Hi dave,
how about an early Jan 2008 NOS version of the TI Burr Brown OPA1632 differentially balanced OP amps in the linestage section?
I heard from a bunch of wild internet chipheads that it readily trounces the 2008 post march 31st current production. Best used after triple kryoing and slow warming up to room temperature in a tourmaline-based industrial drier. 77F Airflow with 45% humidity through a bed of crushed tourmaline minimizes residual Doppler effect by optical polirization of Oxigen 2O molecules. Current big issue is. . . what tourmaline variant to utilize: black Mexican, green (having the highest optical polarization index), or rose rubelite (being this last the most expensive jewelry grade variant, and therefore obviously the most desirable from a serious audiophyle point of view). The date of mining of the tourmaline may also have a considerable effect on the sound. . . Pre 1908 batches are the best, because they were extracted prior to the nepherious Tunguska event. . . provided you can find any. Hope this helps, G. |
I agree Mr G- And I'll bet those "personal and unstated parameters" are too often one's familiarity with the real thing(live music). A subject that will get a post severly bashed in these forums. What a shame that we should take solace in those that disagree! I'm glad I've always considered myself simply a sound-tech/music lover and NEVER an "audiophile." |
What can I say Rodman. . . I have listened and done live unamplified, acoustic music for almost 50 years and still have no idea what many are talking about when the whole issue of the realism of tube bloom arises. . . I'll try to listen to live music for a few more decades and hope to learn. . . Like Bart aptly suggests, there are a lot of audiophile with longer listening experience than I do. G. |
That's what I inferred from your second post(describing what you were hearing). My own experience with the sound of live(and my love for it) has only been about 35 years as a musician/sound tech/electronics repairman and modder. Seems much of the "audiophile" thing is wrapped around the sound of equipment compared to the sound of other pieces of equipment. I remember one post in which the "audiophile" sited how many CES shows he'd attended, and pieces of gear he's listened to, in his "experience." The resistance to the idea that live music CAN be used as a reference is dismaying, but I suppose it's human nature to deny that from which you've alienated yourself. It's interesting that so many find it impossible not to argue their viewpoints with such vehemence. Perhaps they believe if they continually repeat the same error, loudly enough, it will become truth? Then again: "ain't" and "irregardless" ARE now in the dictionary(another example of our codependent society)! My take: Whatever makes them happy in their listening rooms IS right for them, and fine with me. Enjoy your music Mr G!! |
Great advice Guido. Given your deep knowledge of music and all the famous musicians that you know, your ability to pick chips must be peerless. Thanks for taking time out of you busy schedule of listening to live music to address my concerns.
Dave |
Able to contribute to the discussion around the subject. I retubed my Ref. 3. It is now about 10 hrs...Not enough but some conclusion can be shared already. I probably already mentioned to the readers that my tubes had 2800 hrs of use and I did not have any feeling that it was time to change. But following the thread I decided to do it anyway and try the Tung Sol as rectifier. I can now be sure that the ARC sounded still exactely like new. Changing all 6H30 tubes infact did not change much the sound excepted for the initial time needed to run-in them. So I guess the signal tubes can easily be used up to the 4000 hrs mentioned by Audio Research and probably exceed this limit. The other thing I can say is that the 6550 type contributes a lot to the sound characteristics. Much more than I expected. The Tung Sol makes the REf 3 more similar to the Ref 2. More on the warm side. I tend to agree with Guido. I prefer the more open and lifelike sound with the original 6550C. The sound was more aggressive and sometimes more tiring. With the Tungsol is more (I would say much more) Tube sounding. I sense the tungsol makes the internal voltage lower. I do not have the schematics to measure this, but i say that because the display looks less bright. This would explain partially what I'm hearing,...More relaxed sound, but with bass that is not tight as before and treble less defined...As if the bias of the tubes was changed. Again 10 hrs is not enough. I will come back when the tubes will reach the 100 hrs. For now I would recomend to use the original 6550C. |
Marco_esposito - what TungSol 6550 tube did you try ?
NOS Black Plate/Gray Plate from the 50s-60s or the new production TungSol "reissue" ?
I'm asking this question since those are two very different tubes. |
Thanks Marco.
My bet is that even at 100 hours or more you will still prefer the original 6550C.
I spoke to the people at ARC severalweeks ago about retubing having read the comments that this should be done sooner rather than later and the person with whom I talked said there is absolutely noreason to retube before 4000-5000 hours. I also asked about tube rolling. he suggested that this is OK but that in their opinion the very best 6550 tube is already being used.
