Dear Steve: I agree with Caterham1700 about the ZYX. You will see through time. If you are serious about invest 3,400.00 on a phono cable, my advise is that put that money on a better phono preamp or better cartridge/tonearm combo or a subwoofer, before you change that cable.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Steve: There are many alternatives: Basis, SME, Acoustic Signature, Avid, Verdier, Simon Yorke, Pluto, Transrotor, Sota, VPI, etc..... But this is not important, the important issue is: What are you looking for ? only a TT that last for ever? or a better analog sound reproduction. If you are looking for the last then you have anothers choices: a better phono cartridge that matched well with your SME tonearm, a better phono stage preamp and/or a better amplifier, etc.....
If you really like the music and want to know how it sounds what is recorded in your 9,000 LP's, you have to change your electronics, specially your amplifier: this amplifier, like all tube amplifiers, is a nice an expensive equalizer let me to explain it:
many people, like us, love music and through our analog system we want to reproduce what is in the recording ( there are many people that does not care about it ), that is that we need a system that can do that job: that can be ACCURATE TO THE RECORDING. The tube amplifiers can't do it, it is impossible by the physics laws), only can function like an equalizer sound reproducer. All the tube amplifiers change their frecuency response with the changes in the impedance of the speakers and this speaker impedance ( normally ) change with the frecuencies, so what are we hearing through a tube amplifier?: a hard make-up sound, a " clown " sound, not what is it on the recording. I think that almost all of us have a duty: take care for that the signal sound reproduction be the less degraded signal in our system.
So, if we want to hear what is in the recording first we need an accurate audio system and the electronics ( like the amplifier ) are a very important step to get that target. Now, if your target is other than to hear what is in the recording then you can do anything you want.
Regards and always enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Gregadd: You, like me, have to learn a lot on all those issues.
****" Every component in every system either adds or subtracts something to or from the signal. "****, I agree with you, but that is not the issue:
***" The tube amplifiers can't do it, it is impossible by the physics laws), only can function like an equalizer sound reproducer. All the tube amplifiers change their frecuency response with the changes in the impedance of the speakers and this speaker impedance ( normally ) change with the frecuencies,...."***. The problem with the tube electronics is that these changes are really great against the same issue in SS electronics ( read the frecuency response of tube amplifiers in the tests that Mr. Atkinson ( Stereophile ) do to any amplifier. And that tests is with a constant impedance ( he always use resistors at 8-4-2 Ohms ) that is far from reallity because the impedance of the speakers is always changing. Try to find the review of that Wavac amplifier that send you back 350,000.00 and you and any one can understand what I'm talking about. ). By any standard the tube electronics are the greatest equalizers in the audio world ( I'm not talking here if you like it or not, that is other issue ).
******" Every component in the chain is extremely important, things reproduced properly in one component can be easily lost in another."****, I agree with you, thats why I write:
**" I think that almost all of us have a duty: take care for that the signal sound reproduction be the less degraded signal in our system. "*** The tubes electronics ( at any stage in the audio system ) are the links that degraded more the signal in an audio system ( other than: room and speakers ). You have to know, too, that the tubes function like " signal generators ": the tubes create harmonics that does not exist in the original signal and the problem is that you can hear that harmonics through your audio system.
****" Solid state guys always try to hide behind accuracy. "****. First than all I only be in favor of music and the best technology ( at least for today ) for the music reproduction is: SS electronics, I always be with the technology that can give me the " best " for the music reproduction: when you can understand this then you will be near to the MUSIC.
The problem with many people in this forum is that you never hear a SS based audio system that was build with care and for people that really cares about music. Yes I know that many of you already hear very very expensive ( SS based ) audio system that does not like you: but you don't like it not because the SS electronics but because the owner of that audio system do not really cares about: MUSIC REPRODUCTION or maybe there are no good sinergy on that system. Till you can have that experience it will be very difficult that you can understand of what I'm talking about tubes or cartridges. I'm not against the tubes: I'm in favor of music, I take around 20-30 hours each month for to listen live music. How many hours do you or any of you take hearing live music each month?. I appreciate that all of you give and answer to this question.
