AudioCircle
Other Stuff => Archived Manufacturer Circles => Ellis Audio => Topic started by: DavidS on 20 Jul 2004, 05:29 am
-
Just wondering what amps are working nicely with Ellis speakers. Have a Musical Fidelity 3.2 integrated with mine which is sounding better each day my speakers break in (been away on 2 week road trip holiday so I only have about 40 hours at this point). I am curious about the AKSA dual monos but what else makes a nice combination. I have long lusted after a Blue Cirlce pre and amp as well.
David
-
Nah!, don't kill me .. but we have done ABX tests and found no audible difference at "reasonable" levels between a "cheap" Yamaha RXV640 and a Top of the range Electrocompaniet.
Auditive memory is bad to do comparations, the suggestion enters into play.
So, my suggestion .. Before you buy something do a "proper" AB test, memory could be deciving, and remeber that when you do a AB test is very important to do it at the same level.
Few photos of our testing setup.
http://www.azimut.es/sferrairo/ab/
Salva
-
There is no reason for you to not prefer a cheap receiver to a quality amplifier if you perceive no difference between them with whatever setup you choose. However, remember that this is just your own observation and nothing more than that.
-
Yes, I DO agree ... that's what I'm saying ...
Before you spend big bucks in amplification be sure that you perceive the difference in money.
I mean, thing is that under my experience I DO hear differences between 1801's ellis and anything that I've compared both with. So to me they are worth the cost and effort.
Amplification is another thing, I don't hear such evident difference. That's why I'm saying .. before you make any decission, test and decide. Don't assume that more expensive is better.
Salva
-
My question wasn't so much what do you think about me changing amps as what amp or pre and amp combos are other Ellis owners using and what does the Ellis match up with real well and why. I am thinking long term here ( maybe 2 - 3 years out) - I would eventually like to move to higher end seperates and just wanted to have a discussion with anyone who owns Ellis' about which amps they are using, how well they work with these speakers, and what that sound is like. Again don't know any other Ellis owners, so just looking to learn from others experiences and ideas.
David
-
Feedback on this seems a little slow. Maybe this is because summer is truly happening in the USA.
This is a good question that is fairly involved. I suppose a proper response would be fairly long, but some of the general concepts are fairly simple.
How much power? How much amplifier is needed? I recommend 35wpc push pull El34 tube or 60wpc SS as a fair minimum (Not Home Theater amps). This will get the 1801s to strain about the same time the amplifier audible strains. While the tube amplifier will indeed clip sooner than the SS amp, it's not very audible. Tubes clip gracefully. For this reason, a tube amplifier will handle strain much easier than a SS amp. So, IMO, 35wpc tube or 60wpc SS will be just fine.
However, I must offer a bit of truth herein. HT amps are rated with a SINGLE channel being driven. When 2 channels (i.e. stereo) are driven from a HT amp, the output will be exactly 1/2 of the advertised rating. This is an industry standard. Stereo amplifiers are rated with both channels being driven simultaneously. Hence, a 60wpc STEREO (i.e. 2 channel) amplfier will produce output equivalent to a 120wpc HT amp.
Pushing more than 35wpc tube or 60wpc SS is possible, but not really needed. I sold my 120wpc Bryston in favor of a 35wpc El34 push pull tube amp about 3 years ago. I'd happily do this again. Quality is more important than quality.
How much quality? Well, this is murky. I have heard some profoundly bad SS amps, and some slightly mushy tube amps. When amps get bad, I prefer a bad tube amp over a bad SS amp. On the good side of things, an amplifier is the sum of the parts used and the design. In this regard, I believe there are a few excellent products available. My opinion on this matter is based upon listening experience, and some knowledge of amplifiers internally. The quality of parts used inside make a difference.
I believe the AKSA amplifiers and VanAlstine products are superior in all regards.
The Marsh audio gear is probably the only sane priced commercial audio gear with good parts under the hood.
I believe the Jolida 302b is a very solid performer that responds extremely well to mods.
I have listened to a bunch of other so-called "good" amplifiers/gear that I thought were sub-par. I will not comment on these.
I feel VERY comfortable recommending the VanAlstine gear to anyone thinking about new gear. Frank does very good work for very little $. The vast majority of the $ spent on Frank's gear arrives where it matters the most - under the hood. Frank's cases aren't fancy, but the guts of his products are extremely well built.
I also agree with the other gent's who commented above. In this regard, I suggest taking your current speakers to a hifi shop. Call ahead and ask the salesman if this is acceptable. Then tell him that you want to hear the difference in source gear. I am sure he will accomodate you. This experience was very educational for me.
My 2c.
Dave
-
Hi,
I don't have time to go into detail, but I'm thoroughly enjoying my Jolida 801A with 1801's.
I recently downsized my system, moving from solid state separates and active XO,
to a CDP--->Integrated (801A)--->1801 sytem. The KISS principle is proving itself to me in my system....
I have to say that the new system, including the Jolida, is an improvement in almost every regard.
For your reference, my 801A is completely modified with new caps, diodes, resistors, RCA jacks, and volume control.
Good parts = great sound...in my case (thanks for the suggestions Dave :D )
Happy listening,
EP
-
Hi Dave,
I believe the AKSA amplifiers and VanAlstine products are superior in all regards.
Read with interest your previous post where you mentioned the aksa and van alstine amps.
Have you had the opportunity to listen to an aksa amp? The amps have all the attributes that i like i.e. speed, transients, transparency and smooth top end.
regards
rocket
-
David S.,
You will do really well with Aksa amps!!! Take it from a proud owner, and former 1801 owner. The Aksa's outperform most other amps, including the very pricey ones.
Salva,
I only mentioned that you could prefer whatever you wanted.
Your supposed ABX only showed that the preamp section of your receiver is not very good. A more valid comparison might have been an Electrocompaniet preamp/amp combo compared to your receiver.
But as always, you can prefer anything you want.
-
OOPS,
Salva, please disregard my above post.
Happy listening
-
stvnharr, looking at the pictures that Salva provided, it would seem to me that he used an Electrocompaniet preamp, not the receiver's preamp section.
-
Yes, that is correct.
I did tested the whole Rotel HDCD + Electrocompaniet (preamp + amp) vs Low cost CD + Yamaha HT.
To us (three ppl) doing the test there was no "audible" difference. Again, that was under "low or medium" levels and with "selectec" recordings (Reference Recording and Chesky).
We are in a spanish group that make "blind" tests in order to "compare" sources, amplifiers and cables.
http://www.matrixhifi.com
(press on the red pill)
Until now the referece speakers where LR Orion and BW 804. Now the ellis are used as well, (by the way, just received two kits more).
But the ultimate decision has to be yours, and you have to trust your ears.
Salva
-
Salva,
4-5 years ago I listened to a Rotel 971. I wasn't impressed. This CD player received very good reviews from Steroephile and was "B" rated. My repeated comments for the Anthem CD-1 from Audio Review are:
I listened to this CD player in the same setting, and compared it to a Wadia 830, and the Rotel 971. After reading the reviews on the Rotel 971, I figured this would be the unit I would likely buy. After my comparison, the Anthem was far superior to the Rotel! The difference was astounding!
The Rotel sounded very harsh and grainy compared to the Anthem. I wouldn't say it sounded poor, but the Rotel wasn't even in the same league as the Anthem. The Wadia sounded slightly better than the Anthem, but not much beter. On a scale of 1 to 10, if the Rotel scored a 1, and the Wadia scored a 10, the Anthem was a solid 8.5.
And given the diffrence in cost, the Anthem wins hands down! If you are in the market for a decent CD player and have some budget (wife) concerns, this is the one to buy! And it even holds 6 CD's!
I bought mine for $920 used. Please e-mail me if you have any questions. thanks for reading.
This might have some utility in your situation so I thought it might be worth mentioning.
I must admit that I have an old Kenwood receiver that sounds fairly decent. I must also admit hearing a 5yr old NAD that was quite painful. Amplifiers are somewhat of a mystery to me. Some of that old commercial stuff actually sounds accaptable.
-
Hi DavidS,
You should read the aksa thread regarding the audition tour of the aksa 100 nirvana plus (the latest and best upgrade by aksa). Here is the link:
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=11644&start=10
Imo so long as you have good quality components speakers give you the best improvement and second is the amplifier.
best wishes
rocket
-
I spent some time reading the AKSA site, but didn't really see... well... what you intended :?: What should I see in that string?
I have considered building an AKSA amp, but simply haven't done this. While I certainly could get into this, I haven't done so for 3 reasons.
1. Most of my customers simply aren't willing to build an amplifier. Any of my experience gained from building an amplifier would be fruitless.
2. While I am sure the AKSA is a very good amplifier, Scott Endler told me a few years ago the Velleman K4005 was slightly superior. While this is only 1 guy's opinion, I deem Scott very reliable. He is a EE, and has built many amplifiers. One of them was the AKSA. While the AKSA has really taken-hold, I am not sure it's the best sane-priced amplfier to build. Indeed the AKSA is well supported and sounds very good to everyone exposed. For both of these resons, the AKSA is a very solid use of $. I have no problem understanding comparisons with the AKSA products and other stuff costing 3-5x$.