I have been in that camp throughout this entire thread as has Guido. |
Not that I would disagree with you Oneobgyn, as I haven't experimented with my Ref 3 tubes either, and according to this thread I don't intend to. However, out of curiousity, whilst speaking with the ARC folks, did they happen to mention that the best power cord was also being used? Because I might have some disagreement there....
Cheers,
John |
Jmcgrogan2 ->
ARC uses Shunyata Anaconda Helix Alpha PCs at their factory.
Oneobgyn ->
99% of manufacturers stick to current production tubes. So even though, SED 6550 that is used in all ARC gear may well be the best current production tube available, there is also a broad selection of NOS tubes (various TungSol, GE), which very often, are far superior.
BTW - for those who wish to stick with current production tubes - there is a more expensive version of SED 6550, called Black Sable. It is made by the same manufacturer, but is twice as expensive. I was always wondering, what difference it may make. |
i didn't ask re PC's but FWIW I use Valhalla throughout my system...nonetheless I think we are now talking apples and oranges (tubes with PC's) |
i didn't ask re PC's Jmcgrogan2 did. |
Now returning in earnest to the main topic [grins!]. . . The 6550C Black Sable will make for an interesting experiment with my Ref 3 the coming Fall, when my music loft becomes once again 'tube friendly'. If it sounds even more linear and extended than the standard tube, I may very well like it. Conversely, if it sounded warmer to me, I probably won't. |
Well I cannot say that I have heard the latest Shunyata Anaconda Helix Alpha p/c with my ARC Ref 3, I have heard many cords, including the older series Anaconda Matrix Alpha and Vx, as well as the Nordost Valhalla (amongst many others). I still feel that my favorite, in my system, to my ears is the Stealth Preamp Dream, FWIW.
Cheers,
John |
Up date on 6550 Tungsram after almost 100 hrs. I believe a conclusion is not easy to be made. As I posted on the other thread VTL 6.5 vs Ref. 3, the only negative on the ref.3 is that sometimes it is tiring for eccessive details. I finally would not go back to the original 6550C Winged. There is more sense of pace listening to music now. I had to tweak the speaker position a bit since the speakers can now be more apart witout loosing focus. The only doubt still remaining is on the bass that is not as tight as before. I gained in extension but missing some control. This will require probably a tweak on the Preamp foot. By the way, for Ref. 3 owners, I strongly suggest to try something different from the original foot. I found excellent results with Soundcare. Simply Do not expect to replace without some adjustment to accomodate/leverage the differences. If you need more detail go for the Original Winged C, If you need more wormth the tungsol is an excellent help.I will keep you posted on the evolution, but either way the preamp sounds glorious. |
Marco, what Tungsol variant are you using? New production or NOS? Guido |
Marco
From your post it seems to me that you are hearing something different rather than something better. The loss of bass with your tube IMO is one of the reasons ARC goes with their provided 6550C and then for you to have to adjust speaker position suggests to me that whatever difference you heard was not related to the 6550 Tungsram but rather speaker realignment. It makes no sense to me that by changing a tube you have to change speaker position and the feet on the Ref3 for better listening pleasure. I might suggest to you to put the original 6550C back in, keep the speakers where you now have them and keep the tweak on the preamp feet and I would bet your bass is again back to where you like it and overall the sound is better. By inference therefore the speaker repositioning and tweak is what changed, nothing more. |
Yes Guido it is a current Tungsol. I had to buy a matched pair. I'm very intrigued by trying the Black sable as possible next experiment. Probably the result would be half way from the 2 sounds. |
You are probably right Oneobgyn. Probably however we are talking about a different philosophy of "the zen of listening to music". From my experience infact, everytime I change something in my system (BTW Soon I will pubblish it to give more clarity about my listening experience), I'm prepared to maximize the benefit (If I sense there is a potential for improvement) by tweaking here and there. Sometimes even changing the Cartridge weight of 0,1 Gram forces me to change something in the system. So for me it is not strange that changing tubes I have to change something to get a new set-up. In this case I'm not saying I obtained miracles; I'm just sharing my experience and adding to the thread (And this is in accordance to Guido conclusions) that the 2 solutions give a different Sound...and that I like what I have with the new set-up because I can hear for many hours without feeling tired. On the other side I understand also that the better definition of Original 6550C is beneficial for easier interpretation of words of singers and or to catch the notes while listening to instruments. This is probably why Guido being a professional musician (I'm jealous!) is looking for the max detail and myself as a concert listener I'm looking for the closest "Concert like" experience....And I believe the current set-up is closer to the timbre I hear in Jazz concerts for a piano or classical orchestra being in the 15th row. Just to correct one sentence in your post, The bass with TS is more in quantity and extension. It is the tightness that I was mentioning as not as good as before. I look forward to getting more on the subject |
Being involved in this hobby for well over 35 years has always shown me that when something is changed I always ask "did I hear something different or did I hear something better"
Perhaps the chaanges in your system is what minimized fatigue as you were hearing something different, not neecessarily better. Nonetheless hearing from you about your conclusions will be informative |
Marco_esposito - your findings seem to confirm what Guido has written before - the current production TungSol 6550 (so called "reissue") does not bring a net benefit compared to SED 6550C.