Regards and always enjoy the music ( not our system ).
Raul. |
Dear Steve: About the phono cable I recomended: Analysis plus Silver Oval, hard to beat at any price ( 100-150 hours for break-in ).
For the phono stage, stayaway from the Steelhead: use step-up transformer internally that degraded in a high way the critical signal that comes from the cartridge.
For the subs: I know very well the Aerial and I respect to Mr. kelly like a speaker designer ( I use an old Kelly speaker design ), but you have to go for the manufacturer that really knows about subwoofers: Velodyne.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Hi TWL:*****" So yes, I understand your concerns about the tube amps becoming "equalizers" in theory, but in practice(with a correctly matched system) this concern is not founded in reality. "****. Here it is the point: my concern about is in practice not theory.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Gregadd: That's exactly the point and where the differences are. Think about it and try to change that situation and you will see that you could appreciate more and more the music reproduction at home. That's the way to grow-up in the world of music reproduction.
BTW, till now you are the only one that give an answer to that critical question.
Gregadd I enjoy the music through my system. I do everything to take care about the music reproduction in my audio system. I'm not in love with it it is only a tool ( a very complex one ) for I can hear the music.
Regards and stay enjoying the music.
Raul. |
Dear TWL and Teres:
With respect to the answer given by Mr. Crabbe, he's right when he says that the voice-coil impedance can be considered to be in series with the amplifier's output impedance. However, that's not the point. The ideal amplifier's mission is to work as a perfect voltage source, regardless of the load impedance presented at its output terminals. This ideal can be reasonably approximated using many technologies -vacuum tubes, bipolar transistors, mosfet transistors, etc.- However, using vacuum tubes this task is almost unsurmountable, simply because tube 99.9% of current designs depend heavily on the use of an output transformer that further introduces anomalies, distortions, colorations, saturations, phase shiftings, etc. etc. By the way, perhaps at this moment the word OTL will come to your mind, but I could mention many aggravations they have too, but that is another matter that would be subject of a different thread. Anyway, assuming that all these problems could be solved, tubes generate big amounts of harmonic content not present in the original signals, and I see this as the biggest obstacle in our road to true fidelity. Tubes will always add sweetness to the music, at the expense of accuracy, that to many music lovers as myself means fidelity. Today's solid state devices, on the other hand, have current linearity far more linear and and noise characteristics far more desirable, all in favor of a better musical experience. This is the ultimate goal of listening to music.
And regarding Teres arguments, I have several points I would like him to consider: Tubes are voltage devices, whereas transistors are current devices. Therefore they operate in completely different fashions, not similar. Any electronics designer can confirm that. Although tubes and transistors both present big amounts of distortion if not corrected, transistors have the advantage of having complementary devices, that when properly matched, can virtually eliminate alinearities, harmonic distortion and IM distortion without needing any global feedback. Unfortunately, there are not and will never exist such thing as a complementary tube; they simply can't have this fundamental advantage. So when you say that transistors depend on big amounts of feedback, I can see that you have been simply ignoring the state-of the-art in modern solid-state design, where non-feedback is almost a gospel.
Ultimately, there will never be such thing as a zero-feedback amplifying device, and this includes single-ended triodes (where the electron flow and the space charge are the feedback parameters working in conjunction with the grid-cathode voltage) and transistor emitter-follower configuration (where the flow of minority carriers is the feedback parameter). I agree that a zero-feedback amplifier would be great, but it's not achievable yet.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul |
Dear Twl:*****" The distortion from this(my personal) amplifier has total harmonic distortion of much less than 2% in the audio spectrum and the predominating location is at the 2nd harmonic(with much much less in the rest of the spectrum). Output impedance with 0 feedback is under 1.8 ohms. "****
This is exactly the point: THD 2% is really a high distortion it does not matters if location is: 2nd harmonic. But the output impedance of 1.8 OHms is a heavy problem for your amp can works like a constant voltaje source ( it's almost imposible ). This very high output impedance is the problem.
