03-30-07: Tboooe
stesom..you are right..hard to believe the backorder...i will keep you updated on my impressions once I get it.
Likewise, let me know what you think of the ARC amp. I am itching to try out the ARC cdp as well.
Now if only ARC would improve on the way their products look... ARC looks like ARC and nothing else looks like ARC :) |
Actually I like the look of ARC simple but solid and refined. I am going to bring home the ARC cd-7 to try along with atma-sphere MA-1 MK2s tomorrow should be a fun weekend......Steve |
I waited 32 days for Ref 3 to arrive, and now I have to wait 3 more days until I can set it up. I hope it's worth the wait. C'mon Monday..........
As for looks, it's OK. I've seen better, I've seen worse.
It's decent enough looking, but I do wish it was a bit smaller.
John |
John..not sure if i can handle 32 days....how come you have to wait another 3 before setting it up? |
Work/travel/family commitments.....typical non-audio bs. |
lol...anything NOT related to audio stuff is definitely bs!!!!! |
Just a quick point. There are many people on this thread that are describing the sound of various tubed preamps.
Big mistake. I recognize many of the posters and understand
they are not inexperienced or shy about spending big bucks to improve the sound of their systems. A good tubed products (competently designed using good components) sound will be determined by the tubes selcted. In other words, the Wyetech poster described as the most SS sounding tubed preamp he has heard, is what he heard with a certain tubeset. I guarantee you there is a tubeset for that preamp that will move the sound to the lushest tubiest sounding preamp you have heard. I know you all understand that EVERYTHING in the signal path is crucial to the out come at the speakers. This is why so many pissing contests start on these threads. Maybe it was the cabling that caused the preamp to sound so SS. The tubeset did have a huge influence on the outcome. I recently purchased a Chinese preamp (Ming DA 2A3) for about $1200 including shipping. I replaced all the stock tubes at a cost greater than the cost of the preamp. I will place this preamp in a head to head with anything out there. It will not be imbarassed. Any of the sonic characteristics posters here have ascribed to the different preamps mentioned can all be turned 180 degrees with tube selection and or cable selection. The only necessary parameter for a good tubed product is transparency. It is an empty glass and the sound will depend on the quality of the wine added (tube selection).
If you are into tubed products and haven't done extensive tube rolling, you should stick to SS because you aren't maximizing your gears potential. I would be surprised if the Shindo pre couldn't be improved upon with tube rolling.
The outcome at the speakers in five different systems will
be very different. Therefore there is potential to improve by rolling the tubes to suit your system and personal taste. Tubes are hands on gear, if you are not comfortable with that, then stick with solid state.
Bart |
Hi Bart, I don't agree with you. Although our preamps are clearly affected by the tube choice, it is also evident that the preamp performs in a certain way- for example I can state with no qualms that our preamp plays the bottom octave better than other tube preamps on account of its direct-coupled output. It is also capable of greater detail since there is no output coupling capacitor to affect that detail.
That's not a thing affected by the tube choice. Additionally, tube preamps in fact do have coupling caps- (ours does, just not at the output). The choice of these caps has a serious effect on the sound of the preamp, again, not affected by the tube choice. Some preamps employ an output transformer, like the Shindo, they will have a sound peculiar to the operation of the transformer, again, not affected by the tubes.
Although tube choice can definitely have a big effect on the sound of a preamp, by no means are they the deciding factor on all preamps, though I don't doubt that there are preamps out there that simply don't shine until you get the right tubes. |
Hi Atmasphere,
Thanks for the post. Point taken. My experience has been with extesive tube rolling in three different tube preamps.
The CAT Ult MK2, VTL Ultimate and Ming DA 2A3. I have read many threads (particularly on the CAT) describing the
sound. Many were using the stock tubes and described the sound as leaning toward analytical with great dynamics and frequency extension. I an agreeing with you here. Regardless of the tubes rolled the CAT will maintain those two characteristics (dynamics and extension). But the analytical character can be modified to overly lush depending on tube selection. I now select amps and preamps primarily by the tubes they use(12ax7's, at's, au's etc.).
I like products that use several (three or four) different tube families (not any tube families as some are better than others). This allows the greatest range of tuning.
