Preamp Deal of the Century

Tubegroover sir..I question more the method of inserting a new device into one's system than the the mere presence of the device itself. How many of us have re-tuned our system by mix-ing and not matching cables? Was it the color that we just added to the previous red that now made it sound more purple..Cause and effect. I think that it is too easy to hear a difference and everything added makes a change and change is not always recognised for the negative colorations that may result. I feel sometimes the statement system dependent is overused, abused and misused when certain equipment is inserted in the musical chain and bashed because of misapplication or the end user does not understand the inneractions of all the devices involved. I feel much equipment is never really heard as it really is, because of such poor methodology.. Tom

Theaudiotweak,

I find your argument a bit funny considering your Audiogon name... heh heh.

Anyway, you have to remember that all audio components aimed at the retail market (in general) are designed to be sold at a particular price point. Even Mick's preamps. Also, you need to remember that all tubes are not equal. Different tubes (of the same tube type), sound different. Now, many times tube designers will use some of the least expensive tubes they can for their stock product (to get the price down ofc... excellent tubes can really inflate the price of a particular component).

I would be the last to say that any tube sounds better than the stock tubes of tube gear. I would also not say that more expensive tubes will always sound better than less expensive tubes. I have a tube DAC that sounds better with $50 Siemans Falcon 6922 tubes than $150 Amperex 7308 premium quality white label tubes. However, both of those sets of tubes completely blows away (sonically) the Russian stock tubes the DAC comes with.

The inherent thing about tubes which is both their advantage and their bane is that they do add distortion to the signal. The more tubes a signal is run through, the more distortion that is added. No way around that, that I know of. The great thing about tubes is that in general they add mostly 2nd order and 4th order distortion (mostly 4th order). This distortion is picked up by our ear as more of musical qualities than anything else. Solid state on the other hand adds mostly 3rd order distortion. 3rd order distortion is picked up by our ears as not musical at all.

The problem, Theaudiotweak, is that tubes are funky devices. Saying that a tube piece must be 'heard as it really is' is like saying the best time to take a picture of a race car is while it is going 220MPH. No matter what tubes you use in a piece of audio gear (be them stock or some of the best you can buy), the sound of the tubes is constantly changing from second 1 they are installed and the devices is turned on. It is a type of performance curve they follow during their lifetime which is constantly changing and eventually ends in the tube not able to function. And after your stock tubes need replacing, what are you going to do? Get some more of the same tubes? You can... but you will not be guarenteed the same performance of your original stock tubes. Because, in general no two sets of tubes (even the same make and model) will necessarily perform the same.

Thus, people tube roll because their is a distict possibility they can achieve better performance from different tubes then their stock ones, OR their stock ones have gone kaput and they need new tubes (thinking that different tubes might work better than stock or maybe their stock ones are not available on the open market).

Theaudiotweak, you sound like a solid state guy.

Gotta run.

KF

Theaudiotweak, I suspect most of the people here have gotten past the stage of mistaking better for different. Although sometimes it can be hard to tell. With equipment quality such as this it is easier to discern the difference... if the rest of the system is up to the task of revealing it. Which I guess goes to your point. But I am aware of at least one other user here who's system definitely is up to the task. These guys aren't swapping tubes just because they can.

Jim

My backround in audio and video goes back over thirty years. It is and has been my hobby and profession over the same span of time. I have owned way back tube equipment from Marantz, Mac, Arc, Conrad, Sonic Frontiers ,Cary and Melos and Bat..Some of this gear is in use in my system today.None of it in a total state of originality. I suppose my criticism is non specific at anyone person or any single instance or thread. This thread is perhaps the most mature one that I have read and participated in for sometime..Because of these feelings, impressions or even facts, I felt compelled to question some methods by which some Goners' actually evaluate parts pieces or whole audio systems. It seems at least to me some, of less experience make wholesale random changes not having a method to their enthusiastic madness. Conclusions, bashing of gear that maybe way better than any other piece of gear that they own and is far more revealing of all of the stuff attached to it and thru it. When a client asks me to lend them a cable for audition I try to take all the same cable brand and type to that clients home. How can you evaluate one cable out of perhaps six or eight that are thrown in to the mix. All the same cable all of one voice. There has to be a point of stasis to really have a basis of comparison. This is only one example... People on this thread know how to do this and implement this. For this bobby to survive and hi-end audio as an ongoing work of art to survive, those of us with the knowledge education and expertise should take it upon ourselves to inform others on proper methods of design and implementation and not just the product in the box..Tom

Eccl: nice response, thank you; I just knew there was some juicy-good experience lurking back there...:o) Yes, agreed, NOS tubes are different in different applications, but I guess what I was trying to say: Which one do you reach for first when approaching any system with the Supratek? The initial orientation, I would resubmit, is to reach for an insertion of the "organic" first, reaching for the Ken's, that act being itself a symptom of the slight leaning of the Supratek in the opposing direction towards "clearness", in a general sense. And, yes, Mullards, particularly vintage EL 34's in a CJ, might make me pause with the black Kens. I assume you were using that extreme as illustration... (and, so you know, eccl, I'd like to respond to a lot more of what you said, maybe later).