Now, you can check in your Stereophile's any ( all ) of the tests about, for tube and SS amplifiers,. and you can find the terrible errors that have all the tube amplifiers when they are trying to match the impedance of the speakers. Again, you can hear it.
Gregadd,this is not how it measure it is that any one can hear that big mistakes. The output impedance in the tubes amplifiers, usually, goes from 0.5 to 3 OHms ( high one ) and the output impedance in the SS goes from 0.02 to 0.5 OHms ( very low one. That's is one of the parameters why the SS has a high damping factor ). This is the point and the problem on the subject and you can hear it ( any one ).
BTW, I'm not in love with " specifications numbers " but like in the cartridge/tonearm combo is very important the " number " on the resonance frecuency, here at the amps this output impedance is one of the issues.
Any one that is using tube amplifiers in their system, don't really know how really " sound " their speakers and don't know the true performance of their audio system.
Don't say " NO " for what I'm telling you, till you do a serious test with a whole SS audio system at your home and for at least three months.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Teres:****" Ultimately, there will never be such thing as a zero-feedback amplifying device, and this includes single-ended triodes (where the electron flow and the space charge are the feedback parameters working in conjunction with the grid-cathode voltage) and transistor emitter-follower configuration (where the flow of minority carriers is the feedback parameter). I agree that a zero-feedback amplifier would be great, but it's not achievable yet."***
Can you read this again?.
There are many amplifiers that don't use global feedback ( use local feddback )¨Krell, Levinson, FM Acoustics, Rowland, etc....
*****" You countered with a number of irrelevant facts (some of which were also wrong) but never came back with any justification for your position. "****
Justification? you can do it for your self: test a tube and a SS amplifier on the subject: in a scientific way and in subjective way, then you can have the answers. I don't have to probe anything for my self. It is almost imposible to do that by writing in this thread, you have to have " live experience ", is the only way. This is not a subject that we can arrange with " words ".
***" But my tolerance for those that impose their views on others is pretty thin."***
I don't try to impose anything, I only give my point of view : tube amplifiers are frequency equalizers.
Chris, if you really think that I'm wrong, why don't try to prove it. Till to now you don't do anything about. Only words that don't prove anything on that subject.
This is not a contest, it is not important who are right, the important issue is that all of us can learn about.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear TWL:****" Raul, anyone who thinks that the location and order of harmonic distortion is "not matters", has no clue of what harmonic distortion is, nor how it affects a musical presentation. Please bone up on it, and try again."***
The subject that the 2nd harmonics are a " gentle " one, it don't say that there is no distortion. Right?
***"The frequency response of my amp is totally unaffected by speaker reactance in my particular system."****
Do you already measuring?
***"The "very high output impedance" as you put it, has no bearing at all on anything, until you connect a speaker to it."*** Yes, everybody knows that.
****" If you actually knew anything about this parameter, then you would not make statements such as you do."***
Which ones?
***" By the way, we are all still waiting for you to reveal the contents of your "highly musical" solid state system that will be revealing of the "true music" that you think we all are lacking in our systems. "***.
You really think that some " names " can tell you that?, come on you are a wise people.
***"You seem to think that it is ok to ignore anyone else's points.."****
I never ignore anyone else's points: that's the problem.
BTW, till now ( like Chris ) you are not prove nothing on the subjects.
Tom, again, this is not a contest it is not important who is right the important issue is that all of us in this forum can learn about. Now maybe you can feel good if I tell you that you are right and that you are the winner one, Ok: you are the winner and I'm " seriously lacking in audio knowledge ."
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Hi: This statement comes from audioholics ( the TWL link ):****" Another mechanism that most certainly can have measurable and audible effects are response errors due to the frequency dependent impedance load presented by the speaker. The higher the output resistance of the source ( amplifier ), the greater the magnitude of the response deviations. "****.
This is my statement in this thread ( the same that I already post on others threads ):
******" The tube amplifiers can't do it, it is impossible by the physics laws), only can function like an equalizer sound reproducer. All the tube amplifiers change their frecuency response with the changes in the impedance of the speakers and this speaker impedance ( normally ) change with the frecuencies,...."***.