The tube choices are not arbitrary. The Chinese pre I am using currently uses 2A3's (rectification), 6922's (input),
6SN7's (output I think), EL34 (voltage regulation I think).
I have an idea of the quality of some tube families and regard all four of these as top shelf. My point is that the selection of these tubes will allow this pre to out perform a pre that uses all 12AX7's for instance (not universally, generally). I am meandering a bit here but to get back on point, we are essentially in agreement.
The design and the tube selection contribute to the outcome. I think you feel that the design factors have more weight while I believe the tube selection, generally,
is more determinant of the outcome. The point I am trying to make to the posters on this thread is that when talking about the "sound" of a tubed product to remeber that the vast majority of these are chameleon like in that they change character based on tube selection. The SS product on the other hand is a constant. Comparing the same tubed product with different tubesets will produce very different results.
Bart |
Got it!
I know Albert, who posts a lot here, will agree. He might spend days sorting out the right tube for each position in his preamps.
Certain things are not going to change though, for example, what a preamp is doing if it is designed with feedback as opposed to one that isn't, how well grounded it is, the quality of power supply regulation and the like. They all affect the sound.
But *your* point is taken too- just because you heard a tube preamp sound a certain way, does not mean you have heard what that preamp can really do if the tubes are not up to it. I have seen a reviewer install junkbox, outright defective tubes in a preamp, and then trash it in print when it didn't perform! Later the magazine announced that it would not publish a review if the tubes had been rolled.
One thing that is tricky for a manufacturer is the fact that modern tubes are often not up the quality of tubes from 40 years ago. Manufacturers have to buy tubes in large quantities, whereas an individual need only find enough tubes to populate his preamp. So- should the preamp be judged on how it sounds from the manufacturer or how it sounds if you can find the right tubes? In the words of Deep Thought- 'Tricky!' |
On the subject of tube rolling, I recently changed out my stock tubes in my CAT signature with NOS GE Smooth plates and Russian Rocket tubes in the line section...BIG improvement. The pre-amp was no slouch before, but took on a new life with the swap-out. Far more realistic dynamics, more extension of both ends of the spectrum and less haze.
So, I am wandering how many people have actually heard what is possible with their pre-amp, certainly brings up the question of whether a reviewer has heard what a piece of tube equip under review can do. |
Atmasphere, I sure hope you are talking about the MP1 when you mention the bottom octave, because the MP3 up against a BAT 31SE a couple years ago was severely lacking extension at both frequency extremes. Perhaps it was ill but it was a Mpls Atmasphere dealer demo. And the comparison was made at the Mpls BAT dealer and later on, my home. Upon switching from the 31SE to the MP3, the BAT dealer and I just looked at each other with total surprise as we never could have imagined the MP3 to have such issues.
Bart really nails it here on the significant improvements that are possible if the owner is willing to put forth the effort to investigate tube options. With some starting points as advised by Albert, I have taken the Aesthetix Io/Callisto and CAT UII and JL-3's to levels that transform these products far beyond their showroom performance. |
Hi Jafox- must be that tube issue :)
FWIW, on the bench, the MP-3 has bandwidth from 1Hz to 400KHz in the line section- quite a bit wider than that of any BAT that we've seen.
The MP-1 has similar bandwidth, but has a lot more authority. |
On second thought, the BAT dealer went out of business here some years back, before the 31SE came out. Our local dealer doesn't ship outside his area. So how did you do this audition comparison? |
I had an ARC LS5 which I traded for a 30SE after hearing the 31SE at HiFiSound in Mpls. The 30SE to 31SE upgrade was very affordable and I was convinced I would do this upgrade. But I wanted to give the MP3 a shot before I sent my 30SE for the upgrade. As I think more, this was closer to 5 or so years ago. I was thinking it was only a couple years but time flies when you're having fun. 8-)
I went to Audio Perfection to borrow the MP3 demo unit. It was fair to assume it was in good working order, all original tubes, etc.,.....at least I would think so if a dealer is using this to sell such a product. I was not able to hear it there that day but they let me play for the weekend.