When I was talking about the improvment I got by inserting a TungSol 6550, I meant the NOS (New Old Stock) TungSol 6550 Black Plate from the early 50s - which is a totally different tube to the one you have tried.
I cannot recomment it (NOS TungSol Black Plate) highly enough. |
Thank you Marco, please keep us posted on Black Sable. . . I wish there were a 6550 variant that would outdo the SED 6550C with greater top to bottom extension, tighter bass control, and greater harmonic development. . . . as you may notice, I am not necessarily seeking 'warmth'. |
|
Marco
beautiful looking room |
I've read every post in this thread with interest.
I have the Ref 3 in my audio system that replaced my SP-14. The system also includes a ARC CD-7 and a PH-7 phono stage. The addition of the Ref-3 brought my system to the best its ever sounded. I mean ... its great!
Now then, about a month ago, I, and a friend, went to a live symphony and sat in the third row center. My question is this: What tubes can I use in my Ref-3 that will make my system sound like THAT!? ~lol~
OP.
|
The short answer is. . . there isn't such a tube, nor there is such a linestage, nor there is such a system that will sound "just like a live symphony orchestra."
Your system can sound phenomenally fantastic. . . and yet it will sound always different from what your own ears heard at that particular live orchestra event. Welcome to the hyperreality of high end audio! G. |
Dear all,
I became curious. I acquired 2 NOS Tung Sols Black Plate 1957. Can I exchange without any other "thing to take care off"?
Keep you posted.
Cheers,
Broederen |
It all depends what Tung Sols Black Plate 1957tubes you purchased. |
Hi Guidocorona,
The details of the Tungs are as follows:
Pair of 1957 Tung-Sol 6550 tubes. The tubes were " MADE IN U.S.A." by Tung-Sol and the matching production code is 3225711-3 . The construction is superb with smooth black plates, triple top mount rectangular getters, copper grid posts (killer) and tight metal bases with strong guide shafts. They were tested for gas, leakage and merit on my Eico 667 tester where the 60-80 range is somewhat acceptable. The tubes tested 136 and 136, very strong on the life test and matched.
Cheers,
Broederen |
Broederen, if the tubes are 6550 types, one of them can probably be inserted in the single 6550-compatible socket in the power supply of the Ref 3. As Tung Sols seem to be fatter than SEDs, make sure that the lower portion of the glass does not touch the 6H30 tube beneath it. G. |
Thanks Guidocorona
I have replaced the Svetlana 6550 with a 1957 Tung Sol. I'm surprised by the difference in sound. I'm not so good in describing but its seems tighter bass, increased resolution and more "punch". And the system is now playing only for a couple of hours.......................
I can imagine that for a company like ARC it is not possible to put these type of 6550's in simply because of costs and even more constraining: availability!
Cheers,
Broederen |
hello forum members ,my local dealer supplied me a Tung-sol NOS 6L6WGB to try in my REF 3 , now the tube is 120 hrs in the amp .I like this upgrade . some month ago I also changed the other tubes to 6H30P-DR . This alltogether
made my REF 3 in my opinion a more musical machine .later on I will tell you the major upgrade my local dealer did in the REF 3 .This upgrade takes some more breakin time.
greetings from Holland Hans |
Dear all,
I encountered an issue. After replacing the Svetlana with a Tung-sol 6550 Black Plate I experienced sometimes a moment without sound. After some time the sound came back (black-out?). Now my REF3 is dead. I replaced the Tung-sol with the original Svetlana and still no music! I checked everything including connections etc. What can have happened? |
Try replacing also the 6h30 in the power supply - perhaps a failure in the Tung-sol 6550 has damaged also the driver tube. |
I have to replace all 250 hours the 6L6GC in my powersupply. The sound becomes liveless. What's wrong? |
Probably the 6L6GC aged prematurely. It is worth pointing out that any deviation from the ARC supplied SED Winged 6650C may potentially be an "interesting experiments" yielding unpredictable results. . . and any problems it yields may void the factory warranty. G. |
Dear all,
After one day (no power on) the unit is now functioning normal again with the original swetlana 6550C. Anyone any thoughts?