On auidiotweak, generally, well, mostly generally:

I know what audiotweek is saying - that we must be careful that we are not hearing what someone has told us we should hear, or that we want to hear. Or, even, that we don't tell ourselves, in that self delusion, that the euphonic "color difference" is the "organic" that catalyzes the listening mind towards deeper experience of the beauty and meaning within music (as opposed to just listening to "colorations" in sound). And yet, even as I say the above, can't you perceive the obvious difference in those two orientations? Jim said it well, and, er, more concisely than moi: different is not synonomous with better.

A focus on "different" can be seen as analogous to a focus on changes in relative quantity (different "colors" but really just the same in ability to catalyze deeper listening experiences), while that orientaion which is conoted by "better", addresses concepts of "quality" (and which I would submit means, in our context, a component that is "better" able to catalyze a deeper relationship between mind and sound/music). What jim says is, and what I was trying to clumsily say above about people at a transition point when approaching the Supratek, is that people here seem ready to get past the merely quantitative, some perhaps just at the precipice; of now looking for that "something" in their system that transcends the quantitive search for accuracy in its comparison of the same "colors", or "details", or....its now about the pull of "quality" that brings people here as a primary motive of will. And having just arrived there/here, naturally, they seek out an informed peer group; informed both quantitatively AND qualitatively.

I think audiotweak knows this deep down, he's just spent too much time selling gear to guys with money and no ears (ie the will to go deeper in themselves as secondary orientation, desire to induce coveting in others primary). Seeing this too much can lead to a bit a post modern malaise, eh, audiotweak? :0)

Remember, though, if you want to take on the mantle of teacher, one teaches through inspiration - as in, inspire the qualitative will towards deeper musical experience - not just the conveyance to others of "method" or "design", or "implementation" of method and mechanos (all quantitative-orientated words, something to self-reflectiveley ponder given the above...).

Einstein said, "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

Inspire first, towards that "something" beyond mechanos, even while explaining the implementation of empiric comparison. Yet never forget, the former is primary in our search, whether it be for "better" sound, or "better" mathematics, or better "design", or...I think you know this too, audiotweak.

You know, making inspiration towards "quality" the primary orientation doesn't always and necessarily mean irrational regression...That's where hope rests.

I hear you Tom! and a very good point. One hell of a lot of experimentation going on out there without some type of methodology or reference point to work with.And with tubed gear, more often then not, it can lead far too many poor souls into proverbial Bermuda Triange. I have read more hype and BullShit regarding vacuum tubes here and there and everywhere on the net. Too many people that I know personally have rolled different tubes, way to many times until they are so confused and frustrated with how bad their stuff sounds, that they start looking at what to upgrade next. They read somewhere on the net,some inexperienced dimwit professing that the 12abcdxyz is an auwsome tube, and then they go out buy some tired tube pulls or relabelled fakes they saw on ebay, and they don't even own a tube tester nor know how to use one!A simple recipe for disaster if one has little or no experience with tube brands,tube types, vintages, and tube topology. It's really a simple rule of thumb....If your going to invest in NOS tubes,buy a tube tester and learn how to use it. That said: there is no denying that many NOS tubes can transform most any well designed amplifier[vintage,modern, DIY or otherwise]into a magical experience. Examples you say: Try a fresh siemen ecc803/12ax7 [60,s vintage] in any interation of the audio research sp series preamps and most would soil themselves at the transformation.I am not talking tonal balance tweeks here gang, but a whole higher league altogether. For those that use a modern amp with a 12au7 as a driver tube, now try a 60,s vintage mullard [10m series] or mazda chrome plate from the same era and you'll think you have died and gone to heaven.Ever heard an original genelex KT77 in place of an el-34? Now thats an ear opener if the ever was one!It just doesn't get any better than that!Same with the Genelex Kt-88 or Kt-66 to name a few more. Forget the tonal balancing act here gang,its a whole nother order of magnitude better in every which way! Tonal balance changes? Far easier accomplished with speaker placement, room treatments and cables, "NOT" the tubes.

Asa the turn on or the fix is the awakening of the video head who hears my two channel surround system and asks where I am hiding the center speaker. I then ask them to close their eyes and and point to the edges of the sound stage, the reaction is 180 degrees or more. Its just stereo, what can one expect...Tom

ASA...... Dammit..... ya caught me red handed... Next time, I think I will just leave the Kens at home.

Hey Tom, your point is well taken and I also totally agree. Now if we could all agree on what constitutes accurate sound as opposed to tuning a system to suit our ears. Let's face it, one can never know how accurate a reproduction is unless he/she was present at the recording session. Even then there would be dispute between one listener and another. I'm not so certain that hearing a recording reproduce a 180 degree panorama of sound is accurate but I'd sure bet it is aurally stimulating!

Tubegroover, I was going to kid Audiotweak that he may have some reflection problems going on... but you beat me to it.