I took the MP3 to HiFiSound where Bill (salesman) hooked it up in the very back room with B&W N802 speakers. The amps were Classe mono blocks. As much as Bill and I had such high expectations on the MP3 from all the praise on the Atma amps, to say that we were both disappointed on the MP3's performance would be an understatement. I remember the look we both had when the bottom and top octaves were gone ..... not lacking .... but GONE. A return to the 31SE and we could again here the string bass player going up and down the register. And there was so much detail, decays and ambiance with the 31SE. Music was Miles Davis, "Kind of Blue". Even the ARC LS5 that I had taken there a week before was not so severely destroyed by the 31SE as was the MP3.
Almost forgot - I was able to borrow the 31SE and take it home to compare to the MP3 and my 30SE .... and the results were the same. Ultimately, the MP3 was not my cup of tea.
I have since moved onto the Aesthetix Io and Callisto, and am waiting for the Michael Elliot WV preamp. Perhaps one of these days I will try out the MP1.
John |
Hey John,
Are you currently in the Aria WV Founders Club? When is Michael finally planning on shipping these out? He's been talking about this Whole Vinyl preamp for almost 4 years now. Development can't take that long, can it?
Cheers,
John |
Yes, a member indeed......I got on board just as the ship was to sail. I've had some recent correspondence with 2 people who got to play with the WV prototype this summer. I understand that there will be official news before the holiday season. Development can't take that long, can it? Well, I guess with this being a one-man show, in the context of development anyway (other than software development for the volume control), I can see how it takes this long. Clearly the power supply design is first rate, the perfectionist approach to the volume control and line stage, the attention to support various source levels and amplifier input sensitivities AND the ultra quiet phono-stage as reported by the people who got to play with the prototype ..... well, I can not imagine this all happening in less than a couple years. Then if you add up all the time to listen to several passive components (e.g., look at his capacitor writeup), step-up transformers, evaluate wiring harnesses from PS to audio chassis, etc., you can easily understand why it's well into year 3. I much prefer this approach than simply going with a capacitor or any other part that may work well now and then have the view that this can later be replaced when all remaining components are evaluated ... and then cause a "MK II" update that ends up costing the customer $500-1000 more and the hassle and risk of shipping the unit back and forth. No thanks! There will always be improved components but I applaud the designer to make every effort to audition all the components available to him before the product is delivered. My only uncertainty is how the step-up transformers will perform. One of the two people wrote to me that the phono performance in his setup was a step above his line and phono stages....and he uses the Io Signature as well; this is encouraging information. But I also have a highly modified ARC MCP-33 on the shelf to use as a step-up device to compare with the WV's Sowter-based MC input. Of course the MCP-33 will require another IC pair (Jade Hybrids are not cheap) and another Stealth Dream or Dream State PC which are not cheap. Clearly the MCP-33 solution quickly gets expensive but I can "borrow" these cables from the digital setup to try it all out before I buy more cables. The cool thing about the WV is that you can get it with 2 MM inputs, two Sowter-based MC inputs or one of each. I will likely do the latter which allows me to compare the Sowters to the MCP-33. I suspect that both will have their pros/cons based on the music type, recording quality, etc. I like the flexibility. And of course I can run the Io Sig into a line input to compare to these two options and also compare vs. the Callisto Sig line stage. Lots of evaluations to do once the WV arrives in a few months. It should be very cool, especially based on the high praise of the two people that got to play with the WV this summer. I have gone crazy trying so many many tubes in the Aesthetix and CAT gear to a point where JD teases me about this regularly. But it has paid off. I just hope I do not get too obsessed with this on the WV and MCP-33. 8-) John |
Thanks John. Knowing Michael's work I bet it will sound great, though the longer it takes the more people will expect I would think. It doesn't sound like it's for me though, with no remote. Sorry, I just can't go that route. I would like to get everything into one chassis, but on the other hand, I'd hate to be burning expensive NOS phono tubes if I am listening to cd's or gasp...HT. That is one advantage of seperates. I considered that Aesthetix Janus for about 2 minutes, until I realized I'd have 8 phono tubes burning all the time, whether I was spinning vinyl or not. Call me cheap, but some of those NOS tubes are going for more than $200 a pop now. Multiply that by 8 and you're getting into some serious cash flow.
Anyway, I really am enjoying my Ref 3, and have no further plans to upgrade. I hope that you give me the full write up on the WV when it comes out.