3. I have speakers to build. My customers are waiting, waiting, waiting.... Getting sidetracked with amplifiers would be interesting, but my gamut is speakers. My wife estimates that I have 6000-10000 hours into speakers. I need to use this experience/education effectively. I need to focus my time on speakers. Building amplifiers is very tangential in this regard.
Hopefully this makes sense. Please understand that I believe the AKSA is indeed a very solid product. That's why I recommend it.
Further, I don't have a preamp. Having a separate AKSA amplfier for audition would be very impractical.
Dave
-
Hi Dave,
I perfectly understand your predicament. Time is a premium, especially with a young family.
If you read the first page of the thread you can place your name on the us audition tour of the aksa 100 nirvana plus (which is the seriously tweaked out version of the aksa). Have a listen for yourself as it will only cost postage to the next destination.
Best wishes
rod
-
The regular AKSA is good. Perhaps that's the one Scott listened in his comparison. But the Nirvana upgrade makes is very special. I have been very happy with my AKSA 100 watt Nirvana monoblocks driving the 1801s. I wish I had another pair to drive a pair of woofers.
Hugh continues to improve his kits. Recently, he released a Nirvana Plus upgrade which is the one that is going on tour in the US. I bet it will surprise a lot of owners of $10K+ amplifiers.
Do not forget the preamp. I love my BentAudio transformer based passive preamp. But, I would seriously look at the AKSA GK1 kit as well.
The 1801s really show improvements in electronics. It can sound dull, thin, harsh with average equipment.
Good luck,
AL
-
Dave,
Pity that it's a bit too far from Omaha to Rock Springs as you could have a proper audition. Failing that, the Aksa 100 Nirvana tour would be perfect for you. If your customers are going to ask you about this stuff, it might not be a bad idea.
Basing your opinion on a bit of reading on a web page or an old comparison opinion is not real valid. The Aksa amp as now configured is different from the one the opinion was based on. Also, Aksa's are well spoken of by many these days. Velleman??????
Of course you only have time for speakers, and not enough time for even that with everything else going on in life.
And you are correct in that you just need to stick to the speaker stuff.
-
Basing your opinion on a bit of reading on a web page or an old comparison opinion is not real valid.
Yep, I understand and agree. I must also add that Scott's recommendation happened via email. His comment was "against the grain" when mentioned. Your next thought was already valid:
Also, Aksa's are well spoken of by many these days. Velleman??????
Yep, that's why in my initial post I mentioned the AKSA, but not the Velleman K4005. I think there is significant merit to popularity, but popularity isn't always connected with value. Please consider the most popular commercial audio product line. Hint, it starts with the letter "B". This product is quite poor by our standards, but has excellent product representation & support. Having support for a DIY project is VERY important too! The AKSA has an exemplary support network. The Velleman K4005 - what support??
// Eventually I'll get some more power for my home amp, but I only need this for testing.
I think we agree on this subject, but some clarification was needed.
Dave
-
I've been intrigued by the discussions on AC and in other places regarding digital amplifiers and decent-sounding yet cheap dvd players. So, I have picked up Panasonic SA-XR25 and JVC RX-ES1SL receivers, and a Toshiba 3950 DVD player to audition (at a TOTAL cost less than $300). Results so far on Ellis 1801A's:
1. The Toshiba DVD player ($50, Best Buy) in stock form is a little less extended than some, but midrange performance is particularly good. Ultimately it was good enough to retire my Monarchy DIP 2496 - MSB link DAC II combo. Reportedly mods can help the extension issue - maybe I will get to that eventually, but I am enjoying the music as is.
2. The Panasonic receiver is very transparent and revealing. I found mine on ebay (second hand without remote) for around $80 including shipping. It lacks a little of the fullness of my traditional "he-man" solid state gear (Continuum Audio Stage Amp and Sim Audio Celeste Preamp) but really excels in revealing the attack and decay of instruments.
3. The JVC is a little warmer sounding and a little less revealing than the Panny. It also takes a little longer to break in (several hundred hours). Interesting thing about the JVC is that it never sounds harsh and doesn't exaggerate the attack of instruments the way most "high resolution" solid state gear does. This allows you to better hear reverberations and resonances that give sounds much of its character. Tube gear also does this - but the JVC is different, maybe due to its high damping factor.
Summary: Now that the JVC is in my system and is showing signs of breaking in, it seems unlikely that it will be coming out any time soon. The amazing thing is that $200 worth of equipment is driving my 1801's and I have no particular desire to replace anything - even with $1000's of other equipment sitting on the shelf. Some people are having a better experience than others with the new digital equipment, but it at least represents an interesting alternative to more costly, more energy and space-consuming equipment.
Also, The SAF bonus points from replacing a rack full of equipment with a slimline receiver and dvd player is not insignificant.
-
This is a very good post.
Yes, there is a plethora of gear out there in the commercial realm that is probably just fine. Your comments are very welcome and appreciated. I must admit having an old Kenwood receiver that sounds pretty decent. Sure, my Bryston had much more oomph, but he old Kenwood sound quality was.... on par. At low/sane volume levels my old kenwood sounds pretty good.
I do think you might have stated something backwards Also, The SAF bonus points from replacing a rack full of equipment with a slimline receiver and dvd player is not insignificant.
You probably wanted to say that replacing the gear IS significant.
Also, are you attending the IOWA DIY gathering in DesMoines on the 23rd?
-
Yes Dave, I will be attending DIY Iowa. I will be going solo - so just a day trip. I look forward to seeing you there. I am hoping to bring some 8" two-ways for others to ridicule - as long as my first attempts at using the router prove relatively successful.
I really did mean to say "not insignificant" because I have a certain affinity for the double negative. Where that sentence really didn't come together is when I used "bonus points" as the subject and "is" as the verb instead of "are". I'll try to be less unclear (there I go again) next time.
-
I might bring some 8" 2-way speakers too. I am not sure exactly what I'll bring, but it'll be somethin'. I might not even bother with a router.
:)
-
heard this on Cartalk (paraphrased):
A language professor lecturing on the topic of double negatives and noted that the use of double negatives in most languages translates to the opposite meaning of positive, but nowhere does the use of double positives translate to negative, when someone in the audience replied, "Yeah, right".
-
Hee Hee
-
I've just purchased a NAD 304 on eBay (approx USD$225) and am now using this to drive the tweeters, and my old Yamaha AX-590 amp to drive the woofers on my 1801's in bi-amp mode. You're probably all cringing as I say that, but it works quite well (I haven't the gear to measure their voltage gain, but they seem to be identical to me!) The Yamaha also sounded a little harsh in the highs, and the NAD is much more listenable I think.
I also tried the NAD driving the whole system and it sounded great. It's probably way underpowered, hence the bi-amp choice, but the NAD sure sounded infinitely better than the Yamaha.
I am aiming to do some practice soldering on little projects before I take on the AKSA 100 Nirvana+ one day. Plus I have some family who are considering getting me to build some 1801s! Dave - orders not too far away for those!
-
Steve Harrison was kind enough to lend me his 60 watt AKSA amplifiers while spending his winter in Australia. A few days ago I finally hooked-up the AKSA amplifiers between my Anthem CD-1 and my 1801s. I used a Creek passive preamp, Goertz cable, and Belden cross connected 89259/89248 interconnect with Dayton plugs.
The result... well... the AKSA amp sounds really good! It doesn't just sound a little good. It sounds really good! While my modified Jolida 302b is a very solid performer, it's bettered by Steve's ultra-tweaked AKSA 60 watt amplfier. I was very surprised. The AKSA might be the very best amplifier I have heard. Yes, this is a strong statement, but it might actually be true. If the AKSA amplifiers were available in a completed commercial unit for $1500 with a passive volume control they would be a no-brainer value oriented purchase. At $5k there might be commercial amplifiers in the same league, but I cannot be certain.
The obvious problem is the AKSA must be built, it cannot be purchased. In this regard, I have no insight. I haven't buit the AKSA.
The only subjective caviat I must offer is my Jolida still has a very slight edge in low level detail, but ONLY when the program material is very simple. When the program material becomes complex, the AKSA has detail and smooth clean presentation in spades. The clarity of string instruments is uncanny. I can hear ALL of them.
I don't really have more to offer in this regard. I simply feel compelled to offer my thoughts about the AKSA. It's a benchmark product. I have often wondered about the result of using high quality parts in an amplifier. I'm not wondering anymore.
-
Hi David,
Now you know what I mean about my AKSA 100 monoblocks. And I'm ordering the Nirvana Plus kit. The combo with a transformer based passive preamp, BentAudio TX102, is very very good.
By the way, the AKSA100 will have greater dynamics and stronger bass than the AKSA55.
Hugh Dean gives excellent support like you and John Chapman from BentAudio.
Al
-
David,
I read this thread with rapt interest. It has huge insights into the psychology of audio, and the thoughts of noted designers such as yourself who are not afraid of handing out laurels.
I must thank you for giving the AKSA the time of day! As you can imagine, much of my life has been tied up in this design, which is actually very simple, a good example of technological convergence, and straighforward to build.
