System too bassy - Primaluna & Usher

Glad I was able to help. One more thing to try, if you haven't already, would be running the amp in triode mode, rather than ultralinear mode (which according to the manual the amp automatically defaults to when turned on). I don't know if with your particular speakers and setup triode mode would produce results that are better, worse, or just different than ultralinear (although I'd certainly expect the results to be different), but it's something that's easy enough to try. The manual indicates that the mode can be switched via the remote control.

When you do that, keep in mind that the power capability of the amp in triode mode is just 18 watts, compared to 36 watts in ultralinear mode (although that is just a 3 db difference; not a large amount subjectively). So on material containing high volume peaks, especially in the bass region, be careful not to turn the volume control up beyond the point where distortion starts to become obvious. That would signify the onset of clipping (i.e., the point where the amp is being asked to deliver more power than it is capable of). Severely clipped waveforms, which will sound very distorted, can damage speakers.

Also, although the manual doesn't say this, IMO it would be prudent to not change between the two modes while music is playing.

Regards,
-- Al

Al, FWI you can change modes on the fly without risk so A/B comparisons are easy. The difference is that in triode mode the top end is rolled and the mid-range is somewhat sweeter. You can hear the decrease in power output. The change is not so much different from other amps with mode switching, IME. And I doubt that this will solve any of the OP's issues with the bass, although it will make edgy recordings far more listenable.

11-10-13: Newbee
Al, FWI you can change modes on the fly without risk so A/B comparisons are easy.

Thanks, Newbee. Since the design of your amp has a lot of commonality with the design of the OP's, I'll defer to your comment.

Best regards,
-- Al

I've played a lot with the different modes since I've had the amp. I've always loved the triode mode. The linear mode does help the bass issues a bit. But not enough. I've used the triode mode as the benchmark for each tweak I've made so far (speaker positioning and bi wiring). I still check how it affects linear mode but my goal is to get to a happy place with triode. Plus since the bass issue is slightly worse in triode it was a better place to start notice improvements as my discernment skills are developing.

The other thing that has been changed before I made the biwire tweak is the tubes. They are now el34 wc (svetlana) compared to the stock Primaluna el34's. They came with my purchase of the amp so I'm not sure if they are broken in yet. I assumed they were but I should check into that because that would make things confusing ;). But I do know that the changes from biwiring were immediate and impressive regardless.

One thing that I toyed with before the biwiring was my itunes equalizer. It definitely reduced bloatness in the bass. I'm no expert, but it doesn't feel right to have all this effort and money in a hifi setup and only to lower frequency responses on an EQ which alters an artists intentions. As I heard "less bass" it was satisfying at first but then I realize that I've, in some cases, eliminated sounds of a piece so that it could be appropriate to my rig and environment. Is my thinking correct? Or is this what I'm essentially doing when I make tweaks to achieve my current goals? I think this gets into the philosophy of it all so would love your opinions on EQ.

11-10-13: Deetothevee
But I do know that the changes from biwiring were immediate and impressive ....

To be sure it's clear to others who may read this, as I see it the improvement was almost certainly due mainly to the use of different amplifier taps for the low and high frequency sections of the speaker (which in turn was made possible by biwiring), not to biwiring in itself.

One thing that I toyed with before the biwiring was my itunes equalizer. It definitely reduced bloatness in the bass. I'm no expert, but it doesn't feel right to have all this effort and money in a hifi setup and only to lower frequency responses on an EQ which alters an artists intentions. As I heard "less bass" it was satisfying at first but then I realize that I've, in some cases, eliminated sounds of a piece so that it could be appropriate to my rig and environment. Is my thinking correct? Or is this what I'm essentially doing when I make tweaks to achieve my current goals? I think this gets into the philosophy of it all so would love your opinions on EQ.

Good question. Unfortunately I don't think that there is a general purpose answer, as there are many variables involved. Including differences in the quality of the equalization function, and the fact that on many and perhaps most recordings the artist's intent is already compromised by less than optimal mic'ing, mixing, overprocessing, and generally poor engineering. And there usually tends to be a tradeoff between making the (sonically) best recordings sound their best, and making average recordings sound as good as possible.

Also, IMO/IME introducing equalization into the signal path, if it is not implemented to a very high standard, can easily have downsides (such as loss of clarity and definition) that outweigh the benefits.

FWIW, my own philosophy is that in general the less processing that is introduced into the signal path the better. And if that means that mediocre recordings are reproduced "warts and all," or that acoustic anomalies in the room or system can't be addressed in a convenient and inexpensive manner, so be it. Although I have an open (and intrigued) mind with respect to some of the relatively recent developments in DSP (digital signal processing)-based room correction products, such as the DSPeaker Anti-Mode 2.0 Dual Core (around $1100), and (at vastly higher price points) the Trinnov products.

IMO.

Best regards,
-- Al