Cheers,
John |
Thanks Jafox, for the explanation. The last I had heard, BAT was being handled by an outfit called Great Plains Audio, but googling them got a place in Oklahoma.
I've not had anyone describe the MP-3 as rolled off; I am guessing that something was up, but being that this was 5 years or more ago, hard to say what. Needless to say (although here I am saying it :) having a direct-coupled output on a tube preamp allows for some serious speed. At any rate there was some legal unpleasentness that happened a few years back; once I got that settled I was able to make some overdue improvements in the lineup. Its safe to say that any impressions made of our gear that long ago are not current, regardless of the impression.
BTW we are hoping to show a remote system for the MP-1 at either RMAF or CES... |
Atma - thanks for the updated news. Some day I will have to try the MP-1 in my system.....put it up against the Io/Callisto and WV. |
I think there is a deHavilland Mercury on audiogon. Not balanced though, balanced means more circuitry which is what you don't like about solid state. Chech out their website. |
Hi Sounds_real_audio, Not balanced though, balanced means more circuitry which is what you don't like about solid state. This statement is not correct. Balanced differential circuitry will not give the signal anymore complexity than single-ended if it is executed correctly. There is only the *potential* of complexity :) |
BTW we are hoping to show a remote system for the MP-1 at either RMAF or CES...
Atmasphere You sell out!!! J/K BTW, I'll have to find out if I can get a listen.......sorry, but a remote is mandatory for me (as well as fully balanced). I'd love to put a remote version of your MP-1 up against my ARC Ref3......it would be very interesting. Cheers, John |
We are working on a mechanical system for advancing the control... |
Jmcgrogan2,
There is an audiophile in Canada that used the ARC Ref3 with his CAT JL2 and loved it. I recently heard from him.
He is now using a Shindo (I think their top model, can't remember the name) that he says is in a different league from the ARC. The rest of his system is very good. If I could remeber his Agon moniker I would include it in this post. His name is Orrin Seether. Maybe he will chime in.
Bart |
Posbwp555, I heard the same info. but Bart you have to take into account other gear along with synergy issues and we as individuals prefer. different sound. I have been communicating with him also mainly because he's another audio lover like the rest of us. He actually had the same speakers as me (Eggleston Andra 2's but recently replaced them with Wilson MAXX 2's) Orrin had the same pre as me (ARC Ref3 but is now selling it, replaced with the Shindo product) He got a Cat amp recently which was on my short list so I was wanting to know what his thoughts were, he told me the the ARC sounded broken compared to the Shindo, what ever that means.
This is a crazy hobby and what I have found is system matching some times shows different characteristics of specific gear. The Arc is a great pre. but is it the "BEST" no, there will never be the best. I bought a Supratek Sauv. that I'm breaking-in and it defently is different than the Arc. sound. A friend who has heard my system prefers the Supratek in it over the ARC, it is different and so far I am really enjoying it, is it better? I will find out later in the Fall when I put my Arc back in, I believe it will only be differenes that I may prefer but not better. |
If any of you folks know anything about T/P's : Stop wasting your bucks and find a pristine AR SP 10- MK II for a tad under 3K and start with one of the classics that is still available. Buy it , upgrade it (perhaps) and be prepaired to be satisified. Its like having Reita Hayworth over for a smoke. Beauty that doesn't quit. |
crem1, I apologize but what is a T/P? |
Tooob : Sorry T/P > Tube Preamp. Thanks for reading and responding. |
Crem1: Your advice is good for someone totally focused on LP playback. Unfortunately, the SP-10 as a line stage for other sources is mediocre at best. Tubed line stage performance has come a long long way since then.
I ran with the SP-10 II for 8 years from the mid 80s-90s and loved it. But the LS5/PH2 pair that replaced it was far far beyond the SP-10 for both LPs and CDs. Finally CD playback was tolerable! And even though the PH2 was solid state, this with the LS5 had the incredible dimensionality of the SP-10 but with far more extended frequency extremes and without the noise level. I never would have believed the PH2 could do this ..... but it did.