As you can see audiholics agree with Mr. Norton, they speak
on the same subject. ( TWL: I never speak of damping factor ).
The problem with this critical issue is that anyone can hear the high degradation on the signal reproduction.
Now, for anyone can " see " how heavy is that signal degradation: you can go to Stereophile tests on speakers and " see " the electrical impedance diagram where you can watch the multiple frecuency deviation that has the speaker: the tube amplifiers has almost that same deviations ( depend of it output impedance ), only the SS amplifiers can do the job with out that signal degradation.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Gregadd: ***" I hope this puts an end to this discussion. " ****.
Sorry but is not possible. I can see that you are a little
confused.
I don't have time at this moment. Stay tunned. This subject is really important in the anolog sound reproduction.
regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Gregadd and friends: ****" Raul this is from an earlier post by you. The audioholics does not agree with your conclusion that a tube amp is an ucorrectable equalizer. "*****
They don't disagree too, right?. But this is not the point, the point is that till today does not exist any tube amplifier with very low output impedance. That's why a tube amplifier change the frecuency response with the changes that has the speaker. Now, in and SS amplifier that changes can be of a very low order: 0.1 db to 0.3 db, but in a tube amplifier that changes are really high ones deviations from the original: 0.5 to 10db or more. This is a heavy degradation. Take the TWL amplifier that has an output impedance of 1.8 Ohms, this one will had a deviation between 1.0 to 2.5 db: unacceptable by any standard.
TWL post this: ****" To me, the key here is not whether there may be some slight affects to the amplifer based on speaker reactances, but whether these small effects could even be actually audible, given wider range tolerances in many other parts of the sytem context. "****
Dear TWL, first there are not " slight effects " ( ****" , As amplifier output impedance rises, these differences in frequency response are exaggerated. The changing speaker impedance actually pushes the output voltage of the amplifier around thereby changing the acoustic output of the speaker. The amplifier cannot control its own output. "**** This comes from the Gregadd link. ), in the case of tube electronics it is a heavy effects ( degradation and always audible by anyone, but a deaf. ) ), second: what are you telling us? that because there are other wider range effects in other parts of the audio system, these ones does not matters?. Example: assume that the discrete frecuency response at 100 Hz of a speaker has a deviation of -10 db and that the effect of the tube amplifier is -3 db at that discrete frecuency: TWL, till today 10+3 sum: 13 ( I know that the sum of db it will be a logarithymic sum ) and you try to telling that it does not matters?, come on TWL.
Now, the tube amplifier degradation to the signal is worst than what Stereophile shows in the diagrams, why?, because Norton/Atkinson use a constant resistance at the amplifier outputs, normally a 8, 4 and 2 Ohms resistors. This is very gentle for the tube amplifier and far from reallity, because the impedance of the speaker is not constant it has heavy variations with the frecuency response in all the frecuency spectrum, and you can check this too through the Stereophile tests on speakers,: can you imagine other worst degradation on the signal reproduction in a high end audio system and that that degradation can hear it?
This is one of the reasons why I always speak of " equalizers " in reference to tube electronics. The real name has to be: UNCONTROLLABLE EQUALIZERS.
It is already clear that the tube electronics goes against the music reproduction, and till now anyone can do nothing for to change it. This is the point: AGAINST THE MUSIC REPRODUCTION.
All these statements are for the people that really cares about. Ask you what are you hearing from a tube electronics in front of live music.
In this analog forum all of us are trying to obtain the best from our analog system: phono preamp, phono cartridge, tonearm, turntable, phono cables, etc.... Here we are talking to do the very best for our analog system: VTA, VTF, Azymuth, cartridge load impedance, resonnce frecuency on the cartridge/tonearm combo, metal platter or acrylic one, MC or MM cartridges, pivot or linear traking tonearms, air bearings, mass, etc..... We do all this job ( time, money, know-how,..) trying to obtain the best analog music reproduction, and for what if in the next audio system link: UNCONTROLLABLE EQUALIZERS ( tube electronics ), all our efforts goes dead-down.
