New Coincident Frankenstein 300B Stereo Version

@sim_audio_nerd 

I own Coincident SVII speakers and still own the Frankenstein monos.  However, I found that the Franks just didn't really have the guts to do justice to the SV's.  My room is about 14' x 20' x 8' and I do listen to a fair amount of orchestral music.  In contrast to the experience of others above, I found the Atma-sphere M-60's to be a much better match for this speaker than the Frankensteins in my room with my music.   My M-60's have the V-Cap upgrade, the M-1 power supply, and have enjoyed the benefit of careful 6SN7 tube selection.  Also relevant is my use of the Coincident CSL with Psvane WE replica 101Ds.  The later coupled with the Atma-sphere amp provides a very nice measure of SET magic in my system without the downside associated with driving low efficiency (yes, 92 dB for an SET amp is low efficiency) speakers. 

As I said, I still own the Franks and on very rare occasions rotate them into the system for a day or two, but they don't stay longer than that.  If I were using speakers having an efficiency in the mid to high 90's, it might be a tougher choice.  The Franks really are wonderful amps when equipped with top notch tubes.

I have no experience with Pass amps and won't speculate on how they might compare with the Franks in your set up.  But I will say that if you are buying a new amp for your speakers, I just don't think that the Franks will be the best choice.  

I have found my SVII's to be wonderful speakers, but their performance is perhaps more system dependent than some other speakers.   The SVIII's appear to be a very similar design using better or newer crossover and drivers. 

@charles1dad Thanks for your kind words, my friend.  The CSL can be a superb foundation for anyone not needing a full function preamp.  Stunningly good is the right descriptor.  I'm still toying with getting the latest update.

@sim_audio_nerd I think you are wise in exercising caution here.  I've been a customer of Coincident for over a decade now, and still own two pair of Coincident Speakers, the CSL, and the Frankenstein Monoblocks.   Obviously, I have a deep appreciation for Israel Blume's design and execution talents.  I would also offer an opinion that his stuff is quite reasonably priced.  You get a lot for your money.

I think the value proposition probably necessitates some constraints on business practices.  I think it is fair to say that he is a superb designer and a hard nosed business man.   It's kind of a here it is, take it or leave it approach.  Top tier customer service has a cost that someone must pay.

The stereo Frankenstein looks like another superb value, and I suspect it will sell like hotcakes at that price.   The reality is that there are going to be some serious compromises associated with this single chassis design.  In the past, Israel has explained how important, and how difficult in execution, use of the 6EM7 driver is.  Going to the 6SL7 is not just a simple tube switch.   My guess is that the performance of this stereo version will be closer to his 300B Dynamo than it is to his Frankenstein monos. Just a guess.

Also relevant here is that in times past, Israel himself conceded that a 300B amp may not be the best choice for the Super Victory, depending upon the things we have already discussed--music, room, listening levels, etc.   On the other hand, he has done shows where he has used the Franks to drive the SVIIs, so it's not like one can't make this work.  It is just not optimal, and I suspect the stereo version will be another step down from "not optimal."

You don't say in your original post what your current system lacks that you would seek to improve.  The obvious inference is introducing some SET magic.  I think we all get that, and it is important to note that my  system is working so well for me because I am using an SET preamp.  You might give some thoughts around that option if you are locked in on using the SVIIIs and if you can live with the limited functionality of the CSL.   Just my opinion, but I think the 101D based CSL  is Israel Blume's finest piece when used with the superb Psvane WE replica 101D tubes.

I have some other thoughts that are tangential to this post.  If you want to discuss further, PM me. 

My experience with the Psvane WE tubes has paralleled that of @charles1dad.  As background, back in about 2014, I purchased a pair of Psvane Hifi series 101Ds.  They were a major step up from the only other current production tube available at that time, the Shuguang.  About 2-3 months after I bought the HiFi's (from  Grant), Psvane released the WE replicas, so I bought a pair of those from Grant.  Those gave me many years of good performance before failing.  At that point, I rotated the old HiFi tubes, which were old but had very few hours on them, back into service.   Within about 2 weeks, one of the HiFi tubes failed.  At that point, I became concerned that something was wrong with the preamp, since I was suddenly having tubes fail right and left (literally). 

So I contacted Israel Blume before shelling out another pile of cash on new WEs.  It was at that point that I became aware that Israel was offering the WEs for sale (at a premium over other vendors) and assured me that his (presumably hand picked) WEs would give excellent service, though is warranty was only for 3 months.  I've had the tubes for, I don't know, 3 years or so, and they are fantastic.  They sound even better than the first set I bought back in 2014.   

When the word got out about North American supply problems on this tube, I contacted Israel again and asked if I should buy a spare pair.  He assured me that he was experiencing no difficulty getting this tube and anticipated no difficulty in the future. 

I do hope that Linlai is able to address whatever issue may have led to unreliable service in the CSL.  The 101D is an amazing tube, and in my opinion, remains underutilized.  As much as I love my 6SL7s, the 101D WE tube beats every 6SL7 based design I ever heard. 

