2. amps-preamps
  3. 1394129996

Tube Amp for Martin Logan Speakers

Hi, I love tube sound through my Martin Logan Aerius-i fronts and Cinema-i center. I currently have a Butler 5150 which is a hybrid, but it busted on me and would cost $700 to fix. I've had china stereo tube amps that were pretty good and gave true tube sound, but not enough drive for higher volumes. I live in condo, so not like I can blast music anyways but still. I got the Butler because I wanted 5 channel tube sound for home theatre (The piercing sound from my Denon 3801 receiver was not pleasant to my ears). It appears there are only three multi-channel tube amps around, from Mcintosh, Butler 5150, and Dared DV-6C. The latter two are hybrids, and the last one was one of the worst tube amps i've ever heard. I have no clue why 6Moons gave the Dared a 2010 award, but maybe it's because it produces only 65W.

So since multichannel tube amps are hard to come by, and they tend to be hybrid, I was thinking maybe it would be best to get three true tube monoblocks to power my fronts. Thing is I wonder if they will be underpowered for my speakers, and not sure which ones are decent for the price. Maybe China made ones would suffice, and they still go for pretty expensive price. I'm wondering if anybody knows of a decent powerful tube monoblock that is affordable, because I can't pay $3000 per block. or maybe best to just repair my Butler. Thing is, I'm not confident that it is reliable. The tubes are soldered in which is weird, and i've taken it to a couple repair guys who both said that the design is not good, because it's very tight inside and more susceptible to being fried from DC voltage areas. it's too sensitive.

Any suggestions for tube monoblocks, even if china made ones? the holy grail for me would be Mcintosh tube amp, but they are hard to come by. Thanks.

smurfmand70
smurfmand70 OP
10 posts
 
Yeah different technology but still seems like companies are ripping people off with tube monoblocks. If $10000 each and you need two, I'd rather get $18000 gold bar to hang around my neck and $2000 used amp haha
isochronism
2,893 posts
 
I'd have the $18000 gold bar drawn into wire and sent it to JD (Jadem) to make me a full cable loom:)
smurfmand70 OP
10 posts
 
Nice ISO hehe. I just think there better be gold in thems monoblocks to justify the super high price. Tubes $300-400, circuit boards and wiring $20, power transformers $1000, metal case $100. Where is the rest of the 15,000 going to?
unsound
7,318 posts
 
Atmasphere, on this very forum speaker builders have suggested that with a lower impedance they can more easily achieve deeper bass response (extended frequency response), a more linear impedance (improve linearity of frequency response)and as you've said a lower impedance can make a speaker play louder (increase dynamic range)(am I really putting words in your mouth?). To that let me add that I've yet to see an impedance plot from a speaker that claims to provide waveform fidelity and can back it up with an appropriate square wave response that doesn't also demonstrate an impedance plot that drops below 8 Ohms. Now any deviation from what the medium can offer with regard to any of the above would be a distortion. We haven't created the perfect speaker or the perfect amplifier for that matter yet, they all come with distortions. Pick your poison. As has been previously posted on this forum that the vast majority of speakers rated and listed in Stereophile as being worthy of their highest Class A rating have lower impedances. It appears that the most successful high end speaker manufacturers make speakers with impedances that drop below the 8 Ohm standard. I suspect that the majority of readers here on Audiogon have speakers that drop below the standard 8 ohms. Do we all like distortion too? As I've already alluded to, I don't go out of my way to find speakers that have lower impedances, it's just that the systems that seem to more totally satisfy me have speakers with lower impedances, regardless of whether or not the amplifiers do or don't have some academic distortions that don't seem to bother me as much as the alternatives. Please pardon me for butchering a cliche', but it comes down to hearing the forest from the trees.
atmasphere's avatar
atmasphere
11,662 posts
 
on this very forum speaker builders have suggested that with a lower impedance they can more easily achieve deeper bass response (extended frequency response), a more linear impedance (improve linearity of frequency response)and as you've said a lower impedance can make a speaker play louder (increase dynamic range)(am I really putting words in your mouth?). To that let me add that I've yet to see an impedance plot from a speaker that claims to provide waveform fidelity and can back it up with an appropriate square wave response that doesn't also demonstrate an impedance plot that drops below 8 Ohms.

You are indeed putting words in my mouth. What I said was that a lower impedance can sometimes get you more power out of some transistor amps. That is a long way from saying that is is increased dynamic range! For example the speakers I have at home are 98 db, go down to 20Hz, and are 16 ohms. They tend to have dynamic range because of their efficiency, which is where dynamic range actually comes from.

Regarding the other point you made in the quote above, a link would be nice. I can't think of a mechanism that would give a speaker with lower impedance an advantage of better LF response. The two are unrelated: you can get exactly the same LF response from a speaker that is 16 ohms or 24- impedance has nothing to do with it.

George, unlike Unsound, you are a troll. Your comments are unwarranted, without merit and uncalled for.
More to discover