Sorry guys its not reflection and it aint no Bose speaker neither. Its resolution and room geometry controlling the air flow, umm like a manifold in a car..Room pressure reducing the 90's to 40's 58's and 62's..depends on the volume and ratios..I record live acoustic instruments in this same room. Just using what I got...Bend it shape it contour it don't let it stick and come back at you later..Tom

Tom, I know you aren't going to make people "see" by listening to stereo, but its more than just airflow, isn't it? (although looking at "airflow" is a good too, or 52's, 600's, .314's, or, um, infinite fractal regressions beneath all those numbers, right?). On the other hand, I think a lot of people are here not simply for the gear (although, we should admit, it is always a remnant of consideration, as I look out at my black and gold and rosewood gleaming totem of "me"...).

It may sound contrite, but only because it remains so simple: people come here, you too, because you are in search of "beauty", in this case in sound transmuted into the "shape" of music in your mind. And, I would submit, that attraction is a symptom of a recoil from its opposite: not-beauty, or what is percieved as such. People come home from their capitalist-conformist lives, hardly what Locke had in mind, and sit down to go to a place, which is in their mind. No, stereo does not change ground orientation - how one is in the world when not listening to stereo - but it is a tonic from that world, is it not? Isn't that a gradiation you are willing to concede; have already conceded by still being here?

Eccl: love to hear you on NOS tubes! More of that! Please. Yes, the Mullard 12AU7's are a good point to make, I have several pairs for my amp and arrived at them the hard way, which I would further submit, is how I arrived there. Consider this: I have people contact me to ask about stuff - which is quite nice, if they are, and I know you help around too - but isn't it true that sometimes you can say to someone do-this-or-that, just a suggestion, and they head head-strong into what Tom Gillette says? Its conformism, attachment to the feeling of security, actually a secondary symptom of the fear of making a mistake (um, that others might see) that then, in fact, causes the mistake. And it takes a few knocks on the head to go out and get a tube-tester, doesn't it? So, is the path ever separate from the eventual knowledge gained? I used to be more impatient, but, you know, everyone is in different places, just trying to get there, whether they know it or not...whether they like 62's in public, and then, the tonic when they are alone... (sorry Tom, just want you to talk more, you know...and, of course, see how many hyphenated words I can work into one run-on - oh, there I go again - sentence...:0).

Question: Isn't the frustration only a frustration at where you once were? Hmmm.

Great music in the next room right now, and good people here, "difference" doesn't matter; they are all going towards "quality."

The Supratek ain't a bad place to start...

Mark

Damn Theaudiotweak, that's amazing! You must be the best audio guy ever!!! Yawn.....

Okay I'll shut up...As some say ignorance is bliss and others just call it ignorance.. Find out for your self. Tom

Damn, Bryon, you are getting jaded in your "old" age! It didn't take you very long, did it? Do you remember? Anyway, you don't have to answer (but, are you ready to?). Very proud, if I might say, if you allow me; wish I could give you a million dollars to blow on WAVAC amps! But, then again, you may not now. Funny how that happens...

Here's something odd: as I wrote the above I kept wondering - What happened to bwhite? And there you were, two seconds after the post, checking my spelling with this wine in my hand. Just randomness, I suppose, can't prove it to another, so it must be not-real...Must be the wine, yea, that's the easy answer...

Where are you "at" with the Supra? And, with all else? Hit another desert, yet?

Tom, don't quit. I really don't think bwhite wants you to either; its the desert and all, all the 62's...

You are a bright person, and bigger than that. We may disagree, but not really.

Consider that...

I challenge you, in the best way, to shrluff it off and bring up another subject, in the stereo concept of course.

You've talked about what others have done, but I've been holding it out to you (to pick the good to talk about, or choose to ignore, or choose...): what stereo piece really makes you swoon? And, why?

And, finally, if bright, you must say what constitutes ignorance. Its only fair, all around.

Mark

Jaded?? Who me? Nah! I'm still waiting for Mick to provide information about the "new" Supratek upgrades he announced to this thread - on October 23. And... getting tired of the selfrighteous BS which has been posted to this thread lately...

I want to talk Supratek's and tubes man! Enough with the bickering - mine's bigger than yours kinda stuff!

Along those lines - a little bird told me Mick will be introducing a NEW entry level preamp very soon... Forgot what its called exactly but... I know its another wine (one I've never heard of)

Other than that, I'm cycling through various rectifiers and regulator tubes in the Cortese. I've got about 15 more rectifiers on the way as well as some GEC KT77 and Mullard EL37's to try.

The Cortese is massively sensitive to these tubes.

With my current Mullard GZ37 and Genalex Gold Lion KT66's the sound is super involving but a wee bit too rich and/or muddy to be natural. With Mullard GZ37 and Sylvania 5932 - (black single plate with holes variety) the sound of the system is reminiscent of an SME30 - very precise - very neutral - natural - and very boring. ;)

I'm trying to get somewhere in-between.

I've been through a lot of rectifiers lately and I keep coming back to the GZ37 in my system because it seems to synergize best.

**I'm still looking for some killer 350b's.

Other than that? Hmmm... Oh... get yourself a Meitner (Museatex) Bidat if you bother listening to digital & have it upgraded by John Wright. Its the "DAC Deal Of The Century!" no joke.