David, would you like to be included on the AKSA 100W Nirvana Plus audition tour? Step right up - signal your interest to this thread:
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=11644&start=180
It would be my sincere pleasure to give you the chance to hear the very latest high power AKSA, which brings your speakers to a level of realism people say is jaw-dropping....... Paul in NYC (aka Occam) is supervising the tour, so your contact details should be PMed to him to arrange it all.
Al, Rod, Steve,
Thanks for your many kind words - I appreciate it.
Service is probably where it's at in this game, like most consumer arenas. It is not sufficient to have a good product; buyers want it all and with good reason. It is regrettable I do not yet make a fully assembled AKSA, though I will do it on special order, but I'm on the case and lying awake at nights thinking about the logistics......
Cheers,
Hugh
-
I must thank you for giving the AKSA the time of day!
While your appreciation in this matter is well received, it isn't really necessary. I must admit a completely biased self-interest with regard to amplifier choices and my mention of amplifiers in this forum. It is in my very best self interest to have the very best source gear behind the 1801s. The obvious result is that excellent source gear will yield the very best sound quality from the 1801s. Hence, recommending your amplifier is a win-win for me.
I am happily satisfied with the AKSA 55wpc units, and don't think the 100wpc unit will yield any significant audible changes. Frankly, it doesn't need to offer any significant changes. The 55wpc AKSA sounds extremely good.
It is regrettable I do not yet make a fully assembled AKSA, though I will do it on special order, but I'm on the case and lying awake at nights thinking about the logistics......
Yeah, I know. This kind of work just doens't seem very fun. Also, it's extremely time consuming.
Dave
-
It should be pointed out here that while the Aksa amps are fully DIY, they are fairly simple and straightforward to construct. If you can put together a speaker crossover, then you can construct the amp. I know as that is where I came from. The kit instructions are detailed and easy to follow. Support from Hugh is second to none. I made a few mistakes in construction, but in the end all came out well.
As long as you know which end of a soldering iron is the hot end, you will do just fine constructing the amp.
-
As long as you know which end of a soldering iron is the hot end, you will do just fine constructing the amp.
:lol:
-
It should be pointed out here that while the Aksa amps are fully DIY, they are fairly simple and straightforward to construct. If you can put together a speaker crossover, then you can construct the amp. I know as that is where I came from. The kit instructions are detailed and easy to follow. Support from Hugh is second to none. I made a few mistakes in construction, but in the end all came out well.
As long as you know which end of a soldering iron is the hot end, you will do just fine constructing the amp.
Or you could go the route I took...had someone (Carlman) build it for me. Thanks Carl....8)
-
Dave: I've been on the fence a while about ordering the 1801's because of my concern over their efficiency. I have an EL34 push pull tube amplifier that produces 35 watts per channel (Prologue One - as seen in current edition of The Absolute Sound). You once indicated in an e-mail response to me that your similar unit from Jolida worked just fine. I just saw your post about the ASKA solid state amp and its better detail with complex music presumably by the added power. What can I expect with classical orchestral music with my amp based on your own listening experiences? I will use in my living room which is about 15 by 20 at reasonable listening levels.
-
Good question,
better detail with complex music presumably by the added power.
Well... no. Quite often the opposite is true. Lower power amplifiers will have better resolution. I don't have the complete explanation for this. However, I believe there are a couple of factors adding validity to this.
1. Higher power amplifiers are often more complex. Complexity isn't always a good thing. Quite often it's bad. In the realm of amplifiers, there is some consensus regarding this issue. The general rule of thumb appears to be "only buy what you will use". Anything more is wasted heat and added complexity. I read a hint at this from the folks at AKSA. However, I don't remember the specific words use. I also read it here:
http://www.high-endaudio.com/index_ac.html
http://www.high-endaudio.com/RC-Amplifiers.html
I encourage you to read Mr. Salvatore's site completely. I found it a few days ago, and it's very solid material - IMO.
2. Frank VanAlstine mentioned a while ago that the entire signal path is essentially an impedance device. I didn't understand this compltely, but my conclusion was that smaller amplifier with small transformers should sound better. You are welcome to query Mr. VanAlstine concerning this issue.
Both the AKSA and Jolida 302b have plenty of power. To my ear the AKSA has a touch more power, but this difference is VERY minor. I never run either amp at full power for more than 30 seconds. The spl is considerable, and I enjoy my good ears.
I honestly don't know why the AKSA has very good detail. I am confident this is NOT a tube versus SS issue. I have heard MANY SS amps that had less detail than my Jolida 302b. Both amps have plenty of power. Given this, I am sure your EL34 will have plenty of power to drive the 1801. I was very happy with my Jolida 302b for 2 years. My decision to switch to something different (for now anyway) has absolutely nothing to do with how many watts the Jolida (35wpc) or AKSA(55wpc) amp will push. It has everything to do with how well both amps push about 2-3 watts. The AKSA is a very good amplifier.
Hopefully my response is adequate. Please let me know if you need further explanation regarding my thoughts conveyed above.
[/quote]
-
I noticed Dave has his Jolida on Ebay... Dave, did you finally make the move to a FET valve???
inquirying minds want to know
-
I noticed Dave has his Jolida on Ebay... Dave, did you finally make the move to a FET valve???
inquirying minds want to know
Well... no. A couple of months ago I tried a FETValve, but liked my modded Jolida 302b better. I really wanted to like the FETValve, but preferred the sound of my tube amp. A couple months later I tried and AKSA amp in my system. You can obviously discern the outcome (for now).
This is just my 2 cents on the matter. I still think the AVA gear is the best value in completed SS source gear. However, if the user is willing to solder, and doesn't need the typically higher power of an AVA amp, the AKSA 55wpc unit is a winner.
Please read page 3 in this string for my comments.
-
Do you think that and AVA OmegaStar260 (130W) is sufficient to drive the Ellis 1801 ? Do you recommend another model ?
Otherwise, do you see some other interesting brands that we can be more easilly found in Europe (Naim, Thule, Rotel, etc.) ?
best regards,
Pierre-Etienne
-
Do you think that and AVA OmegaStar260 (130W) is sufficient to drive the Ellis 1801 ?
This is easily enough. If you are planning to drive the 1801, I'd save $300 and get the 240ex. The lowest impedance point for the 1801 is 6ohms. This makes the 240ex very vaible.
Otherwise, do you see some other interesting brands that we can be more easilly found in Europe (Naim, Thule, Rotel, etc.) ?
I am not an amplifier guy, I am a speaker guy. I can only comment from some experience with AVA amplifiers, and a very good understanding of commercial hifi. As a baseline, everyone seems to agree that Bryston makes a good amplifier. Indeed I think they do made a very good amplifier. In my opinion, AVA sound amps are better. They sound better. The difference is very obivous and immedaite. The AVA amp had less grit and equal dynamics at roughly the same price point.
Before and after this experience I spent a fair amount of time with commercial amplifiers. At about $2k there were differences, but nothing really jumped out at me - until the AVA experience. After this, I opened the hood on an AVA preamp. I was very impressed with the quality of parts under the hood. Indeed Mr. VanAlstine uses good parts - better than those in the Bryston unit.
If you are willing to fiddle with tubes, I highly recommend a Jolida 302b or 502b amplifier. These are wonderful sounding amplifiers. Also, AVA recently executed another modification for the Dynaco ST-70. This is likely a very good amplifier too. I think any of these tube amplifiers will perform better than any solid state units at a similar price point. Tube amplifers are slightly more fussy, but worth the effort IMO.
Sincerely,
-
I am considering to upgrade my current integrated, to wellcome my new 1801b's. My budget is limited to $1100.
I listened to a Jolida 302B and convinced me, but not totally. That is why I am asking your advise. On my shortlist are:
- KORA 150SB
- YBA Initial
- ISEM Xtasis 2
- CAYIN TA-30
- CREEK 5350 SE
- AUDIO ANALOGUE Donizetti+Bellini
- MARANTZ PM 17 Mk2
- MUSICAL FIDELITY A 3.2
- CONSONANCE M100 Plus
- SPHINX Myth 5
From these I listened only to Creek, Marantz and MF 3.2. I like them, but still I am feeling that something is missing.
What is your advise for me? What integrated or amp-pre-amp combo are you using?
I heard other guys talking about Aronov and Plinius. Are they as good as claimed?
-
I have done some research and indeed I believe that Van Alstine products are great value. Before ordering them (an amp and a pre-amp), I have a question: does anyone compared any of the Van Alstine products with any of the amps from my shortlist? What are the conclusions?
Thank you very much
-
The only amp on this list that I have directly compared with anything in my system is a Marantz PM-17. I did this years ago. At the time, my Bryston 3B-ST had better dynamics and was queter than the PM-17. Subsequently, the 3B-ST was bettered by the AVA-550ex (not the most current version). All of these amps sounded inferior to my modified Jolida 302b, and in-turn slightly inferior to Steve Harrison's 55wpc AKSA Nirvana +++.
As with speakers, the quality of parts under the hood has a VERY significant impact. Frank VanAlstine uses very good parts under the hood. After mods, my Jolida 302 had very good parts under the hood in many areas. Steve Harrison's amps... have every good part possible installed/upgraded.
With all of these purely power amps, I used a Creek passive preamp.
If you can solder, I highly recommend you build the AKSA.
