I do not know what a Nuvista is so I hope someone hear can help you with that I do know what a Nuvistor is
Yes, excellent point. My bad. The essence of my question stems from Musical Fidelity amplifier products http://www.musicalfidelity.com/products/nu-vista/nu-vista-800 and how these types of tubes differ from the more commonly used (in audio) vacuum tubes. I note they are using "nu-vista" in their own "marketing way", but the description does in fact indicate " Nuvistor tubes were invented in the 1950s to solve the many shortcomings of conventional tubes." Therefore, given the titling of my post, please consider "nuvista" (and other permutations of nuvistor) to in fact mean "nuvistor", unless of course someone points out that in fact there is a functional difference on the basis of the label naming. |
No. Not necessarily. It depends on everything - circuit, quality of transformers, type of tube, configuration of tube, quality of passive components. Adding tubes is not a panacea for some "tube sound." Agreed. That's why I prefaced the question by stating "all else being equal". |
Hi @georgehifi
Your reply is a bit "over-my-head", but I glean the gist of what you're saying/writing is to avoid designs that use nuvistor tubes?
To your point about needing to have capacitor or transformer coupling, is this something unique to nuvistors? (meaning vacuum tubes do not have capacitor or transformer coupling) |
@viridian
Do you have an opinion (and care to share) of the Musical Fidelity amplifier products/designs that use nuvistor tubes? I'm currently using an M6si which I'm very happy with, but the "nuvista" series is their top-of-the-line offering. Thanks. |
|
To clarify one other thing, Nuvistors are vacuum tubes. Appreciate the clarification. Then, given they are vacuum tubes, assuming all else being equal, should one expect to achieve the same level of "famed" tube sound by using nuvistors (as compared to some other vacuum tube)? |
I see that. And I hope I wasn’t patronizing! It’s just that they are such different beasts. And what is a tube sound anyway? .... All good. And your question is well taken. |
@georgehifi and @viridian Thank you both very much. A lot to read through and digest. From what I gather from your input this far the use of nuvistors in the MF design does not necessarily in and among itself produce the famed tubed sound, and instead and more broadly where other tube amps are concerned, is dependent on the circuit in its entirety. That’s why there’s so much rolling goes on with caps as they all have their own coloured sound, the best cap is no cap for the ultimate transparency.. Right. But frankly this is something I’d much prefer to avoid. I’m not looking to "tweak" the sound of a particular product, although I can understand the desire and benefit in doing so. Instead, I prefer to "set it and forget it". |
Interesting bit of info as well that MF went to the trivistor when the Nuvistors dried up. Musical Fidelity time-line http://www.musicalfidelity.com/about-us/timeline confirms that nuvista 1997 and trivista 2002, but why then (seeking speculation) would their current amplifier offerings utilize nuvistor tubes instead of trivistor? |
Sales pitch, to make one believe there’s a a romantic/euphonic side to it. as the tubes are in between the s/s I/V stage and output buffer and serves no purpose, but a sales pitch. Then perhaps I should stay with my M6si which I’m happy and content with, and when/if the time comes to "upgrade" look/think elsewhere than the MF line. Not to mention the fact that the Nuvista 600 is another five grand more (MSRP) than the M6si. EDIT: George, is your statement about a hybrid being a "sales pitch" in your opinion specific to MF, or in general and applicable to any hybrid amp manufacturer? |
This is old stuff gd. Right. I'm pretty sure there was a recent thread though here on the forum quoting Nelson Pass as to his thoughts on amplifier evolution. If I'm not mistaken it is somewhat at an impasse. To that end a fellow (Roger) from HCAT chimed in with a new (purportedly) design that many folks here poo-pooed for various reasons. The posts got rather argumentative and the thread was subsequently deleted. I'm not all that interested in class D. If anything I'd go class A, tubes or a hybrid. Anything "new" in that realm? |
@viridian
No apology necessary. I’m very appreciative of your input (and clarifications). And I get what you’re stating (and agree) about purchasing based on sound quality, long term reliability and serviceability. That writes and sounds much easier than it is. Not always so easy to make a choice, given the hundreds if not thousands of available choices. Also, it's rather impractical to attempt to listen/audition all options.
Back to nuvistor for a moment, I received a message from Musical Fidelity in response to my inquiry as to where/how the improvement is between the M6si and their nuvista lineup. I don’t know what they mean by "psu", so perhaps you could translate that acronym. Thanks.
The following is from MF:
----------
The Nu-Vista 600 has the benefit of the Nu-Vista valve preamp stage. The preamp is directly coupled to the input stage so you have shorter signal paths, we have an improved psu over the M6si.
You hear the beauty, warmth and transparency of the valve stage and the transients and power of the transistor power amps.
The Nu-Vista 600 has 4 transistors per channel and outputs 200 wpc, the N800 has 10 transistors per channel and outputs 300w.
------------- |
I just look at where he used them in the Trivista sacd.......
.....Same what I saw in the MF A3-24 dac...........
@georgehifi I take this to mean your statement about a hybrid being a sales pitch ** is ** specific to MF. |
@fraterperdurabo and @andy8400
Thanks for the candid feedback. My curiosity with the Nuvista (nuvistor) is that within the realm of what I already have (MF M6si) it is Musical Fidelity’s "upgrade" offering (with respect to where I’m at now). But I just can’t wrap my head around how much improvement there would be, at more than twice the MSRP mind you. Sure, auditioning is worth something too and if it comes to being a more serious consideration I would do that. Typically though I’ve found auditioning components (speakers and basically anything) is only so efficient, viable, meaningful, etc. so I honestly give more credence to opinions of owners, manufacturer marketing hype, technical specifications and overall product reputation.
Given what has been stated in this thread it would seem nuvistors are worthy of consideration, but certainly not the be-all-end-all. I was perhaps hopeful to learn or field opinions that it could offer traditional vacuum tube sound without the negatives, whatever the traditional sound (if any) and negatives (if any) happen to be. And its already been pointed out (here and/or elsewhere) that there is no tube sound per se and everything has negatives.
In all likelihood if and when I do "upgrade", I would probably be inclined to get something along the lines of a class A Pass labs amp just "because". Class A (seemingly) always gets the most up votes as far as sound quality and Pass always the same kind of thumbs up. But for now, as the Rolling Stones might say, "I’m just sitting on a fence".
|