Worse than the classic definition of ignorance[ lack of knowledge] is one possessing a shut down mind. Reminds me of dampening devices such as lead or rubber, materials that slow , alter and destroy the natural dynamics of music. Thats all about friction and thats not what this is about...Tom

Signal current pressures in a can,
expelled compositly through a diaphragm.
Does not equate to natural sound,
but supports the squawk that goes around.
If all knew sound through the same ear,
would there be reason to be hear? :-)

Appliances of variable acoustical physics, and ears as diverse as finger prints.

Reference is a variable.

This is what I have learned today!

Sorry all, I have no wine or wisdom. Even NASA Design Engineers aren't perfect...however, it is fun to BS about the aim of perfection.

Tom instead of your bits of bites why don't you serve us up a meal. What do you like, what works and why and furthermore, have you heard a Supratek product and if not, nor are interested, why are you driving in this neck of the woods with your nebulous comments? Ok so you've got 30 years and you've listened to a lot of gear and your a dealer and you are presumably here to enlighten us, so enlighen. This is no place for cynics that haven't heard, no one here is interested, no offense but make a point beyond methodogy man.

Rcn: nice on the...poetry (I liked it, actually, quite smart!), but are you trying to say you are a relativist, ie. that all fingerprints are equal? Haven't met many scientists that feel that way...Really though, I'd be interested.

Question to start you off, if you choose to start there: What is "natural"? If sound is defined, as a scientist would, as a materialist phenomenon, then all sound is in nature; in that all sound you hear is in "nature," as that all sound is in reality. Ergo, the stereo sound is as "natural" as any other sound.

So, assuming, arguendo, that all sounds are, um, real, then there must be some other "reference" that you are using than merely the materialist objective. Which, of course, leaves the subjective. Or, more precisely, the mind's relationship with the objective. Which necessarliy implies, that the difference you are citing between stereo sound and, um, "natural" sound, is one of perception by the mind. On the other hand, maybe you mean that a stereo will never replicate the objective sound propogation of an orchestra, which seems to be an obvious given, so it couldn't be that. Which then makes one assume that, again, you must mean the subjective, and...well, maybe you should say what you mean clearer. You can leave in the fun too.

Tom: disappointed that you can't seem to come in out of the cold. Consider this: the root of the word "ignorance" is to ignore...

bwhite: you are a scrappy guy, no doubt. Just be careful, though, don't get lost in that forest of rectifiers (like I've done in the forest of Toms!)

Yea, tubegoover: I never understand these guys: give 'em a bit-o-knowledge or socio-economic leverage - I'm a physicist, I'm a rich guy, I'm a dealer, I, I, I - and they think that the world falls away. Credentials don't answer the question, WHY DO YOU FEEL THAT WAY AND WHAT ARE YOUR LOGICAL/EXPERIENTIAL REASONS FOR SAYING SO?

It seems pretty simple, doesn't it? Or, is this just a small white guy sword fight with no faces/answers?

Thin skinned maybe. Some of my ideas on this site have gotten me wacked. Some days I lack the skills and the patience to explain some of the methods that I use, some will be applied to real acoustic musical instruments. I try not to dampen anything.I believe in direct coupling.Equipment is direct coupled, speakers, subs ,even the acoustic devices I built to redirect the flow. I think of my room as an aerodynamic vessel not as a room that needs to be tamed and dampened by lotsa sound deadening materials. I killed the music in previous rooms of mine. I try to focus the energy that is trapped along 90degree surfaces. Dynamics speed and resolution are not lost in this method of control and refocusing of the natural energy contained in the room. I am not a engineer I am not a mathematician..These are ideas and concepts that I have am willing to experiment with and ask for the proper help when needed. So when I stated that my soundstage was 180 degrees or more I feel I was not mistating this audible and visual presence. Others who have come by stated the same thing. A few ,before they arrived, said it had to be gross reflections, when they left they said it wasn't reflections after all. Now it does not do this trippy stuff on every recording but the stage is always outside of the box. Some of these ideas came from the use of Argent Room Lenses. Again sound pressure is like fluid in that it can be redirected and refocused. Moving the Room Lenses around I found that the edges of the stage were more defined and sharpened. By doing this, broadens the stage I feel in a natural way. I found in my room that there is a bass suckout. The bass is in the room but it is on the ceiling. I found this out one day while playing music and changing a ceiling lamp. So I built a 5 sided panel of three different angles that is direct coupled to the ceiling that captures and redirects some of this lost bass energy back to my listening chair. The fellow that built the panel said it looks like a space ship. The ship is dual purpose,it also contains my projection screen. So because I state these ideas and describe these devices in vague terms I leave myself open to being wacked. Self fullfilling I guess. These ideas and other concepts are ways I maximise the sound of equipement in my room. These are concepts that I try to design into customers systems as well. Tom

Has anyone rolled the regulator tubes (6L6EH's) that come with the Cortese ?

I was told that rolling the 2 regulators does not make much (if any) difference in the sound of the Cortese. Has anyone had great success in changing out the stock 6L6EH's and if so, what sonic changes did you hear and what tube yielded the best results ?

I have had some fantastic results with Neotron (NOS) 6SN7's and a GZ34 in place of the 2 6N6P's & the 5AR4 that Mick included. Both cost a fortune, but what difference. The sound is just spectacular. I loved my Cortese before the addition of these 3 new tubes and now it’s just beyond Heaven to sit down and listen.