In a few weeks, I'll likely know something more solid about a fully modified SE40SE. The unmodified amp is nothing special, but the bass is surprisingly good.
-
Thank you very much David.
Believe me - I would love to get a moddified Jolida 302b from you. But I don't think that I can afford it. My budget is $1060, and in stock form already is at least $915.
And for $145 I don't think there are to many mods that can be implemented. (or maybe I am wrong)
-
Your budget is more than enough to recruit someone to build you an AKSA 55 watt with the Nirvana Plus upgrade. Go to the AKSA forum and ask for takers. This has been done successfully by others before and they're very happy with the outcome.
Al
-
Dave: I've been on the fence a while about ordering the 1801's because of my concern over their efficiency.
richny,
I don't have a tube amp but my Musical Fidelity XA-1 SS amp rated at 50 watts seems to drive the 1801bs just fine. I haven't tried a more powerful amp but haven't felt the need to.
-
I am looking for a NEW power amp to drive my beautifull Ellis 1801b.
My budget: limited to about $1100
After doing thorough research I decided that I need your opinion to confirm or not my findings. It seems to me that there 4 companies that are offering fair value for money: Monarchy Audio, AKSA Aspen, Audio Van Alstine and Odyssey Audio. I am pretty sure that if I will chose any of their products I won't go wrong.
Now, within my budget, I am trying to maximaze the value that I will get, having in mind that I won't need tones of power to drive my Ellis. So, after another month of reading and research I can conclude that the best value for money within a limited budget are (in order):
1. AKSA Aspen 55 with Nirvana Plus Upgrade
2. Monarchy Audio ST-70 PRO
3. OmegaStar 260 EX (AVA)
Unfortunatelly the Stratos seems to be a litlle overpriced compared with the others (in value/price terms).
Now, my question for those of you who had the chance to listen to at least 2 of the 3 from my list: Can you confirm my findings? Can you let me know your opinions?
Thank you very much
-
Well,
I can vouch for #1 fully and #3 partially. I managed to listen to one of Franks FET-Valve units. Comparing this #1 to the FET Valve is, well, easy. If you want high quality, #1 is the ticket. If you want high spl the FET Valve is the ticket. Either will outperform the other in its respective category IMO.
I cannot comment on option #2. I don't know anything about this amplifier.
Given your $1100, I suggest you purchase and AKSA or build one. Then use a Creek OBH-12 passive crossover. This one has a remote. It'll bring a smile to your face :)
Or... you could score a Dynaco ST-70, and install Frank VanAlstine's latest mod. It appears to be a winner.
Dave
-
Hey all,
goldmund sra is my last 2x40w SS amp, air-tight atm4 is a 2x28w push-pull 6L6 tube amp, owned by Raoul, a friend who ordered a 1801 kit a few days ago. This two gears were wired on my pre-amp goldmund srp2. Although prices are very different (6600usd for the air-tight, 1900usd for the goldmund in france), they represent a fully different approach of the amp technical views.
My listen review:
1 this tube gives a "stronger, consistanter" sound than this SS. This is obvious on piano, human voices and most instruments. All the music is weaky with the SS, at low or high listening level.
2 tube has very lower subjective "hardness"; bad cds are more confortable to listen to: i.e., string's attacks have same speed but are less raw.
3 on the tube, dynamic is equal on the total frequency range; on the SS, dynamic is concentrated through upper-mid and high frequencys: instrument's timbers are much more homogeneous with the tube.
4 SS is a little more detailed.
5 SS has little deeper sub-bass and goes a little far away in very high frequencys.
6 soundstage and image are a little more accurate on the SS; greater on tube, but not excessive.
7 bass and uperbass are a little "boomy" on SS.
In conclusion, because of the lack of homogeneity from this SS, i enjoy music much more on this tube;
Since this test, I was looking for an amp with a similar sound than this air-tight, but enhanced on all criteriums:
I founded it: the Rodgers e40a, a double push-pull 6L6, pure "a" class,designed by Audio-Note UK: enhancement is obvious, sound is really giant, never heared such a sound coming from an electronic.
I'm a happy guy.
-
Read Clint's review of the AKSA 100N+ with his Ellis 1801b. And take note that he is comparing it to his Bryston 4BST which is highly regarded.
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=14552&start=40
The 100+N will give you plenty of transperancy and high SPL out of the 1801s. I also appreciate that they dissipate very little heat, stay cool to the touch. So, I leave them on allways.
Al
-
I posted some comments in that string too.
In short... my 3B-ST was/is not in the same league as the 55wpc Nirvana + AKSA that I currently use. The AKSA amp is much better.
Dave
-
I thought I would post some experiences I've had with running several different types of amps with the 1801's. The amps I'll describe are:
Yahama R-V703: A standard off the shelf be$t buy receiver that probably cost all of $150 when it was new. It's rated at 70W/ chnl, but I'd bet that was just one channel driven, see dicussion below.
Sony DA4-ES: Sony's last high end analog amp released in 2003. It's rated at 100W / channel
NAD 2155: 1980's vintage 2 channel amp rated at 55W / chn. The power cord is not very big (18 ga?). The power cord on my 30W soldering iron is bigger. One transformer for the entire amp.
Adcom 535: Late 80's vintage 2 channel amp rated at 60W / chn. This would seem to have a beefier power supply than the NAD. It has one transformer per channel. This amp is recommended on ...
Parasound 2200 MkII: Mid 90's vintage 2 channel amp rated at 290W / chnl. Highly rated at the time by stereophile. I use it in mono (1000W) for my diy sub and this thing ROCKS.
Golden Tube SE40-SE: Mid 90's vintage tube amp that is highly thought of in certain communities. It is in stock form and the tubes were just biased.
Preamp for separates: Adcom 565. Mid 90's vintage pre-amp that was highly rated at the time by stereophile. I'm not so sure this preamp is very good, but it's the best I have at the moment. I'm working on this :)
Source: Marantz DV-8400. CD/ SACD/ DVD-A player.
Cables: Parts Express OFC 12Ga.
Musical Selection: Natalie Merchant - Live (CD). I'll report more musical selections within each amp review, but this is the only cd that is consistent among all amps.
The 1801's were run semi-flat with respect to the tweeter level. This is to say, the series resistor was 7 ohms and the parallel resistor was 12.5 ohms.
A moderate volume level is around 85 dB sustained. Loud is over 90 dB sustained.
On to the review and I want to apologize at the outset because I can't really write using the same flowery language that the stereophile guys write with:
Yamaha - In a word, "ugggghhhh". This wasn't very pretty and I couldn't listen to it for long. I don't think it had anywhere near enough power to drive the 1801's, as this thing was meant to drive those tiny speakers that come with it. There was absolutely no soundstage depth at all, everything was on one level, right out front. Width was almost as bad. I'm guessing there was alot of distortion because the vocals just didn't sound good. The bass was heavily artifacted, I'm guessing this was also distortion. The mix of the music was also incorrect, as it was very boomy in the bass and in the vocals. Just yuck, I turned it off. If one was looking to build the 1801's and all one had was a cheap japanese receiver, I'd say use your budget elsewhere. Build a Dennis Murphy MB20 or Plop-in-the-Box and buy a used, low power NAD reciever. You'll be much happier.
Sony - Now we are getting closer. This will drive the speakers and would work in a pinch. I'd rather have this reciever and the 1801's than almost anything else I've ever heard. This isn't to say that the Sony is great, it's not. It works and if I had never heard anything else, I'd be happy (maybe). The sound is sterile and dry. I think the 1801's make the amp sound just like it was designed to sound. There is nothing very magical about it, it's just there. Soundstage depth is ok, not great. Width is fairly narrow. Bass was ok, but I could tell that this amp also didn't deal well with the heavier, punchier bass. The bass wasn't articulated well, it came across as hollow. Maybe distorted? Midrange was ok and tolerable. Highs were not very detailed and there wasn't much "air" around cymbals, etc.
Adcom - Better. Bass is better than the Sony reciever, it is more coherant. Midrange was ok to ok+. High's were slightly raspy and it is a tad too bright. Again, nothing special, but it's definitely the best so far. Sound depth is better than the Sony and so is the width. I had the cover off of this amp and was able to monitor the voltages in the power supply during some loud vocal passages. With no load, the PS puts out about 51.6 DC. My Fluke tells me the minimum voltage during a loud passage was 47.8 DC for a voltage drop of close to 4 volts. I don't believe this is good, as it leads to distortion. During these loud passages, the vocals didn't sound very good either.
NAD - Better still. The midrange and treble sound the best of all amps so far. Soundstage depth and width is also the best. Bass isn't as tight as with the Adcom. I was able to use a speaker line relay switcher to switch between this amp and the Sony reciever from my listening position at will. The NAD's soundstage was wider and deeper. There was more detail (or is this grit?) around cymbals. It was more musical and is much more enjoyable to listen to than any amp so far, One drawback, the bass wasn't as tight. I think it's underdesigned power supply really hurts it here. If I want to listen to rock on the 1801's and turn it up, well this amp really doesn't cut, it runs out of steam.