Steve Huntley at GNSC does some incredible rework for the SP-10 but this can be costly when you're all done. I cannot imagine tolerating the stock SP-10's weaknesses after hearing the many refinements in products over the last 10 years. But for LPs anyway, the GNSC SP-10 rework is a totally different sonic performer altogether. I know a vinyl guru in Canada who has one and he loves it.
Just recently I got an ARC MCP-33 to support multiple arms/cartridges. The MCP-33 came out after the SP-10 to support MCs with other ARC preamps like the SP-8 and SP-6 which only supported MM cartridges. I understand that the MCP-33 and SP-10 have very similar MC input design.
After some major parts updates and IEC connector to this MCP-33, the performance is outstanding. I don't know how much improvement was gained by the various Dynamicaps and Vishay resistors, but changing from a stock power cable to something like a Stealth Dream power cable is HUGE. This alone should be done to all older tube gear with attached power cables. And this modified MCP-33 is very quiet .... something I was concerned about when I took on this MCP-33 modification project.
I have been playing with this MCP-33 into an Aesthetix Io Signature set at 56db gain....and comparing to the Io Sig. on its own at 68 db gain. Both units render the 3D of the music incredibly well. But it is clear there are hints of the SP-10's rolled-off frequency extremes, primarily in the bass, with the MCP-33. Perhaps beefing up the power supply would help things here. I might just have Steve Huntley take a look at this one of these days.
For someone that has a decent full-function preamp but perhaps does not have enough gain for their favorite MC cartridge, or they are looking to bring on some tube magic to their system, an MCP-33, RAM RM-4 or Counterpoint SA2 might be a perfect and less costly solution. Unfortunately the added cost of an IC and a PC, both must be at the top of their class, takes the price quite high. And then the quest for the perfect set of tubes begins and this too can add up. Top-tier performance does not come cheap.
John |
John: I agree the AR SP-10 needs some modification to bring it to the MK II status. My SP-10 MK II was modified by Gary Muffely , a fellow who knows more about circuits than anyone I have ever met , and at my age that's saying something . Sorry, I can't say that I have had the same experience as you. My "10" was carefully re-worked and select tubes replaced the factory set. Images appear to float in the air... Of course my set-up may account for the experience. In real $$$$ terms one would have to spend 12K to duplicate the "10". You are on the Mo'Money " Top-tier performave does not come cheap" . |
Jafox :
After sliding into the slumber position for the night , my foggy-bottom mind woke me up. One tweak, that I failed to mention, that has an impact on what you hear , I have performed since The Absolute Sound wrote of it in '93 is shooting a tad of DC current into the "10's" imputs. Nothing extreme, just using a Mc demagger as TAS outlined. That smack of DC helps to eliminate AC eddies that form around the leads of almost all compoments within the case. The sound is transformed as is the unit. XLO also put out a CD that roughtly producees the same results. The process is performed every month or so 5 seconds on 5 seconds off via a interrconnect. Remarkable results for tube preamps. Enought ... Golden Slumber Time. |
Crem1 - Thanks for the tip on the MC demag device. I never heard of this process. Now I have the itch to try.
I always wonder where my SP-10 might be today ... no doubt it has changed hands a few times since I sold it in 95. You describe this very well as portraying floating images. This is why it took me so long to find a product that had the SP-10 magic but then went to the next level of refinement. It was no surprise that it took the LS5, a return to an all-tubed line stage since the SP-10 a decade before, to bring back that musicality. All of the ARC "hybrid" designs from the SP-11 through the LS2 were too sterile for me.
As for SP-10 MK II status, as I recall, one can tell of this by seeing 2 pairs of 1 or 2-watt resistors, each pair in series and sitting on the board in a teepee fashion. I have since forgotten what the benefit or "fix" that came with the MK II update.
I would be reluctant to do any serious circuit design changes but rather simply focus to replace passive components in "critical" areas. But I would also be aware that some of the musicality/dimensionality might be lost for the sake of greater resolution and detail with "refined" passive parts. Getting both of these improvements would likely require a change to a different product.
