Cello, glad you are happy with the pre and, yes, I do think the regulators make a difference. Mick told me he didn't think they would, but most people that own the pre, I would venture, would disagree. I have Tungsol brown-base 5881's in mine and like them quite well. The sound difference is not as dramatic as the 6SN7 sub, but it is of the same kind; once you have the PS rectifier and the 6SN7's about right, or just right like you seem to have, then you can hear it. The sound is more...relaxed, dynamics not quite as jumpy but more of an even rise time, although the scaling itself in terms of energy has not been changed. A bit like the dynamics of a good WE 300B, which ain't bad. Not quite that good, but in the same way. It was worth it; about $120 for a good matched NOS set off of ebay.
I balked at the regs too for a while, but bwhite talked me into it. He also has the Cortese (I have have Syrah) so his comments might be more relevant. Also, Ecclectique here says, with wisened ears, that the sin qua non is the WE350B's, which feels right, real right, to me, although I haven't heard them in the pre (very pricey). There's some talk about them above if you scan.
BTW, I'm not familiar with the Neotrons (Tungsol round plates marked that?)... |
Rcn, thank you for your response. Yes, all is different - quantum energy arises into different forms. But, are you really saying that because there is a range to human objective hearing (the mechanism of the ear) that that physical means is wholly determitive upon the mind's perception therefrom? In other words, while I know that scientific materialists always want the mechanism to be ALL (and tend towards, um, symptomatically, Bryston pre's...), does the ear between you and me make all that much difference, assuming that one of us is not deaf?
I mean, rather, isn't it even more logical that with a sufficient physical mechanism it is the mind - the will of the mind to go deeper, or its lack - that would be a more determitive factor in what is heard/perceived? You never touched the concept of the subjective, other than implying that all minds are equal because all mechanisms are equal... I wonder why?
Normally endowed ears, the physical, hear within a range that is sufficient for that mind to get what it needs to to then make a choice: to choose to go deeper or not to. Those that believe in matter as primary to mind - perceived determines perceiver - tend to be attached to stereos that produce a soundfield where singers are bounded and a sterile space bounds these sound-objects further, ie they are attached to a near visual experience of sound as objects, just like the matter-objects that they believe determine all things. Scientific materialists, whether they are self-reflective enough to know they are or not, are determitevely drawn to the material; to the material explanation, to the material experience, to the material concept, all to the exclusion of that which perceives the material. They are attached to things, to our power over things, to the idea that that power is all that there is...and on audiogon, tend to like Bryston pre's and stop there (because, I mean, scientifically speaking, where else could there possibly be to go, its all relative between ears so what could be more?). Hmmmm.
I know a very famous reviewer who is getting on in years and has lost some hearing acuity, in a physical sense, to the higher frequencies, but his mind - his will to hear deeper, to allow his active, object-seeking cognition to fade in its desire to be primary and for his mind to become a receptive vessel for a perception of still deeper beauty - still "hears" to a far greater range than most others. In other words, experience is, of course, in relation to the physical, but the physical is not wholly determined upon that arising quantum matrix.
Again, what about the mind? Are they equal in their will to know, both objectively/actively or receptively, from one to the other? Does this make a difference?
A man once said, "Argue for you limitations, and sure enough they are yours."
Its a cause/effect dynamic of consciousness development that science hasn't found yet...
Hey, though, I'll have to scrounge up some of those GEC KT66's... |
Rodger, thank you for listing your system. That was very forth right and I appreciate the sincere effort.
I think we are coming from different places. I am an all NOS tube, hard wired, SE triode, analog kinda guy. To me, Bryston SS through Nordost to metal dome Monitor spkrs couldn't be more of a bright combination. I'm not saying that any of these were "bad" choices, just ones that are place-specific "correct" IMHO; as in, what appears correct when you are at a certain place. With that said, I have recommended Bryston to people in certain situations, particularly when they want something to last forever, would like the 20 yr warranty idea for that reason, prefer dynamic headroom and detail as priorities and would never go tubes no matter how long they hung around the high end.
My intuition, if you don't mind me offering it, as a measure of your cognitive agility relative to your curiousity, is that you may want to move beyond where you are right now, its approach, at some point.
Cash is always a consideration, I know, at least it is for me, but others here may be able to give you some ideas to start off with. Or at least, give you some ideas on what you might try in the future. |
Fiddler: yea, you must right. I mean, what could I possibly know? If you need to defend a cognitive position so emotively, then I will let you have it, and stay there.
My exchange with fiddler, and those fiddler-like, has taught me something; it is a question to myself, arising over and over, about such things, collectively speaking, that I will now answer. Enjoy your pre's gentlemen.
|
For Granny:
Guys, no good in going WE 350 right off the bat...nothing is ever as good as we think it is, and this increases in effect when you look at from when, well, someone is looking at it. Look at where someone is, the curve, and make the recomm from there.
Go, for now:
Tung 5881 for Sovteks, no doubt
Hold off on the Ken blacks on the 6SN7's. Coming from Resolution CD and SS Parasound amps, regardless of their SS harmonic complexity, its, remember, a SS context (Crump would venture, agree on the context qualifier). As such, Kens might alienate with its, um, distant depth (the bass on the Kens is so good because it dissipates so naturally into the depth field, but from SS perspective this is a lost perspective, at least intitially, in a search for "lost" dynamics, and particularly in the bass octaves). Go Sylvania VT 231 circa 1940 era for now. If still too "vague" in bass, then Brimars, then later to Ken blacks. Stay away from metal base; over rated, at least in this application, ie no use going brittle to get the semblance of quickness.