Tom, nice post, thank you. Although I know what you mean by some posts on this site - most sites, actually - it is also true that many times a similar affliction is one of patronizing criticism without rationale, which, ironically, hypocritically, or at least in my book, is of a similar-in-kind offense as the one you cited. I do not think that citing an offense on the latter constitutes being "whacked." But enough of that...

I agree with you completely on your post, but with all the do-dads out there it sometimes takes a lot of experimentation to "see" the fluid thing. You can change a room a lot, but its best to let it breath. In the best of these types of rooms, some people initially call them live rooms, but as you said, its more than that, although, metaphorically, the room does seem more alive, as in organic, symmetrical in how sound "moves" (propagates/dissipates). The mind, on an existential level, is very sentitive to time/space incongruencies and a damped-type room can many times worsen things on that level while, on a level of perception that is less deep (where the mind is not listening as deep) some things may be perceived as improved. Which is why its tough to get a room right. Some rooms are well nigh impossible, but if you have a decent starting place you can have a room that is receptive, as in, one that allows energy to flow (its a vessel, as you say). Or rather, the room allows a simulcrum of the illusion of non-stereo produced music through a stereo instrument. The sound is not the same as heard in an orchestra, BUT the mind's perception of that musical event is catalyzed to similar depths of perception; the sound may be different, but the experience of the mind is similar (that's for you, Rcn...). A good, en-livened room can be a vessel for that message to be heard and experienced.

I remember I once visited the good men at Shun Mook at their homes in CA. The man who owned the company collected violins and when he placed a certain violin hanging by a thread centered in space behind the speakers, the dynamic/spatial nature of the room became a touch more "organic", continuous, etc. Even more strangely, he then put up a very rare and beautiful sounding violin in the same place and the room was utterly transformed, all the above traits seeming to be released and settled into each other, until all you did is fall back into the music and forget those traits at all; the mind was not cued to deep spatial incongruencies of sound movement and so you went deeper. It was an interesting experiment...

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?)...

Asa, Thanks for your quick answer. - It's a big help.

Any clues on the best place to hunt up a pair of NOS WE350B's, WE 300VB's or Tungsol Brown Base 5881's ? If you were going to pick one of the group to start with, which one would you pick ?

I was told that the Neotron's are TungSol round plates. They are a French labeled product with the word Neotron & 6SN7 printed in red letters on the blackened glass. The base is black plastic like.

Hello Cello. Re: regulators in the supratek. They do indeed influence the sound of the pre,however...their influence is nowhere near the dramatic difference of the 6sn7 or the rectifier choice for that matter.I am using the syrah,not the cortese,however,I think the tube topology of the power supply is identical to both units, wherby the regulators are employed on the power supply chassis of the cortese along with the gz34.The syrah uses the regulators on the chassis of the pre and the rectifier is located on the seperate power supply.We have a large selection of different tubes and types that can be employed here for regulation duty.All of them being employed as a means of further smoothing the ripple of the rectifier.I believe this is why many believe that they have "no" influence on the sound of any given amplifier.The choice of rectifier and regulators can make a profound difference [as I am sure you heard when swapping out the stock 5ar4/gz34]. One can use an original NOS American [beam tetrodes] 6L6,G,GA,GB,GC, 5881, the obsenely expensive WE 350b and many others as well as their nos Euro equivalents like the el-34,el-37,Kt66,Kt-77 etc[read expensive again]. Most all of these tubes will sound a little different than the current modern equivalents like the eh 5881,russian or chineese 6L6's, kt-66 or el34's. I for one, cannot tolerate the russian KT-66,6L6,5881 as regulators in my rig, I do find the current chineese Kt-66 the most relaxed sounding of any of the modern made equivalents.All nos 6L6 will better "any" of the modern equivalents with the possible execption of the original nos 6L6 [metal] which... in my rig sounds very similiar to the sovteks. The tung sol 5881 is the tube of choice here, however the old 6L6g [ST-bottle shaped version only] is also a very nice choice and can be found for typically 20% of the cost of the tung-sols.Regulators will not influence frequency or tone like that of the 6sn7 tube types.Their impact or influence has more to do with air and spatial cues in a sublimal sense.A sound that is more relaxed and effortless in a musical way. Allowing one to hear very fine micro detail, nuance and subtle spatial cues that are burried in the texture of the music.This hidden imformation is definitively masked when the stock tubes are used...This hidden imformation or nuance per say is very clearly resolved ,its just simply "there" and coherent in a natural kind of way with out requiring one to concentrate in order to hear these artifacts in the recording. It seems to pull you in closer to the music and forget about your equipment.Really very obvious when one puts the stock tubes back in.The genelec kt-66 or mullard el 37 are probably the best of all of the types I have listed here and will get you very close to the greatest beamed power tube ever produced, The Western Electric 350b. A side note here for supratek owners... There is another nos tube that I am currently employing for regulation duty in the syrah that I honestly believe can hold its own with the esteemed WE 350b! The best of it is...they can be had for pennies. I will post my thoughts here after I have climatized myself with this particular tube.