Parasound - Things start to get interesting here. This amp definitely has the balls to deliver bass. The bass is tight and not distorted, even at higher volume levels. The 1801's are very impressive paired with this amp from a low frequency standpoint. Midrange and highs are a different story. The amp doesn't do high frequencies very well, there is a lack of air around cymbals and such. It definitely isn't as bright as the Adcom. Midrange is ok, probably on par with the Adcom. The Parasound seems to do a good job with classical, such as one of the new Living Stereo SACD's, Scheherazade. WOW, the dynamics really shine as the music changes from a soloist to the full orchestra. None of the other amps I've mentioned can play with the Parasound when it comes to reproducing the large dynamic range at loud volume levels of a full orchestra. Trouble is, when listening at lower volume levels, the NAD is a better sounding amp. More musical. This may have something to do with the menagerie of electrical components within the Parasound. There are dozens and dozens and dozens of resistors, caps and transistors and the signals goes through three different circuit boards before it's done. I'm thinking less is better from a pure sonic standpoint.
Golden Tube - Very interesting. Overall, not as good sounding as the NAD. However, this amp does have a pleasing midrange and female vocals though this amp and into the 1801's are heavenly. Mary Black - No Frontiers sounds the best I've ever heard it or her sound. Lots of musicality. The new Living Stereo SACD of Rubenstein Chopin's piano solo is gorgeous through this amp. It just sounds good. Very Good. Is it being faithfulling reproduced? I don't know. The problem with this amp is that the bass is not as tight as the NAD. It's not bad, it's just not tight. I'm guessing this may be because of a lack of power. In addition, I've been unable to reproduce a sharp, fast attack with a stringed instrument (guitar) at moderate volume levels. I'd really like to hear a pair of these amps, one for each speaker. Back to the flaws. The highs seemed to be rolled off, as there really seems to be a lack of air around all high frequency sounds. But again, oh that midrange. I love it. If this amp didn't roll off the upper end like it does, it would be marvelous. Finally, this amp by itself lacks power and won't play very loud. It'll play loud enough to give one a headache over a long period of time, but it won't blast you out of the room.
What have I learned from all this hard work (heh)? Well, the 1801's like power if you want to play them loud like you might with rock or a full orchestra. Decent electronics are a must. If a reciever is used, then it should be as good a quality as possible. Stick with Rotel or NAD. Lesser power seems to give a better sonic signature at the expense of woofer control when one turns up the volume. If you never listen to music very loud, then the lower power amps I'm using are fine.
I'm going to build an AKSA 55W amp, but after listening to all of these amps, I'm a little concerned that the AKSA 100W amp might be a tad bit better for me.
This has obviously been my opinion and in some cases it differs from what Dave (along with others) has heard and written about. My observations about power and bass may just be the fact that I'm using older, low power amps. I'd like to hear how the AKSA 55W stacks up against the Parasound in regards to woofer control during a full orchestral passage at a moderate to loud volume levels. I'll get to do that later this year when I build it :)
Jim
-
Ahhh, refreshing... something other than discussion about active crossovers and bi-amping.
Thanks very much for your post.
-
I plan to try both an Adcom 545 and a Hafler DH-500, both of which may be too much power, but would probably offer extended dynamics. I'll post results once I get built and tested.
-
I plan to try both an Adcom 545 and a Hafler DH-500, both of which may be too much power,
Hmmm,
Having too much power isn't automatically bad, but all things exist in the realm of compromise. Getting QUALITY parts and quality design in a bigger amplifier simply requires more cost $$$. Also, there are extremely valid arguments about bigger amps with more parts (even good quality parts) simply being inferior to smaller amps that are more simple. There is also some discussion on power supply inductors that are figured into the impedance of the circuit, but I don't fully comprehend this. I have read that smaller inductors have less impedance and will sound... faster.?
but would probably offer extended dynamics
Yes, there are also valid issues about bigger amps and "headroom", but until reaching any clipping, this is not audible. In my very humble opinion, this "wives tale" about the need for excessive headroom comes from mediocre amplifiers with quickly fading electrolytic capacitors that spent too much time on the shelf before arriving in customers audio systems. The capacitors dry, the ESR rises, and they will not filter power-line trash. These amplifiers simply will not meet their advertised ratings. There are probably other explanations too, but... I don't know any other explanations. Also, I must admit this arena is not my forte'.
I feel somewhat comfortable with my @1988 125wpc Kendwood 2 channel receiver cleanly driving about 40wpc. I don't have a good explanation for this, and cannot back this scientifically. I do know that my old Bryston 3b-ST pushed SIGNIFICANTLY more power through the speakers, yet had the same power rating. With GOOD quality amplifiers, about 60wpc SS or 35wpc tube is all that's needed for the 1801b. A guy could probably manage with about 25wpc SET tube, but I haven't tried this yet.
I really have no "chip on my shoulder" for higher powered amplifiers. I am simply oriented towards value in these issues. Given the hard-earned $ in my wallet, I'd much rather spend it on 60wpc SS than 120wpc SS.
Dave
-
If anyone is looking for really good amplification to drive their 1801s, I'm selling my AKSA amps.
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=18847
If you are on a budget , you should consider the Panasonic XR series of receivers using digital input. I've heard them with the 1801s and they sound very good. This is about $250-400.
Better still are the AKSAs but you have to build them or buy mine.
Al
-
Why... would you be selling these amps? What could you replace them with that could sound better for that $$?
Dave
-
This weekend I listened to a 5 channel UcD180 amplifier that Kevin Haskins from diycable.com built. Tried it out with Adires' new line of speakers and Andy's (awm) 1801.
mac, Andy and I commented that we had not heard the 1801's with better SLAM on the low end. The digital amps puts out much more output from the Excel woofer. What also surprised us was the better imaging which was already very good with the AKSA N. With the Hypex, it was wider. No fancy caps, just TSU Panasonics and one large single toroidal transformer using a VCA preamp, no signal through the pots. The NuForce amp that is getting alot of press uses similar design as the Hypex UcD, according to Bruno who designed the modules while at Philips and now works for Hypex.
Again, I have not applied the Nirvana Plus upgrade which Hugh says is significant. And the top-end with the Hypex is probably better with the AKSA, more extended and tube-like.
Hope that helps,
Al
-
I can't comment on the digital amps because I have not hear them. I can comment that I have a new favorite amp, and that my list of sonic priority has been re-ordered. This list has been confirmed by my wife and one other audiphile/musician.
1. Dynaco ST70 modified by Frank VanAlstine - Ultimate 70
Additional comments: My amp has Sonicaps in the coupling circuit and the smaller .47uf sonicaps bypassing some of the other electrolytic capacitors. I have accomplished this effort personally on few pieces of source gear with very positive results verified by several folks. Frank found the sonicaps had some impact, but is undecided about any BENEFIT from the Sonicaps. Mr. Vanalstine marginally preferred the standard version without Sonicaps, but Mrs. VanAlstine preferred the Sonicap version. My vast experience in this arena leads me to believe the family member with the title "Mrs." is always correct :) .
I purchased my amplifier on ebay and mailed it directly to Frank. Upon arrival at my home it appeared in much better condition than when purchased via ebay. Frank did a dandy job on this amplifier and it appears nearly new. The binding posts are new, the rca's are new, the rusty spots are gone. The amp looks very nice!
I really don't know what Frank did to this amplifier to make is sound so good and so detailed. The resultion is exemplary throughout the range - even the bass. I suppose the overall quality could be the from the tube rectifier, or the choke, but... there must be something else happening here. I really don't know what he did, but it works very well.
Also, I don't think the mods for the AVA modified ST70 are very difficult, and could easily be performed by anyone with modest ability and a soldering iron. I will likely be building another one of these for another system.
I use a Creek OBH-12 passive preamp with this amp. The AVA modified ST70 input impedance is fairly high, so an active preamp is not necessary IMO.
2. AKSA fully modified Nirvana+ 55wpc amp.
This amp will push more juice than the AVA modified ST70, but doesn't quite have the resolution. It's an extremely capable amp with the 1801, and might be the best SS amp I have experienced.
3. Jolida 302b with my mods.
I did not fully implement ALL of the mods ala Response Audio, and this could be the "difference" between the AVA modified ST70 and the Jolida 302b. I cannot be sure, and I haven't a/b tested this. I do know there is a fairly significant gap in performance between the Jolida 302b (my mods) and the AVA modified ST70.
-
Dave, is this the new Ultimate 70 from AVA, or an older model?
-
Dave's amp is our new Ultimate 70 amplifier, not the older Super 70i version.
We were really glad to hear that Dave's response to it is identical to every single customer's so far.
Frank Van Alstine
-
I have a huge respect for Dave and Frank Van Alstine. But I doubt that a Dyna ST-70 is able to drive the 1801bs. Just because the question oo how much power needs 1801b was just keep coming back in my head in the last couple of months, I decided to test the, So, I gave them to a friend that is engineer in Paradigm factory. He took them to the factory and tested them under the most demanding conditions.
And, the answer to ethernal question is now clear: Ellis 1801b need 176.77 watts per channel in 8 ohms. This would be the ideal. More watts it will be equally harmfull as less watts.
-
He took them to the factory and tested them under the most demanding conditions.
Objectively... exactly what condidtions were tested? ... you really don't need to answer. I do realize a complete dissertation on this issue would be extremely long. Nonetheless, I'd be hapy to entertain this if desired.