That's why I always speak to be sure that exist the LESS degraded effects at any link in the whole audio system, and why any one that has these UE does not knows the real performance of his audio system.
Regards and always enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear TWL: This is what you post against me in this thread: ****" I actually think that you know very little about audio. " **** and
****" I'd suggest quite a bit more study before engaging any serious audiophiles here again. " ****.
I think that all of us ( including you and Chris ) now are more knowledge about. Don't you think?.
Rushton, as you can see the OTL is no solution: it's worst.
Gregadd, tks for your info .
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Cello: " Bye Raul "
Please don't go. Now what I can do with out you. ¡ Please come back. !
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Rushton: " I find his contributions counterproductive. "
Like it or not, at least now anyone of us can " see " ( as already proved with facts ) the heavy degradation on the signal reproduction through tube electronics that goes against the music.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
TWL: I have in hand the Stereophile review on a Berning EA-2101 amplifier. Here are the output impedance at the 8 Ohms tap: 3 Ohms at 20 Hz and 1 kHz and 4 Ohms at 20 kHz. At the 4 Ohms tap ( 3.55 Ohms ): 1.5 Ohms and 2.1 Ohms , respectively.
Now, with a constant 8 Ohms impedance the deviation response is at 1 db in the high frecuencies and with 4 Ohms 1.5 db. This is with a constant load impedance, it is for sure that with a real speaker impedance the errors will be higher and dramatic changes to our ears.
So, your post don't help to " cure " the uncontrolled equalizer effect.
TWL, as you know no body can change ( till to now ) the physics laws. I agree, like you, that the Berning design is a good one, but is not enough on that subject, it is still short on it.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear gregadd: *** " Others can see that Raul conitnues to move the goal post. " ****
Wich's your point ?. What are you trying to say?. That example don't tell the whole history because that amp needs 33 db of global negative feedback that introduce very bad effects and for other way we can't see the Stereophile diagram response on that subject. BTW this amp is in the high level of the " permited " output impedance.
Gregadd be serious and mature. Don't try to deffend what it can't be deffended. Don't try that this serious subject fall in a witch hunting or a words game.
Your link put everything and everyone in the right " place ". What do you want? , you don't have a point till to now. Remember that this is not a contest. Come on Gregadd use your experience intelligence and don't try to find a point where does not exist one.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Rushton: Stay calm. Be cool and speak for your self. You are trying to convince other peoples on this forum that think exactly like you. Come on, leave the people free. If I don't like you, no problem with me, that is your problem.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Gregadd: " . You claim you never discussed damping factor when you did so extensively. "
Where I discuss " extensively on damping factor?
" You gave the lower range of output impedance for tubes as 0.5 Ohms. Then you changed it to 0.3 Ohms. "
Where do you read it?
I think that you are a little confused.
BTW, which your point. As I already told you you don't have it and I think that you can't find it.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
TWL: You have only " nice words " that can't prove anything. Only the facts can prove on that subject.
Till you have a diagram with the response of that ( no comercial ) amplifier with a real and standard speaker, you can't prove anything. Remember that " the exeption confirm the rule ".
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Tbg: **** " But the reality with which we all have to live is that speakers cannot reproduct music with much accuracy especially in most rooms. " ****
I agree with you.
**** " As to the laws of physics, I think few scientists would claim we have lawful relationships that much predict the performance of amplifiers or speakers. " ****
You miss the point here: the subject is not the sound, the subject is the heavy degradation that a tube amplier makes to the music reproduction due to the Ohm Law.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Gregadd: You take an old review, nine years ago, and take a tube amplifier at it's best low limit on output impedance against a SS amplifier in the low-top worst case on output impedance.
Still in that way we can read on your link:
*****" The top trace is the Krell; the bottom, offset by 1dB for clarity, is the Connie-J. It varies by about twice as much as the Krell, reaching ±0.25dB. The tube amp's more depressed top two octaves were audible as a very slight lack of air. " ****
Regards and ejoy the music.
Raul. |
