particular amps ( or at least mine ) are very quiet . Just a fact. Not sure if that's good or bad. I would assume that is how an amp should ( not ) sound . I am looking for advise on warm up. How long ?
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Apr 18, 2015 10:37:59 GMT -5
Thanks ncred02 and brubacca for your responses. I think I am going to stop looking at this thread lest I actually get curious enough to actually buy some tube stuff.
|
|
|
Post by 405x5 on Apr 18, 2015 11:15:41 GMT -5
"Think of a tube amplifier like sunglasses.... there are crappy sunglasses which make things look funny, and there are good sunglasses that can make walking around in the sun much nicer than it was without them, and make things a lot clearer and easier to see. The fact that ALL sunglasses alter what you're seeing, and therefore aren't accurate, doesn't mean that they don't sometimes improve your viewing experience. It doesn't even mean that you shouldn't wear them in the house if you like the way your living room looks better with them on. (But you would be misleading yourself if you were to imagine that sunglasses were more accurate than clear glass; in fact, you really can't judge which sunglasses are better until you accept the fact that you're buying them because they alter things in a way that you find pleasant. You can't do a very good job of picking out which color of sunglasses you prefer if you keep insisting that they aren't colored.) In the case of things like "warmth" and "dimensionality", what's happening is simply that the tube amp is adding changes to the sound that sound nice. In some cases, even though the amp is not being accurate to the signal you feed into it, it may even actually produce a result that is more accurate to the original experience. For example, modern close-miked multi-track recordings are somewhat "dry" in terms of harmonic overtones; by altering the signal and adding some second harmonic distortion, a tube amp may end up being closer to what you would have heard if you were actually at the concert than what is on the recording. Likewise, if the actual recording was lacking in "depth" or "dimensionality", the phase shift that most tube amps cause may actually "create" a convincing enough illusion of dimensionality to compensate for that lack. (Just like many modern TVs can produce a convincing and pleasing illusion of "3D" from a 2D source - even though we all know they're faking it, they do an excellent job, and the result looks good.)" I love this answer from Keith and the "sunglass analogy."
And, I agree it's not Tubes VS. Solid State, it's which sound do your ears prefer; the one where the signal is MORE altered from the original (tubes) or more ACCURATE (solid state) and yet less pleasing to SOME ears.
It's interesting that engineers such as Bob Carver have solid state amplifiers that have a modified voltage source to obtain, at least some of the audible characteristics of that "tube sound". I suppose it would be quite the paradox if the tubes could be advanced enough to amplify as accurately as their solid state counterpart. Then, no need at all for them?
|
|