Subjectively... I have heard Paradigm speakers up to the $1500 commercial level and 3-5 1801 customers have happily replaced their Paradigm speakers up to the $3k level with 1801 speakers. The 1801 hasn't "encountered" a more expensive Paridigm speaker. It appears the criteria & focus of the folks at Paradigm produces a set of results very different than my results. I obviously believe my results are correct. Paradigm believes their results are correct. Even after a very lengthly discussion of criteria and methodology we would agree to disagree.
On the amplifier realm, I can address a few issues, but remain very subjective in my decision regarding amplifier recommendations. Have you ever listened to the 1801b through an El34 push pull amplifer? Has the paradigm engineer every listened to the 1801b through a Push Pull tube amp.
Digressing... my very first a/b experience with a tube amplifier was at Mike Bengfort's home in Minneapolis MN. Mike had 3 amplifiers. All of them played the same music on some Vifa/SEAS 2-way speakers with @85db sensitivity and no impedance compensation. My subjective thoughts were:
1. 8wpc Cary 300b SET. The worst of the group on Mike's speakers. The saxophone was wonderfuly holographic on a very simple Jazz track, but there were no dynamics.
2. 15wpc El84 push pull Pilot 240 tube amplifer. Holy buckets... only 15wpc from that cheap looking @1964 amplifier??!! It was sweet, smooth, fairly detailed and pushed solid sound pressure. This experience totally astounded me!
3. VanAlstine 120wpc solid state amplifier @2002. This amplifier was also very good, and right for the system. However, at normal listening levels I didn't subjectively find it any better than the 15wpc Pilot 240.
Ellis 1801b need 176.77 watts per channel in 8 ohms.
Summary... I disagre with these findings.
HOWEVER, amplifier "ratings" vary. Certainly a 176.77wpc Home Theater (HT) amplifier would be just right for the 1801 since the per channel agreed upon (not enforced) standard for HT amplifiers is 1 channel driven at a time. Given a 2 channel load, the power supply output will drop to about 88wpc. :) This would seem about correct.
There are further issues about amplifier testing with regard to burst tones versus extended loads and their testing. There is also the issue of even order versus odd order harmonic distortion. There are actually many issues herein. I cannot comment at length regarding this issue, but can certainly enlist the help of someone who can if the issue heads this direction. As such, I am very open to entertain this discussion too.
I will certainly allow that my old Kenwood 125wpc receiver clipped significantly sooner than my Bryston 3B-ST 120wpc amplifier. My subjective opinion is that the Kenwood audibly clipped at the same SPL as my Jolida 302b. The Bryston 3B-ST and AVA 550EXR had significantly more power, but this wasn't necessary. IMO, these amplifiers represent too much added amplifier wattage circuitry the 1801 simply doesn't require from an SPL perspective.
I must be completely honest about my motives in this discussion. My interest in all of this discussion is purely selfish. It's in my personal self-interest to ensure that my 1801s are fed the best possible signal possible. I want the 1801s to sound their best. This requires wise desicisions in the amplifier realm.
Hmm.... after reading my remarks above, they look slightly agressive. They look like a very solid "slam dunk". This sentiment is NOT my intent. My intent is to simply convey my thoughts on the matter in a very thorough manner. I welcome any feedback regarding these thoughts, and remain very open to further discussion.
-
Years ago I made a comment in Audio Basics that technophiies measuring "watts" was somewhat like weighing meat on a balance scale. I suggested that the old Stereo Review people could put a 20 pound prime rib on one side of the scale and 20 pounds of White Castles on the other (paper wrapper, soggy bun and boiled onions and all) and say, "these balance, therefore they are exactly the same, so have a nice White Castle banquet".
Unfortunately I have not heard Dave's 1801 speakers yet (that will change this summer) but I do know that the Ultimate 70 does a pretty astonishing job driving my old B&W 801 speakers and these speakers were considered really hard to drive even with most high powered solid state amplifiers.
I can report that most of the time, even with inefficient speakers, the amp power being used is less that 10 watts. I would suggest that its probably more important to get the first 20 watts really right than anything else.
After you hear a Ultimate 70, I think you too would agree that very few are getting that first 20 watts even close to right.
Frank Van Alstine
-
Dear Dave,
was far from me the intention to compare 1801b with Paradigm speakers. And was far from me the intention to criticize in a way or another Ellis speakers (that I own). My pure intention, as yours, is and was to find what amplifier(s) are best fitted with 1801b crossover and drivers.
I cannot tell you about the testing conditions, because Iwasn't there. I can assure you tough that no one have seen the crossover or other internal parts. Just because my speakers are closed by Jim Salk and I would never let someone open them other then Jim and you.
What I can say is that they have been tested for 3 days in a raw. Including tube amplification (VTL and Rogue as long as I understood).
Regarding the optimum of 177W that is RMS, both channel driven. I am sorry - but this are the results. I didn't posted this to argue, but rather to let other Ellis owners know that they speakers can do much better with more powered amps. I didn't hear yet Frank's Fet Valve 350EXR, but, I guess, that will do justice to 1801b.
Other amps that I didn't listen yet, but I guess will be a good fit are Plinius 8200P and SimAudio W5.
I know Bryston stuff very well - sorry to say it, but they are nothing else then rudimentar in providing sweet dynamics and "musicality". Bryston and Jolida are not in the league that they claim to be.
-
I just talked with my friend. He specified that any power between 70w-175w it will be just fine. He said 175W is just the optimum, but the results are excellent with 70W also.
-
I can assure you tough that no one have seen the crossover or other internal parts. Just because my speakers are closed by Jim Salk and I would never let someone open them other then Jim and you.
Thanks very much for this consideration. I did think about it, but it doesn't really worry me. Professionals in hifi loudspeakers construction are VERY aware of the cost of the components in a loudspeaker. As such, there is no room for anyone in commercial hifi to profit from the 1801. Now... if the 1801 sold for $10k I'd have to encapsulate the crossover in a potting compound. At $5k I might encapsulate the crossover. At $1500 there is no need for significant protection.
He said 175W is just the optimum, but the results are excellent with 70W also.
I wonder if he used thermal compression, linear X-Max, or maxiumum X-Max to derive his numbers. :?:
Anyhow, I must admit that my estimation is solely based on necessary SPL for listening, and then a little bit "more". The "more" depicts an SPL that is simply too loud for listening to anything for longer than about 3 minutes. These levels are fully viable with 35wpc tube or a good 60wpc SS. My 120wpc Bryston and the AVA 550EXR DID push more spl from the 1801, but this level of sound pressure was totally unnecessary IMO. It was damaging. At normal listening levels smaller amplifiers make more sense, and sound better - in my limited experience.
I know Bryston stuff very well - sorry to say it, but they are nothing else then rudimentar in providing sweet dynamics and "musicality". Bryston and Jolida are not in the league that they claim to be.
I haven't listened to a completely commercial (i.e. unmodified) amplifier for about 3 years in my living room. The unmodified Jolida 302b sounded subjectively better than my Bryston, but after mods the sonic discrepancy was profound! 6 years ago I though the Bryston ST sounded pretty good, but really cannot address anything more recent. Surely there might have been some changes in years past. I also have never a/b compared any Plinius or Sim gear in my system.
I auditioned a version of Franks 550EXR with the 1801 manufactured about 2 years ago. This version fell significantly behind the Jolida 302b, but Frank claims the latest version of his SS amps are the cats-meow. I cannot attest to this. I can convey that his Ultimate 70 is profoundly better than I ever expected. It betters all other amps in my system. However, the 55wpc AKSA Nirvana + is very close.
Including tube amplification (VTL and Rogue as long as I understood).
Please excuse my memory, but... what are you currently using? And, did you ever have the opportunity to try a lower (i.e. El34 push pull) powered tube unit?
-
I wonder if he used thermal compression, linear X-Max, or maxiumum X-Max to derive his numbers.
I have NO idea what they used, but they tested them to maximum in anachoic chamber.
Regarding the SPL - here I am fully with you. I never ever listen to more then 90db, and that for very short period time. Even 70-80 db is a little bit too loud for my taste. But it depends - if there is demanding material, I might need to go in this range.
To conclude, most of the time I listen around 60-70db.
I have to agree that for listening experiences under 90db, probably 35W are just enough in medium rooms.
But you will have to agree also that in VERY large rooms (as some of today basements are) 35W might not be enough.
I am currently using a Thule IA60B - 65W per channel, stable to at least 4 ohms, recognized for its POWERFULL bass and slam. And matched with more sensitive speakers, indeed - Thule IS impressing. With 1801b is just another amplifier.
And to clarify a bit - not the loudness is what I need/missing. The quickness and the slam. With more sensitive speakers, Thule was just impressing in proving transients, dynamics and slam. To paraphrase Frank - was a TIGER. Now, with 1801b is a litlle nice cat.
I guess Frank will have another customer for his latest Dyna mod.
I just have to find one in good condition and ship it to him.
-
My current listening room is 14.5' deep 36' wide with 10' ceilings. While this isn't huge, it does amount to about 5000 cubic feet. I think the old 35wpc amp does just fine. My basement will be bigger volumetrically, but it's not finished yet.