Cheers,
Broederen |
Just to add that my ARC Ref3 time counter shows 3674 hours and today I tested the original 6550 tube : transconductance was 5200 micromhos - this means the tube is still perfect! |
ARC says you easily get 5000 + hours before retubing is necessary |
I have been using the NOS 6550 TungSol Black Plate without any single issue for the past 6 months or so, and so do my two friends.
My guess is that the problem is not 6550 related. |
Hi Elberoth,
You were spot on. Problem was related with the combination of ARC socket and pins of 1957 6550. Issue is now solved.
Cheers Broederen. |
I thought that I would resurrect this topic perhaps with a little more pertinence to the later Ref 5SE and in particular with regard to comment made by Ethannn back in 08
" 07-13-08: Ethannnn
I would recommend the (blue label) GEC KT88 for this pre."
I would appreciate any further actual user expearience with regard to substituting 6550 with a KT88 in this circuit, given that they are very close in specification.
I did make inquiries with ARC only to received the standard
" We do not recommend , you will comply "
response .
I fully appreciate that there would be no economic incentive for this consideration by ARC , however that is not quite the same as ~
" Whilst we would not warranty support or be liable in instance of this substitution please find attached our considered opinion on a technical/circuit basis alone "
|
Ironic and timely that this thread has been resurrected. I am planning to replace the ARC supplied 6550 WE tube in my PH-8 phono pre. The 6550 WE has 2000 on it and its time. Not having read this thread, I went ahead and bought a "modern" Tung Sol 6550.
I realize this thread is about the Ref 3. As stated, I will be rolling the PH-8 PS tube. I'll report back with my reactions. Just thinking out loud -- I wonder if the 6550 PS tube in the PH-8 phono pre makes as much difference as tube rolling in the Ref 3.
Btw, I used to own the Ref 3 and have since swapped it for the Ref 5 and then the Ref 5 SE. I mention this because I think the Ref 3 was and is a **great** linestage. IMO, while somewhat different sounding than the Ref 5 (not SE), both are (were) great linestages. I think the SE upgrade does take the Ref 5 to another level, but I gotta tell ya -- the Ref 3 is a classic. |
This OP kinda spooked me about the Tung Sol 6550, so I ordered a 6550 WE from ARC. I should get it in a couple of days. In the meantime, I'm using the TS 6550. I'll swap the TS out for the WE when the WE comes in. I'll report back with reactions. |
I like the Sed 6550 Winged Cs better than the WEs in my Ref Anniversary. |
Barry, I ordered a SED "Winged C" 6550 from Upscale Audio. Kevin Deal called me after the order was placed suggesting I pick another tube because he wasn't satisfied his current batch of "Winged C" 6550s were reliable. Ergo, the Tung Sol 6550.
I expect to receive the ARC 6550 WE in a day or so. I'll swap it in and report back. In the meantime, I'm using the TS 6550. It works ok. |
Also liked the stock ARC Sovteks better than the NOS Reflektor 6H30-DRs in the power supply. |
Let's hope Kevin's current batch isn't the one I've been sampling over the past 2 years. I've bought at least 10 pairs from Upscale! There aren't a lot of reasonably priced and trustworthy sources for these. |
I've bought quite a few cryo'ed Sovtek 6H30pi tubes from Kevin. They work just fine. This is the first time I heard about issues with the SED "Winged C" 6550s and I've bought quite a few from Kevin over the years. So I wouldn't worry.
I seem to recall that Kevin told me some time ago that he sourced a bunch of the "original" issue SED "Winged C" 6550s in Europe or Transylvania or someplace like that. As you probably know, the old Svetlana (sp?) plant burned down. So no more "original" "Winged C" 6550s anymore.
Here's my issue. My ARC Ref 150 amp eats KT-120 tubes every 2000 hours. ARC charges $100 per tube. Ouch! Kevin and most other vendors charge half that amount. As you know, Kevin does a heck of a job burning in and testing his tubes. And so does ARC.
My dilemna is the matching process. ARC matched power tubes have always been an easy drop in. They bias easily and chnage bias evenly. By contrast, Kevin's match KT-120s are not as consistent. Some pairs match pretty closely and other pairs not so closely. I don't know why. So I may have to go back to ARC.
Cheers. |
I'm affraid you are getting what you have paid for. |
