Tubes Asylum Questions about tubes and gear that glows. FAQ |
|
Sorry for the delayed response, but I did not see your reply until today when the original message had been buried. I really was not trying to bicker over the sound of particular tubes. I just found your description of the 6L6 sound interesting and was trying to get a reference point from you. To me a 300B’s tend to be sweet sounding, a description that holds in most (every?) circuit I have heard, albeit not a huge sample. When it comes to 6L6’s, in general I do not think of them as sweet sounding. Indeed, they can sound downright strident in the mids. I personally run 2A3’s, so maybe that tells you something about what I like (and I had a few tubes running in my SETs before these). While I was building these amps, I used a pair of RCA BA-13A’s, the SE amps that I rolled many tubes through. As I mentioned my strongest opinions about 6L6’s were developed during this time. Anyway, the 350B with its detail and extension was my favorite. Though I never found it sweet sounding, I did not find it dry in the mids, as I did some 6L6 types. My other favorite was probably the National Union 6L6G. In these amps the EL34’s were just a tad too warm, but the XF1’s were their usual smooth selves.A decade or so ago when I was running some Sound Valves M40’s (EL34’s), I became intellectually interested in beam tubes for audio, feeling that this approach was better than the pentode in some ways. I have to say they can sound good to my ears, and I run a revamped vintage 6L6 amp (using RCA 6L6GC’s) at work in a mono setup. It is of course biased class A, triode (and the power transformer probably does not like it).
That all said, this was really not where I was going with my initial posts. I have recently discovered for the 101st time that speakers influence sound. Without going into too much (any?) detail about my current family situation, which is great but unfortunately currently split between t locations, I was putting together a second main system based around some Polk RTA 12’s. These are a different “kind†of speaker than I usually use, and are hangovers from my “audiophile†days of decades past. My point here is that after rolling a few amps into the system both SS and tube (using a Sherwood tube tuner and WAV files as sources) , I determined that the sonic signature of the speakers that was the most prevelent in the system.
I had a similiar realization when I helped a buddy with his new record store. I let him borrow my Eico HF-52 to run some speakers in his old store, but when he moved I told him it was time for me to set up some better speakers. He was a little hesistent because his name brand speakers were well reviewed, and he looked pretty increadulous when I walked in with some Radio Shack 8" full rangers in open back boxes (essentially OB's). But as soon as I had them rigged and inserted a sub (which is a cool story in itself), he and his girfriend/buisness partner were floored. The Eico really shined under these conditions.
I would have to say that my switch to full range speakers was the pivotal event in the development of my ideas regarding amplifiers. I say this because (within the confines of frequency response) full rangers allow you to hear amps to an extent that more complex speaker systems do not. Now I am not trying to say that the final product of amp and speaker is not "better" with more complex speaker systems, just that full range drivers can offer a unique perspective. Now, of course, each full ranger will sound different and this sound will vary somewhat with the encloser/baffel used...
I actuall was sent down my present audio path a decade ago in search of electrostatics and big tube amps and have somehow found myseld with SETs and full rangers. I doubt that this is where I will stay, but I have certainly learned allot about sound reproduction allong the way.
Take care,
Rodney
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Topic - Micheal Samra, follow up from previous post - j rodney 08:43:30 06/27/06 (9)
- Re: Micheal Samra, follow up from previous post - wlee 19:24:40 06/27/06 (1)
- Thanks, and, once again, sorry for the delayed reply - j rodney 16:49:58 06/28/06 (0)
- Re: Micheal Samra, follow up from previous post - MIchael Samra 13:50:44 06/27/06 (0)
- 807 - elektron 12:37:43 06/27/06 (5)
- Re: 807, I have - j rodney 13:05:31 06/27/06 (4)
- Re: 807, I have - MIchael Samra 14:11:42 06/27/06 (3)
- eek, here I go - j rodney 17:27:51 06/27/06 (2)
- Re: eek, here I go - MIchael Samra 23:24:44 06/28/06 (1)
- I thought the MLs also use some baffel step correction - j rodney 12:24:27 06/29/06 (0)