More sensitive speakers will have less thermal compression and sound more dynamic. The only objective caution here is that 4 ohm speakers (most are 4 ohm nowdays) will pass double the current of an 8 ohm speaker at the same sensitivity rating (2.83 volts). Another way to objectively compare this is 85db @ 8 ohm speakers are equivalent to 82db @ 4 ohm speakers with regard to thermal compression. There are some other variables (i.e. thicker voice coil wire) that will factor into the degree of thermal compression, but a 3db differential between 8 ohm and 4 ohm speakers is objectively fair when comparing the degree of thermal compression.
There are many areas where distortion happens in hifi. Thermal compression IS one of them. However, due to economics, trends and in-store perception there is a continual trend towards LESS sensitive speakers.
If you are planning to send a Dyna amp to Frank, don't worry about the condition. My ST70 looked pretty ugly on ebay, but wonderful when it arrived from AVA. I think Frank has some fancy rust removing paste that he uses on the ST70 chassis. He also touched up the cage of my ST70 with some matching paint. The appearance is VERY nice! I don't know if Frank does this for everyone, but my amp sure looked good.
However, if you have the inclination to solder, I suggest you buy the parts (or just the board) from Frank and accomplish the work on your own. The work looks VERY minimal.
Dave
-
Thanks a lot David. I am expecting this week-end a Hafler 9290. (Yes, onr of the first Jim Strickland designs in Hafler co.) It is rated 145W and very few people that I know are saying abut it that is very tubish and musical. (MOSFET output, J-FET inputs). Someone changed for me the caps and diodes (with Blackgates and IXYS).
I will se how I will like it.
If I won't like it I will definetelly become one of Mr. Van Alstine customers.
-
Someone changed for me the caps and diodes (with Blackgates and IXYS).
You might have a winner in that amp. I have heard from a few gents that the design of power amplifiers hasn't changed significnatly in about 30 years. However, the parts quality has changed. Them'r some good diodes and capacitors!
The problem with many capacitor swaps for older amps is real-estate. Simply, there just isn't enough physical space to use good capacitors in most SS gear. For some reason better electrolytic capacitors seem to be bigger than lesser quality units.
I planned to accomplish a gut and replace for the capacitors in my Marantz 2270 receiver, but took one peek under the hood. After about 3 minutes of debate I decided... no way :nono: . It would be much easier to start from scratch with a new case and circuit board.
Dave
-
Sunday I sold the Thule IA60B and I plugged in my "new" Hafler 9290 (modded - changed caps and bridge rectifiers). For the first 20 min, nothing to mention. But after, I decided to watch Jesus Christ Superstar. What a pleasent surprise. Acctually HUGE surprise! Hafler, although rated as "lower" hifi then the Thule, is doing a perfect job with the Ellis 1801b. Hafler is rated 145w per channel (Thule is 60W). Is more then I expected: of course Hafler is manging the speakers with great ease and non-chalance. You cannot feel the hidden power of the Hafler until is required, but when there are fast transients and sudden lows, then Hafler delivers. I am surprised also about the beautiful NATURAL way of delivering the mids and the highs - absolutely nothing tiring or strident. It sound just simply natural. IS not having that fancy "BLACK SILENCE" that so many audiophiles are looking for, but is just simply natural sounding. I guess that HAfler guys knew what they were doing when they designed this amp. is not fatiguing, and is very natural.
Finally I can say that my Ellis 1801b came to live. Now the Ellis speakers are delivering so much better then before. Until now I didn't appreciated them that much. Now, indeed - in this combination they sound very natural, a little bit romantic and beautiful. Is like a breeze.
As I expected, low sensitive speakers like these are loving power. Of course, the right power.
-
modded - changed caps and bridge rectifiers
Yep, better components can make a huge impact in the quality of an amplifier/preamp/CD player.
I think you said there are now primarily Black Gate caps and IXYS Hexfred's - correct?
I my humble opinion, the changes in component quality in the past 40 years FAR outweigh the changes in design quality.
Who modded your Hafler?
Dave
-
Hi David,
Hafler was modded, as all other electronics that I used by a local technician from Toronto (actually Hamilton). A local dealer who is selling VERY expensive and fancy stuff is using the same guy for repairs. So, I said to myself, if Rob (the dealer) trust this guy to repair for him electronics that cost several thousands dollars, why shouldn't I trust him to mod my electronics.
He replaced the caps with Blackgates and the diodes with IXYS.
He is a nice guy, and now is all over in my Coda Continuum Window II that is having the right channel dead (due to shipping problems - the package was opened at customs and NEVER closed after!!!). So, couple of days came as an open box, and God knows what else happened with it.
-
Unfortunately you aren't the first guy to have something damaged in shipping. :cry: :evil: :x
Dave
-
Now. I have done my own measurements and tests regarding the power needed for Ellis 1801b and SPL. In my room (18x16x10), MAXIMUM that I will ever need are 50W per channel. Supposing I will leave a little bit of headroom for not having distortation at maximum volumes, will mean everything needed are 70W per channel.
Now, very interesting, I found out that most of the time, at normal listening levels (SPL 75-85db), most of the time are used ONLY 7-8 watts!!!
Now is making sense why Jolida 302b (50W) and AKSA 55N+ (55W) are good matches for Ellis 1801b.
But, if you would like to cover ALL the bases (the lows), without introducing distortation, then 70W should be chosen.
-
I used this document to due my calculations: http://www.jblpro.com/pub/manuals/pssdm_1.pdf
-
Argh!! I just typed a big long response, but it got dumped. I think the library computer doesn't connect with the audiocircle server very well. this response will be much shorter.
Anyhow...
Now, very interesting, I found out that most of the time, at normal listening levels (SPL 75-85db), most of the time are used ONLY 7-8 watts!!!
I am not sure if you are referring to using 7-8 watts average or 7-8 watt peaks. However, there is a very easy way to measure the average power dissipated across you speakers. It applies the following very simple forumlae. I won't get into any of the thicker stuff here, because average power consumption is only 1/5th or 1/10th of the peaks. This application is, howver, very useful to determine how much power you are really using when you listen.
1. Watts = Amps * Volts
2.. Amps = Voltage/Resistance in ohms
The method for application is thus.
1. Measure the Resistance across your loudspeakers with NO speaker cable attached. This resistance should be about 6.2 ohms with the 1801
2. Turn on your stereo at a comfortably loud level with MUSIC being applied through the speakers.
3. Measure the Voltage drop across the speaker terminals. For simplicity sake, we will assum 3.1 volts of drop across the terminals.
Applying these numbers is simple.
Amps = 3.1 volts/6.2 ohms resistance
There are .5 amps of current flowing across the terminals.
Watts = 6.2 volts * .5 amps
There are 3.1 watts being dissipated across the terminals.
A few of my customers have accomplished this task and all have been VERY surprised.
Eventually I'll get around to some very real satire regarding how the marketing game of "high power" amplifiers came into vogue. For now... I'll continue to convey that in the realm of hifi compromise, the smartest set of amplifier compromises for the 1801 points toward about 35wpc push pull tube (commonly El34), or a 60wpc SS amplifier. More power isn't better.
-
Just to let everybody know - I got a Dynaco ST-70 and will be modded by Mr. Van Alstine. I will let everybody know my opinion when it will be here (about 2 months).
-
Groovy,
It may not be completely clear from my comments elsewhere, but Mrs. VanAlstine and I agree on the choice of coupling capacitors. However, only she has actually performed a solid a/b test. We prefer sonicaps. :wink:
Frank will likely grumble a bit if you ask for them. I suggest simply reminding Mr. VanAlstine that his wife is correct. :lol:
The capacitors will cost about $70 from Soniccraft. You could certainly do this work later.
BTW, Frank made my old grungy ST70 look very nice He's got some really slick polish and some paint that matched the cage perfectly.
-
Groovy,
It may not be completely clear from my comments elsewhere, but Mrs. VanAlstine and I agree on the choice of coupling capacitors. However, only she has actually performed a solid a/b test. We prefer sonicaps. :wink:
Frank will likely grumble a bit if you ask for them. I suggest simply reminding Mr. VanAlstine that his wife is correct. :lol:
The capacitors will cost about $70 from Soniccraft. You could certainly do this work later.
BTW, Frank made my old grungy ST70 look very nice He's got some really slick polish and some paint that matched the cage perfectly.
I just thought I'd add that AVA has taken what they've learned from the U-70 and applied it to a new model, the T-8 preamp. All tube, and they say it outperforms all of the older preamps, even more expensive ones.
I do agree that AVA goes above and beyond in terms of cleaning up customer's equipment. Frank told a tale of a customer who sent in an amp, and evidently the cat had been peeing into it... They had to take it out and leave it in the sun for a while... :)
-
I just thought I'd add that AVA has taken what they've learned from the U-70 and applied it to a new model, the T-8 preamp. All tube, and they say it outperforms all of the older preamps, even more expensive ones.
I can only convey the Ultimate 70 might be the best amp I have heard. This crowd includes an AVA550EXR, and my Modified Jolida 302b, and a whoppin modified AKSA 55.
Dave
-
I recently replaced the amp section of my Creek 4330SE integrated with an NAD C272 power amp, and I thought some of you might be interested in the comparison. (I'm currently using the "preamp" section of the Creek as a passive controller.)