@charles1dad, the 6SN7 benefits from economy of scale.  More designers use the tube because they are cheap and readily available, and demand for the tube motivates more manufacturers to offer the tube, which in turn drives the price of the tube down.

The 101D never benefited from any of this.  It is tempting to draw a parallel between EL34 and 301B.  301B was always and always will be more expensive to manufacture than the EL34. 

Israel Blume stuck his neck way out when he designed the CSL around the 101D.  It wasn't a great preamp when all you could get was the Shuguang.  Kudos to him for taking the risk. 

It is a funny thing about tubes.  You can go for years, trying this tube and that, and they all have their virtues and weaknesses, then all of a sudden, you find that one tube that is sonically perfect.  For me, the Elrog 300B was that tube.  The old Siemens from the 6922 family fell into that category.  Got everything perfect, and nothing else came close to the Siemens.  The WE101D replica is that tube. No where to go but down.  Purity, transparency, detail, harmonics, tonality, it is all just right.  Oh my, have we drifted from the OP.

Boy, there is some real wisdom in the above comments by @realworldaudio !  For most of us, our first experience hearing the low frequency component of music was sitting in our buddies 8x10 bedroom listening to Jack Bruce's electric bass with Ginger Baker whacking away on his bass drum, as reproduced by a 13 WPC Technics receiver through Cerwin-Vega speakers.  Oh the horror of it all, the source was a cheap dual table with a $39 Shure cartridge sitting on top of one of the speakers. (Perhaps this is why so many of us fell in love with Clapton!) I might suggest this miserable excuse for reproduction of music was the basis for the "unique US phenomenon" to which real world alludes.  It didn't take a discerning ear to figure out that Cerwin Vegas in a bedroom wasn't quite "right", so what was "right" must be the pendulum swinging to the opposite position.  But no, that is not quite right either. 

Real world gets to the heart of the flaw in the TAS theory.  He points out that in the same venue, one can experience bass that is too loose, too tight, or just right, depending upon where one sits.  But since all of these are real experiences of unamplified music in a live venue, they are all "right" in an objective sense.  Choosing one of these three as "right" is a matter of personal preference.  

For years, my preferred seat in my local symphonic venue was in the front row, less than 10 feet away from the cello section.  This was in the Indianapolis Circle Theater, where as far as I was able to determine. there was no good seat.  It is just a hall with miserable acoustics.   I sat in the front row right in front of the cellos because that is where the cellos sounded best..  I sat there for enough years to become acquaintances with one of the cellists.  I recall a conversation I had with him regarding why I sat in the front row.  He told me to move my seat to the dress circle.  He said "symphonic" means "sound together" and that is how this music is meant to be heard.  I replied, that may be, but the ghost of LvB is not haunting me and the cellos sound better here!

My decision to move from SET to Atma-sphere's OTL WAS NOT because of low frequency reproduction.  In actual fact, what I found was that every aspect of the music just sounded a bit better-more real-more right- in my room to my ears.  

The absolute sound concept has value, but it has limitations. As real world so beautifully pointed out, the absolute sound is not a singular experience in the real world. It is a range of experiences all of which are possible within the same venue.  Some like their coffee unsweetened, some like one spoon of sugar, some like two.

The most important component in any system is the ear-brain, the second is the speaker-room, and everything else follows. 

I suspect that @hilde45 could add much to this discussion if he has time.   

@charles1dad you have never, ever, taken an overly dogmatic position on any of  your posts that I can recall.  I did not misunderstand your comments. I hope no one has misunderstood mine.  

 In actual fact, I agree that SET is quite capable of delivering a very natural and very pleasing bass.  That did not drive me in the OTL direction.  It was the very high THD resulting from trying to reproduce orchestral music with 92.5 dB efficient speakers that prompted the move.  Had I stuck with my 94dB efficient Triumph Extreme II monitors, I would have certainly stuck with the Franks in my main system.

I've grown to love my OTLs as much as my CSL.  But it took a lot of tube rolling to get there, and it also took a lot of work on my room to get where I am now.   I'd go further and emphasize that were it not for my CSL and its SET magic, I would not be nearly as enthusiastic about the OTL as I am.  Going back to my coffee analogy, the OTL/CSL combo is one spoon of sugar.  That is just right for me.

I think Ralph would tell you that his amps are more popular with the vinyl crowd.  I suspect there are not many  of us Digital only OTL guys. 

In the end, there is a reason why my Franks have been sitting idle for nearly 5 years.  I haven't sold them because I still love them, and they are worth more to me than they would likely bring.  I just know that at some point, I'm going to want to go down the Frankenstein road again.  But, it won't be with the Super Victory speakers.  I noticed that Israel has resurrected the Pure Reference as a MK II.  It looks like the Total Victory with PRE drivers.  MTM configuration with side firing dual woofers. Very interesting.  30K.  I hope we will see a review on these.  I think the PRs would work in my room, whereas I think it is probably a bit smallish for PREs.