Get Mullard GZ 34 - experiment from there if the mood moves you.
Do line stage first, then move onto phono NOS tubes.
Don't do all at once; get one, listen, for SUFFICIENT time, then, if need be, something else. Listen to others, become enthused, but don't move too fast, or the listening ear will be left behind. The mind needs time to aclimatize to each change, especially when from one "kind" of emphasis to another, ie from SS emphasis (no matter how good the SS) to stuff like the Supra.
Good luck! Very glad you are happy, much ahead... |
On Halo's: OK, I'm glad everyone is happy, sincerely. As I said, however, I think even Bob Crump would concede on my point (and has...). Yes, on Sound Labs that would be a good match. Many people, I believe, are using that combo. When we can run a 300B or 45 into a Sound Lab, then we all be happy! :0)
Fiddler: I'll assume you just wanted to yap on a little (and I mean that in the nicest way possible :0). But, I did not say that one should forego advice wholesale, which is, um, from your tone, what one would assume. Everyone is different, of course, and with different learning curves. If yours' was steeper, OK, that's certainly OK, and maybe the gentleman that I was speaking to might be too - I don't know him - but, regardless, my advice remains valid.
Yes, I know, no one wants to go through pain, or inconvenience, or money, but through that we learn; its a simple axiom, and its recognition has nothing to do with a desire for masochism. I'm sure that some mistakes we would have liked to avoid, but many - no, all - make you, me and your listening mind what they are, here, now. To fail to see what has made one is, well, a point for further learning (through, ironically, more pain...).
On reliability: mine hasn't burped once. If you want perfect security - which I would argue is the marketed illusion of perfect security, at least as far as the hi end goes - then, well, yes, you should look elsewhere. The Syrah is for those who through the pain of failed experimentation have arrived here, and know better.
You can't describe the color purple to a blind man; he lacks a sufficient point of reference, experientially. If a sample of one burp is enough to discount that which doesn't occupy a full-page Stereophile ad, then I really can't say anything...except perhaps that I hope you have many more mistakes - and finally join us here. |
Fiddler, OK. But I think you understood my point perfectly.
You don't respond there, at the point you dismiss me, but then later add, the "ethereal learning excercise" - which I assume is your actual response, albeit, and disappointingly, placed at a safe distance from your opening response/non-response. (Now, why would you do that...?)
So, let me explain: nothing is "ethereal" (read: irrational, in the context you use it) about recognizing learning curves. Giving someone the very best stuff right off the bat can sometimes lead down the wrong path IN THE LONG RUN. Why? Because the mind requires time to aclimatize to deeper experiences through progressive stimuli.
What does that mean? Well, it is not your ears listening, but your mind, and the way it goes "deeper" is through progressively receptive states, and such states, or their "allowing," necessarily requires a PROGRESSION of experience. What rate of progression is best from person to person is, of course, variant, but to claim that one can jump from SS to SE, or from GE 6551's to Mullard EL34's, or from...well, any area you can name that involves an increase of musicality (as opposed to an increase in accuracy, which the active mind identifies and which people can learn/identify faster) is itself a position that exposes its own lack of knowledge in this area, if not a denial of one's own experience.
I'm not saying that someone can't notice the difference, in quantitative terms and in qualitative terms, but not in qualitative terms TO THE DEGREE THAT MAY BE POSSIBLE without SUFFICIENT EXPERIENCE. Yes, they might know it was better, but the degree that they might be able to appreciate such better-ness might be more accentuated had a progression been employed. I think any experienced person in the hi-end who has consulted on system construction over a wide spectrum of people knows this as a given.
I don't know the gentleman originally referred to above - given his later responses I might, in fact, say go for the Kens - but as a general proposition - which is what we are discussing at this point - the point remains valid.
Bottomline: To deny experience, and that process - your position - is merely a symptom of greed for the next experience; to get there faster and faster. But, that type of greed is the bain of the hi-end; the greed for the experience of beauty through music, those two qualities - greed and beauty - are, experientially, EXCLUSIVE TO ONE ANOTHER; your desire to go faster to get "there" prevents you from seeing what you are missing along the way. When you get there, you don't know where you are, except that you can look down at your WE350B's and be sure, because you just have them, that you are there.
I hope that was clearer.
Mark |
Hmm, quite a thread...
You leave for a couple of years, come back, and 2500 posts!
Has anybody told you guys lately that you need very, very deeeeep therapy?!
I see slowhand. Any bwhite, or did he burn out before hitting a Kondo M1000 with NOS tubes that don't exist anymore except in a small stash recently discovered in an abandoned army depot just across the Maginot line? :0) (hi bwhite, wherever you are, are, are...)
I don't have the time to read everything here. Can some knowing-soul offer an evolutionary synopsis, in 10 words or less?
Great to see everyone still at it; the music, that is.
Mark |
Hi slowhand. Lots of new people I don't recognize; the Supratek tide keeps rolling. Good for Mick. Carry on... |
Hi slowhand
Feet? Shun Mook. Experiment w/ them, around, here and there. Don't ask me why.
6 moons, sjaen (sp?) Good ears, a smattering too much Zen (capital "Z", is he listening?)
Koetsu? Of course...
Adcom to Supra. Good, hear that, but know that when a good part goes up it doesn't raise all boats. At first, yes, but, later, exposes other boats.
Supra upper mids/lower treb? Are people always working on that part? Ken Rad black glass 6SN7's? Hmmmm....Has anyone listened to how Kondo deals w/ upper mids/lower treb while still maintaining dynamics?
Interesting topic. |
