That's not what I said viridian. What I said is that there are two rational conclusions that can be drawn from the information provided, and that for ghdprentice's sake, I hope it's one conclusion instead of the other that he is experiencing. If you think there are other rational, not irrational conclusions, that can be drawn, then please, tell us what those are.
I hate to say it, but now I think maybe I like my amp in ultralinear mode versus triode
It's a Cary V-12; it features a dozen EL34s and each pair has a switch in between them that configures that pair to either triode or ultralinear. In full triode Cary listed in the specs that it makes 50 wpc and in full ultralinear 100 wpc. For most of the twenty three years that I have owned this amp I have always felt that I preferred triode except for the occasions that I wanted to full out blast (it has literally been many years since I've felt the need to full out blast).
However, today I experimented with a couple of things in my system, and after listening to the same "Jazz Essentials" (compilation) red book CD a couple of times all the way through, the next thing I experimented with was switching to full ultralinear.
Maybe there was more "PRaT"? (Which is a term I am still not sure that I completely grasp.) Maybe . . . but what I do feel I noted for sure was that the imaging (particularly the imaging in the center) had more weight (meatier?) and was presented more forward, which I actually like.
I put a few more hours in (one more time with Jazz Essentials, Holly Cole/It Happened One Night, Dave's True Story/Sex Without Bodies, selected tracks from Rebecca Pigeon/The Raven and Once Blue/self titled and Norah Jones/Feels Like Home) after switching to ultralinear. (No booze during this session, just coffee.) The jury is still out on this, but I do have some CDs in mind that I want to listen to over the next few days as I continue to evaluate.
- ...
- 122 posts total
That is hardly all that you said, but I appreciate the back pedal. We will agree to disagree and leave it at that, logical fallacy, or no. From a design perspective, ultralinear taps must be added to an output transformer at the manufacturing stage. They have a cost associated with them, a PP output transformer designed strictly for triode operation would be less expensive without the UL winding. So if the manufacturer spends the extra money for a UL winding they would, seemingly, have optimised it for the tube type and circuit. |
@ghdprentice: I, and presumably atmasphere, and all other rational thinkers, would rationally conclude that your amps are optimized for triode topology...and, necessarily, that the ultralinear topology was added, presumably as a gimmick, to presumably, attract more purchasers. Let’s hope so anyway, as the other option is that the amps are not optimized for either topology and that you and the other folks just like the same not optimized topology over the other not optimized topology. That is exactly what you said. |
@viridian This assumes that the manufacturer knew about the patent and designed according to it rather than the tradition that developed trying to get around it. In a way, David Hafler might be the one responsible for that; he was one of the inventors when he was at Acrosound, to whom the patent was assigned. When Hafler moved to Dynaco the patent didn't go with him but he knew full well how to get around it. So its reasonable to assume that Dynaco OPTs are not optimized. So a rational thinker, in possession of that knowledge, might conclude that the UL taps were improperly placed, causing the triode setting to work better. However, a rational thinker might also wonder if the OPT had windings to accommodate the difference in the plate load impedances required since that value for a given tube is different for a pentode as opposed to the same tube wired in triode. I'm certainly wondering that. Whether I'm a rational thinker is another matter. |
- 122 posts total