I made one slight change in the MCP-33 to allow for the MC load to be as high as 200 ohms instead of the maximum 100 ohms. The MCP-33 owner's manual talks about this as a possible limitation of this product for some cartridges. And ideally my Clearaudio and Koetsu cartridges perform their best at a 500 ohm load but they work very well with the MCP-33 with a 200 ohm load...even the 100 load. I am reluctant to change the one resistor value any higher as this could affect any number of critical circuit parameters. And I would be reluctant to do anything similar in the SP-10. Having a circuit guru helps a lot.
John |
Jafox ( John) : For the sake of transparency & accuracy , The demagg tweak was proposed by Thomas O. Miller , " Tweak of the Year" , " The Absolute Sound ", Volume 18, Issue 92 Winter , page 103. The tweak came to the attention of Mr. Miller via Roger Skoff of XlO Electric who co-produced the CD "The Sheffield/XlO Test & Burn-in CD" (adv.p.35). The XLO CD also contains calabration frequencies ( sec.6 & 7) that appear to do the same. According to XLO , the CD can be adapted for use with phono imputs.. Use either tweak only at very low listening levels-- afterward no problem , only jaw dropping sound . XLO is still around I believe , p/h 909-466-0382. |
The demag device ran an audio waveform- not DC. |
Thomas O' Miller wrote " Best Tweak of the Year" "Still got your Sumiko Fluxbuster (discontinued)? Instead of just busting your cartridge's flux, turn it around.Plug the Fluxbuster into the system as a source and run its signal through the whole system at the lowest loudness levels." Atmasphere , thank you . In my opinion the Audioquest demagger works equally as well as the Fluxbuster or XLO CD. The Aq operates on 4 AA dc batteries. |
I am very happpy with my Ming Da 2a3. I didn't roll any tubes initially but after I started getting hum I replaced the Electro-harmonix 6922's with JAN 6922's, and the 6SN7's with tung sol 6SN7's, which were a very modest upgrade. Has anyone dome some experimenting with this preamp and has any suggestions. I am quite happy but curious. |
Funny that Tpinson has just revived this thread, since I noticed that the OP has given up on tubes and gone back to the silicon side.
So much for being "sold" on tube preamps, huh Tommy?
Relax, I'm joking. I know how all things audio are in a state of constant flux.
Cheers,
John |
hey John! Remember my original post said I was sold on the Einstein The Tube. As you know, I did not want to spend that money so I "settled" on the ARC Ref 3. Perhaps if I had spent the big bucks and got the Einstein, I would still be sold on tubes. As it is, I am very happy with my silicon preamp but one of these days when I go really insane, I will probably try and get back into a tube pre. So like my wife, I reserve the right to change my mind and be fickle! |
hehehe....Einstein The Tube intrigued me too, but I found the (18) 6922 tubes to be more of a turn off than the price of the preamp. Can you imagine the re-tubing costs??? Especially if you want to play with NOS Amperex, Siemens, Mullards, Telefunkens, etc!!!!
I mean I once had a tube phono stage that used (8) 6922's, and that cost quite a bit to play the tube-rolling game.....
Cheers,
John |
Last Fall I had the opportunity to hear the Einstein line stage in my system compared to the Aesthetix Callisto Sig.. The Einstein with stock tubes was rather 2D and lifeless. It was no match to the Callisto with its set of hand-picked tubes. But after playing with the 6922 tubes (Tele 6DJ8, Philips 7DJ8 and Amperex 7308) on the Einstein's inputs and a Tungsram E80CC in the 12au7 slot, the Einstein's magic came to life. This is a most musical piece.
Time did not allow me to live with the Einstein for awhile and then return back to the Callisto for any kind of comparison. But when the Einstein left and the Callisto returned to operation, I did sense just a little less clarity and not as much extension at the frequency extremes with the Callisto. I just never had the opportunity to confirm this. Both pieces aced in the areas of portrayal of space....a major weakness by so many line stages.
The coolest thing about the Einstein is the ability to use diff tubes for each input. I can see this as a major advantage to optimize each source to the system. And this feature also makes for quick comparisons between input tubes without turning off the Einstein.
As for using so many tubes, for every input that does not have an associated source, you can remove that pair of 6922's. This can reduce the tube count by 6 or 8 for those using only one or two sources.
If the cost of the Einstein was not so high, I would have given it serious consideration. But with the Aria WV full-function preamp coming in at half the cost, $15k-20k line stages are a tough sell for me. |