Cello and others, the regulator tubes you select will make a big difference in the overall sound of your preamp. Both the Cortese AND the Syrah are rather responsive to these tubes.

You will have to try many to find out what's best in your system and for your tastes. While I agree with Asa that the 6SN7's make a more profound difference, the 6L6's, once you've heard what they do, cannot be ignored.

Right now, I find the clear glass Genalex Gold Lion KT66's to be the best regulator tubes. They are somewhat expensive but can be found on Ebay for around 200 a pair. This is money well spent. IMHO, The sound is legendary.

For those still using TS 5881's. PLEASE try something else you will be VERY glad you did.

Asa, Eccletique & Bwhite,

Thanks so much for all of the incredibly well articulated help. As a result, I am off to see the tube Wizard and take advantage of your collective advice. I will let you know where I land and how it all turns out.

Now that I seem to be in the tube business, I am thinking it would be wise to own a tube tester. Can any one weigh in on what would be the best tester to get ?

Thanks to all !

Cello - Try the B&K 747B. It is a solid-state design, is reliable, and low-maintenance. Alternately get a TV-7. It will test older tubes like the WE101D (used in the Grange) that the 747B cannot test. The TV-7 is very popular with tube sellers on ebay. There is a guy in Chandler AZ named Dan Nelson, who is nationally known for rebuilding and calibrating TV-7's. Dan calibrated my B&K 747B. Contact me if you want his info.

Ecclectique very eloquently stated the benefits of tube rolling the regulators but he didn't comment on soundstage stability during very large dynamic peaks. IMO, this is very important in an all-tube power supply. Just something else to consider.

Dear Asa,

To sum it up...I hear, you hear, they hear.

Natural is as to organically created ( human voice and winded pitch instrument oscillations, human striking mineral and organic resonant objects, and friction induced resonations).

Yes, a given it is, and understood not yet to be exactly electro mechanically reproduced as compared to a live violinist creating a "Natural Sound". A Violinist Playing in ones left ear and the best methods of reproductions of the same playing through a speaker in one's right ear does not a reference make,...but of course, no two listeners by individual description does not a reference make as well.

Audiophile Reference is not concrete nor has a standard of measure that I can tell with exception of one's nearest description of Hmmm to closer understanding with another's Hmmm.

With one being exactly equal to another... then there is reference. No two exact finger prints, no two exact ears (of hearing by description) no true reference and no true human measurement of such.

Current flow and Composit Frequencies competing and colliding harmonically in persuit of the most conductive path of least resistance only to be thrust into an inductive and ancient artifact of diaphragm technology...just a little stronger, yet lighter, faster and more...sensitive.

In Summary:

With all said and done with descriptions of Soundstage, depth and transparency...are we all just trying to achieve a scaled up to room size set of better headphones? LOL :-)

Let me be the first to say honestly that I know nothing of what I'm talking about. I understand some of what others say and I sincerely appreciate their much higher knowledge and experience. As for my self...I am void reference :-)

Audiogon is an Oracle of some truly knowledgable individuals with great experience that freely shares with lessor beings of knowledge and experience such as myself.

On Point to Preamp Deal of the Century: I'm still building an endless system of upgrades of higher quality. If you listen to a component system you like be it used from a friend or new...Buy it. If you can't afford it... finance it and Buy it. I'm learning the true costs of experimenting, buying multiples of items (cables of various types and other goodies). I do understand ampacity, attenuation, current, conductor quality, impedence, inductive capacitance (LC)influences in respect to frequency and some other good stuff. I'm reading about Marketing Major frequency speaking Voodoo Cable Witch Doctors right now. Very good money invested in a very good preamp is money well spent and likely won't be changed out for a while. Don't skimp too much on the Preamp, get what you want.

Thanks to all,

Rcnc500

Tom,

I Bow to you in gratitude! I will first say a merry good morning to you and thank you for your anti-whacking prevention position! I read your comments on 1-11-04 regarding you finding the Bass on your ceiling and geometrically rechanneling the energy toward your listening chair. I laughed so hard I nearly soiled myself! LOL :-)

I like your space ship! A Man's Cave space or a Space Ship like listening room must be tweaked to personal liking without "killing the music". I desire more of a Star Trek Bridge room motif myself, complete with a Captain Kirk styled listening chair. Since I am married, fending off my listening cave space from my wonderful wife's desire to alter (feminize) is an ongoing vigil.

Preamp Deal of the Century: I have found a couple of used Bryston preamplifiers BP20 (640.00) and a BP25MC (a little higher here $1,330.00 with MM and MC phono stage) on the used market are some very good values. If you can find a used Bryston BP25MC closer to $1,100.00 you have done very well. Very clean sounding with a dark silent backgroud.

Thanks again Tom :-)

Good Morning to All

It is an attractive and interesting space ship..It does hide the screen..It fuctions very well and there are no flashing lights to scare my neighbors or to make their dogs cry.As for the Bp20's I have sold many of those in the past .They benefit greatly with the addition of the threaded 1.5 in Audiopoints, really open up and make the bass much more articulate much more apparent speed and attack.Also give the front nose a slight tilt up.. about 5 degrees.Great buy for you..Tom

Seeking the following information. Thanks for your responses!

