2. amps-preamps
  3. 1420484322

Best tube amp for electrostatic speakers

For over 35 years I've almost exclusively used either ribbons or electrostats with solid state amplification and have been generally happy with the sound. Over the last several years, though, my hearing has become somewhat degraded and more sensitive to certain frequencies. The frequencies which seem to cause the most discomfort occur in the 1400 to 1900Hz range and come across as "bright" to my hearing. After researching this matter and having been given some expert advice, I've decided to pursue the idea of replacing my present amplification equipment with tube based gear.

The purpose of this post, then, is to solicit advice regarding the best approach to making this decision based on the following information: the current basic equipment is Shanling Solid state CD player, Peachtree Audio Nova used as preamp, two DBX 1531 EQ's to help compensate for age related hearing loss, Peachtree 220 amp, Silversonic T114 cable and Martin Logan Ethos speakers.

The listening area is our living room measuring 15 by 22 feet with my listening position 16 feet from the plane of the 2 speakers which are positioned 11 feet apart measured center to center. Located between the 2 speakers is an entertainment center which is about 9 feet wide. My listening interests are varied from solo guitar and light jazz to occasional orchestral music. I don't generally listen at high volumes and am not particularly interested in strong bass except for the rare action movie background.

Unless not advisable for some reason, I would like to keep the Peachtree Nova as a preamp because of the significant latitude for source connection and what seems to have a decent internal DAC. If this option would substantially defeat the purpose of the intended modification I would work around it. I can no longer deal with sounds that are "bright" which I now find uncomfortable but detailed sound is very important.

So, the questions are: is the move to tubes the best option and, if so, what might be some reasonably priced amps that could accomplish the goal. This, of course, would take into consideration room size, etc. for determining power requirements. If there are other more practical and less expensive options to consider, I would appreciate that advice as well.
128x128broadstone
detlof
1,899 posts
 
Perhaps I'm being naive, so forgive me for asking, but have you ever tried the same procedure you describe on another system? If not, you could perhaps narrow down your problem even further.
I should mention though, that I presupposed, when writing the above, that you ran your computer based tone generator through your system as well.
atmasphere's avatar
atmasphere
11,964 posts
 
Running tones like that is not a good way to tell what's going on- you are not the only one that would find tones like that unpleasant. In fact all the audiophiles I know don't listen to raw tones.

If you find a particular recording that seems unpleasant on your system, it might be worth it to play that recording on another system and see if you still think the same thing of it.
broadstone's avatar
broadstone OP
310 posts
 
Thanks. That, of course, makes sense and I have tried the same offending CD's on 2 other systems, one of which was my own located in another room; the other was a setup belonging to a friend. I found the discomfort to be similar at the same point in the music from all. I guess that should tell me something but I'm afraid to conclude what.
labtec
189 posts
 
Running specific tones probably won't help you too much as already stated. However, I can tell you a couple things I do to A/B speakers and identify a variety of issues.

1. Run pink noise through speaker A and then speaker B. You can probably hear differences even in mono, but go to your listening position and compare in stereo too.

In my experience, whichever you think sounds better with pink noise will usually correspond to better sound when regular music is played.

It's not a scientific or full-proof method, but considering the primitive material some people use as "reference" tracks, it's no worse and makes it much harder for you to be fooled by biases or other things going on with more complex music (i.e trying to judge vocals, bass, soundstage, extension, sibilance, etc. all at the same time).

2. Leverage technology. I use Jriver as playback for digital material and there is an option under DSP playback to see an "Analyzer" on screen while the music plays. It will give you a good idea of the frequencies being reproduced and their "volume" relative to other frequencies.

You might ask.."How does that help me?"...Well, it first helps you from making inappropriate conclusions.

For example, I've had more than a few audiophile friends use a particular test track as their "reference". I was often surprised that they would sell certain high quality speakers that they said were too bass heavy, while cheaper monitors sounded better to them.

Come to find out...if you look at the material via the Analyzer, it SHOULD sound bass heavy at certain points. That's how it was recorded. The amount of sub 100hz material is double what is over 600 hz for most of the song.

A lot of what people pass around as "audiophile" recordings are not really good to use as a reference. They just sound good. A true "reference" requires something you can compare with in real life. Since most people aren't at the live studio recording, your best bet is to listen to acoustic music and/or leverage technology to at least give you data about how the original recording was mixed.

For those with ears that qualify for Mutant X-Man status, these tips are unnecessary. However, I've found them helpful.
atmasphere's avatar
atmasphere
11,964 posts
 
Broadstone, If that same CD track is what irritates you on other systems, one strong possibility is the recording itself, unless you used the same CD player in those systems as well.

How about this- are there any recordings that sound fine on your system and are not irritating?
More to discover