1. Is there anyone who may have a Cortese (or its equivalent linestage) in the New England area that I could hear?

2. I know Mick has recently implemented an upgrade, can anyone comment on the relative performance between the two versions of the Cortese (linestage performance only)?

3. Likewise, does anyone have experience with the Grange (and its equivalent linestage) relative to the linestage performance of the Cortese?

4. How is the Cortese offered in its base configuration (i.e. number of inputs, remote availability)?

5. Has anyone compared the Cortese with the Hovland or First Sound Presence Deluxe II? Can you comment on the relative performance?

Linkster,

2. I don't know of anyone on this thread who has heard both old and new versions. Email Mick.

3. I have the older version Sauvignon. I have a Cabernet on order. I will post my initial impressions soon after I get it.

5. Waltersalas had the First Sound PD II and has the Syrah now.

Linkster, if you look on the Supratek website www.supratek.biz it has info on the # of inputs/outputs for the Cortese. According to the website it does come with a remote.

The First Sound is an excellent preamp--it has a "blacker" background than I have been able to achieve with the Syrah, and is incredibly dynamic. However, I believe the Syrah has a much more layered sound and just seems more "right" to me. By comparison, I felt the First Sound's presentation was slightly compressed. For what it's worth, I am using a Plinius SA-102 with the Syrah and have not tried a tube amp with either the Syrah or the First Sound, so you may want to cast about for another opinion. All I can tell you is that once I heard the Syrah, I have never looked back and never get the itch to upgrade my preamp. Only when someone convinces me that the new Cortese is that much better than the Syrah will I consider selling it.

Recently I replaced the Italian Sicte6sn7s on Syrah with CBS5692s red base. My Apogee Stages' high frequency get bright ,hot and tend to be noisy. It made me very fidgeted. After I return to Sicte. The music comes back. The Apogees sound liquid,transparent and relax. The backgrund became quiet. I can't understand the differeces made by Sicte and CBS. Is anything wrong? My Syrah was produced in 2001.

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...

Just got THE email from Mick. He is building my cabernet right now. It'll take about a week to finish building it and then he runs it in for awhile before he ships. I hope to take delivery within a month.

Hello Asa,

Thank you as well for your writings. I had responded with some thoughts, responses and references and lost all the information before I could send.

So anyway....I stated before I am void of "reference" speaking primarily of actual experience of various types of higher end audio equipment comparisons as described here on Audiogon.

I am presently building a somewhat neutral or reference system to me that I can learn and grow from. I carefully chose a Bryston 4B SST Pro Amp (new)(it was to be Bryston or Belles amp., I may try Belles 150 Reference later) and have purchased a couple used Bryston Preamps BP20 and BP25MC. I do want to revisit my record collection again and wanted a phono stage integrated in a preamp thus is the BP25MC with MM and MC select. Depending on the outcome, I'll keep the BP20 and purchase an external phono stage or use the BP25 with the internal phono stage (I still need a turntable).

I'll first try Nordost SPM 1M XLR Reference cables (used) between the Amp and preamp. My initial CD player source will be a Tascam CD-401 MKII (used)with Nordost Red Dawn RCA cables (new) between the CD and preamp. Speaker Cables will be low impedence Silverline 6 wire speaker cable. I will set the speaker cable up in a bi-wire configuration as such:

4-lengths of cable 8.5' in length, 2 cables per speaker. Each cable will have six strands of wire on one end connected to a single spade lug. The other end of the speaker cable will have 3 strands each to 2 banana plugs. One cable will supply (-) polarity and another cable will supply (+). I want some separation between polarities (not handled in the same cable, example, 3 wires (+) and 3 (-)).

This cable is advertised at $15.00/ft. (Shop around, you may find it less :-), Audiogon/Ebay)

My gut aches at the cost of the inter-connects. I still paid $664.00 for 4 inter-connects (2-bal. XLR, 2-RCA). I shopped carefully and know they cost much more. Shielded microphone cable may be all I really need for interconnects for the high impedence connections but I'll probably try those also at a later date for comparison.

I will use existing speakers, Monitor Audio 3i smaller monitors just to get started with sound and burn in the system. These are only 80 Watt speakers and the Amp is capable of 347 WPC. Must keep the power out low! I'm thinking of purchasing Linbrook Signature Series Monitors (200 Watt) from Ty at Tyler Acoustics (looking at used right now).

I also have a new SVS 20-39 PC Plus powered (active) 525Watt
subwoofer to use with this system. My listening room is small at 12' x 13' so I'll just use good quality Monitor speakers and compliment with the single subwoofer (at this time :).

OK Asa and other Audiophiles, please review my "Reference in the making and please make comments and suggestions. I'm just waiting for all the cables to come in now. All items are purchased and all but cables are in (no turntable).

Thanks to all,

Rodger

Your room will not suffer from darkness. Tom

wow...and I thought that this thread was immense at it's 200th posting.

Well , my congratulations to slowhand for starting this one.

Gee, how many of us have come up with a brilliant idea for a thread and wound up with all of five responses....?

Not that there is much here, but it does keep on going...a bit like George W Bush's Presidency......

Hello Tom,

I am somewhat concerned about the bright side of sound and your insight supports what I'm thinking. This will be the reference to play with. I'm thinking I may have to make some changes to warm the sound a little. Inter-connects and speaker cables have me a little concerned at this time (I'm already planing the speaker change out from the Monitor Audio 3i).

What are your thoughts on the inter-connects and the speaker cables Tom?

Thank you very much!

Rodger

Jazzdude, we all await your report on your Cabernet, in particular relative to the Sauvignon. BTW, have you ever had the opportunity to listen to a Grange/Cabernet prior to your order?

Never listened to the Cabernet. From trading emails with Mick about the dif between the Sauvignon and Cabernet, and reading posts on AA regarding the DHT sound I believe that I have a good idea of how the Cabernet will sound. I think I will prefer the Cabernet over the Sauvignon in my system but I think that it will be a matter of preference and synergy as to which is better. I am expecting there to be some tradeoffs in sound between the two.

I will say that I believe that Mick has a certain kind of sound that he voices for. In other words Mick doesn't just engineer a good design and then just assemble top-shelf components. Mick has done a lot of experimenting with different designs, implementations, and components and he knows how each will affect the sound and which will get him to the sound he is looking for. Some of this is apparent from his webiste, the rest I gathered from trading emails with him and asking silly questions. So because I have confidence in how he voices his gear and because I already have one of his preamps, the decision to purchase another of his preamps was not a hard decision to make.

Hello Gang. Re: rolling regulators and rectifiers. Jazzdude's observations regarding soundstage stability and re: equipment employing vaccum tubed power supplies is rather astute and really very relevent here. Most of us with the supratek preamps know the pre is quite sensitive to the tubes employed in it.Ones choice of 6sn7's is usually chosen for it's voicing and its synergy with the partnered amps and speakers in a given room.Ones choice of rectifier and its marriage with the regulation tubes used will also add another spice to the recipe. A rather sublime artifact; that is not so easy to put your finger on right away because they do not directly affect tone or frequency. Soundstage stability is the primary reason why Mullard rectifiers have long been considered the rectifier of choice among tube amp enthusiast,guitar players,hobbyist and collectors alike.When employed in amplifiers using power tubes in the output,this soundstage stability artifact becomes a much larger issue and paramount with ones choice of rectifier. Ask yourself:Why do Mullard rectifiers command 5 to 10 times the price of the modern equivalents or other 5ar4's from the same vintage?[new or used] Collectors and speculators ya say? Think again! The soundstage stabilty thing that Jazzdude is talking about here is "THE" reason.Any competent guitar player with half an ear and a vintage tube amp will tell you the same and the mullard rectifier will last as long as the amp. ASA has really nailed down the sonic signature of the supratek and apptly penned it as being on the "clear side". NOW gang,just for fun....You want to hear "clearly" what Jazzdude is on about??? For those that are presently using a strong testing NOS mullard or bendex rectifier[90% minimum] Choose an appropriate live recording that you are very familiar with and would consider to having large dynamic swings and accompanied by a vocal.Pay particular attention to the precise placement or location and size of the vocalist on the stage. NOW pull your nos rectifier and replace it with the stock 5ar4/gz34,let it warm up a least 1/2 hour and replay it again. In my rig... the precise location of the vocalist will wander or slightly drift from his/or her precise place on the stage both laterally and vertically.The size does not change,but his/her location will drift. With the mullard in place,the vocalist is precicely focused in his/her own place on the stage.There is no drift,wander or shift. This artifact really becomes obvious in size and scale when the accompaning band gets cooking at the same time....drummers kicking,horns are honking,pianos a hammering in time with the vocal.Does everthing remain in scale and in the same place?does the drum kit get a little smaller or the cymbals wander slighty left or right of the drum kit? Or maybe the piano sounds wider on the bottom registers in relation to the upper keys when the band gets going. The piano size and scale [distortion thing] is one that is easily heard and can be very difficult to get right to begin with, let alone listening to rectifiers for chrissakes!However..Of all instrument,the piano is the easiest instrument to hear this drifting thing happen especially if accompanied by a human voice. Geez gang.....I think Im getting a little carried away here.Just try it people,let your ears be the judge!

Jazzdude

I am sitting with a Cortese and absolutely love it. Based on Mick's improvements on the Cortese and Grange that he announced on this thread late last fall, I am wondering whether I should jump to the Grange or send my Cortese off for an upgrade.

Please do let us all know about the Cabernet when you get it up and broken in and how is stacks up.

Which Supratek pre-amp do you have now ? Do the Cortese and Cabernet share most of the same tubes in their complements?

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.

I have the Sauvignon, the line-stage version of the Cortese. The Cabernet is the linestage version of the Grange. According to Mick the only tube complement difference between the two linestages is the 101D. There are at least 2 subs, the WE101D and WE101F. The WE101FA, WE216A might also work. These tubes are somewhat scarce but the good thing about them is that the WE datasheets state an average life of 40,000 hours. So one pair of NOS WE101D tubes could last over 4 years of 24/7 operation or the whole life of a preamp if you only leave it on a few hours a day.