In my opinion, it's a definite step up. With the amp section of the Creek driving my 1801Fs, they sounded like very good mini-monitors. With the NAD amp driving them, they sound like very good floorstanders. Drums now have much more weight and impact, and bass details are better. I don't sense any loss of refinement or any other problems higher up.
Using my SPL meter and a Stereophile test CD, I measured my system with both amps.
(http://home.hiwaay.net/~rgs/ellis1801f/bassResponseCreekNad.png)
(There are a few more details in the Listening section of my 1801F web page: http://home.hiwaay.net/~rgs/ellis1801f/listening.html)
I never expected to hear or measure such major differences between amps. It just reinforces how important system matching really is.
I know that many audiophiles look down on NAD equipment, considering it "mid-fi" or worse, but I think it's worthy of consideration for driving the 1801s.
This experience also makes me appreciate the 1801Fs even more than before. They really are an outstanding value.
Ron
-
Excellent stuff.
I am a bit surprised, but... okay! Your results appear solid.
Thanks a bunch for your contribution.
-
Ron,
Very interesting post- thanks! Like Dave, I'm surpised at the very different results you measured. Almost like night and day! Clearly an improvement :D .
Regarding NAD, you are correct in pointing out that there is a certain faction of the audiophile community that tends to look down on NAD gear. I'ts likely they've never heard it. While there are products that might do better in one aspect or another, the NAD stuff is for real.
Again, thanks for the enlightening post..
WEEZ
-
Ron,
Very interesting post- thanks! Like Dave, I'm surpised at the very different results you measured. Almost like night and day! Clearly an improvement :D .
Regarding NAD, you are correct in pointing out that there is a certain faction of the audiophile community that tends to look down on NAD gear. I'ts likely they've never heard it. While there are products that might do better in one aspect or another, the NAD stuff is for real.
Again, thanks for the enlightening post..
WEEZ
I too am surprised at the difference. One of those amps must be doing a really lousy job, and I'd bet it isn't the NAD. :)
NAD offers a really good value, and very good performance, even on an absolute scale. I think there is a lot of very high-priced stuff out there that would be embarassed by the "lowly" NAD gear.
Some other mass-produced brands that I feel might be in the same league as NAD are Rotel, Parasound, and Denon. I'd still look to NAD first out of these though.
-
A few weeks ago, I posted a graph showing some pretty dramatic differences between the amp section of a Creek 4330SE vs. an NAD C272 power amp in my system. The results were surprising to me, and to everyone who commented on them.
Somebody mentioned my measurements in a long, somewhat contentious thread on amp differences, blind vs. sighted tests, etc. over on the Madisound board. A few people there also commented that the measurements made no sense.
Well, this morning I finally re-took the measurements, and I found the explanation. The Creek measurements I took a few months ago were correct. The NAD measurements are also correct--if you do something silly like connect one of the speakers with the red and black leads reversed. That is, my NAD measurements were taken with the speakers connected out of phase! Once I connected them correctly, the NAD numbers were essentially identical to the Creek's.
Needless to say, I'm quite embarassed about this, and I wanted to post a correction as soon as possible. At least there's one less thing in the world for me to puzzle over.
Ron
-
Thanks for the post. You are not alone in this endeavor. I have swapped polarity many times. Most of these swaps were internal, but a few have been external. Fortunately I have a measurement jig that always catches the former, and a wife ( and sometimes me) that always catches the latter. :)
Been there, done that.
So, does your subjective contention remain the same - you prefer the NAD amplifier slightly?
-
Thanks for the post. You are not alone in this endeavor. I have swapped polarity many times. Most of these swaps were internal, but a few have been external. Fortunately I have a measurement jig that always catches the former, and a wife ( and sometimes me) that always catches the latter.
The Stereophile CD has a nice track for detecting this sort of thing. It's a track of a dog barking four times: once in the left channel only, again in the right channel only, in both channels in phase, and in both channels out of phase. In in-phase section, the dog is centered between the speakers. In the out-of-phase section, the dog is smeared across the soundstage.
Of course, tracks like this are only useful if I take the time to listen to them. I think that I hooked up the NAD (incorrectly), played a few song selections, liked the added fullness, and assumed everything was OK, and never double-checked the polarity.
After I posted about my error earlier today, I did go back and make sure I wired both woofers correctly relative to the posts. I disconnected everything, then used a 1.5 volt battery to make sure both woofers moved the same direction when connected to the battery the same way. They did, so I think I'm OK there.
So, does your subjective contention remain the same - you prefer the NAD amplifier slightly?
I really don't know what my subjective impression is now. It's as if I just received the new amp today. I think that any differences I am able to discern (assuming there are any) will be subtle.
Ron
-
Back in July, I posted here about a new NAD C272 amp I had purchased, and about how sounded better and measured differently from the amp in the Creek 4330SE I had been using before. It later turned out that those differences were the result of my connecting the 1801Fs to the NAD out of phase. Once I fixed that, the measurements and the sound were basically identical. So my amp upgrade was more of a lateral move.
I wanted to move the Creek to an upstairs section, so I needed a preamp to pair with the NAD in my main system. Since then, I've been experimenting with other passive and active preamps, and I thought I'd share some impressions.
Aside from the Creek, the first passive I tried was the FT Audio LW1 (with the remote option). That passive is very nicely made, and Paul Lam is great to work with, but that unit simply did not work in my system. The sound was just too bright and forward (the opposite effect of what I was seeking), even after a full week's break-in. I had some ergonomic issues with it too. I couldn't turn the volume knob past 9 o'clock before the sound got too loud, so the knob had very little usable range. The remote sensor unit had a very bright blue LED that was distracting and almost painful to look at in a semi-dark room.
After the LW1 experience, I did a lot of reading about passives and impedance matching, and I seriously considering building my own passive, hoping to end up with something that sounded similar to the Creek.
As a sanity check, I made a passive using Radio Shack parts, including dual-mono 10K pots. The whole thing cost about $15 and took about two hours to build. I actually liked the way my system sounded with this passive more than I did with the LW1, but the sound was still on the bright side, and it was kind of flat and uninvolving.
Still, I planned on going forward with a DIY passive with better parts, provided that I could find a 20K ALPS remote-controlled pot (the same pot that's in the Creek). I was even going to build a remote sensor/controller from a DIYCable.com kit. I ran into a roadblock here: I couldn't find a vendor for that pot anywhere. I could have ordered an OBH-22, but it has only three inputs, and I wanted at least four, in case I ever add another source.
At this point, I was pretty frustrated. It had been months, and I was still without a preamp. I decided that I was going to try two active preamps. If neither of them worked, I was going to keep the Creek as a preamp, and buy a cheap integrated for my upstairs system. The candidates were an Anthem TLP-1 (because there's an Athem dealer in town) and a Parasound New Classic 2000 from Audio Advisor.
I decided to try the Parasound first, because of AA's return policy. My Anthem dealer doesn't stock the TLP-1 or have a demo unit, so auditioning that unit would have been more of a hassle than ordering from AA.
When I called AA about the Parasound preamp, the sales guy said they had jumped the gun a bit on that New Classic preamp. It was in their paper catalog, but not on their web site. It turns out that the preamp wasn't shipping yet, and he didn't know when it would be available. AA also sells the Parasound Halo P3 preamp, but at $800, it was more than I wanted to spend.
So I procrastinated, checking the AA site periodically and generally researching the P3 even though it was too expensive. As luck would have it, a demo P3 became available at AA for $650, and a B-stock unit for $597. Those prices were better (cheaper than the LW1 with remote). I called AA, and the salesman recommended the B-stock unit over the demo unit, so I ordered it.
Within 30 minutes of inserting the P3 into my system, I was very encouraged that I had picked a winner. Various tracks I played sounded more full-bodied and dynamic than before. I then asked my wife to listen, and I played one of her favorite songs, "A Piece of Sky" from Barbra Streisand's Yentl soundtrack. As the song ended, I saw her wiping tears from her eyes, and I knew she liked this combination way better than anything I've had since I replaced my Spendors with 1801s. (She had a hard time even staying in the room with some of the passives.)
I've had the P3 for a few weeks now, and it's a great improvement. The tonal balance of my system is better. My system conveys more of the the emotion and fun of music. Everything just sounds more fleshed out and alive. On the audiophile side, the imaging/soundstaging seems better. There's more detail, without brightness or harshness.
Using the same test CD I've used before, I measured my system with the P3 in place. This time, I expected to see differences in the numbers, but I didn't. But the sonic differences are unmistakable.
Looking back, I can make these observations:
- I think my system is not well-suited for a passive. My Rega Planet's output impedance is about 1Kohm, and the NAD's input impedance is 22Kohm (1.3 input sensitivity). I can get plenty of volume from a passive, but not enough drive/dynamics.
- I suspect that the Creek's passive (20Kohm pot) rolls off the highs, compensating somewhat for the lack of grunt lower down, making the sound more pleasing to me.
- I don't know the LW1's output impedance. (It's not specified, and the LW1 has that X-coupler circuit in it.) I suspect it didn't not roll off the highs, making it sound too bright.
- The people who say passives are very system dependent are right.
- In my system, switching solid state amps made little difference, while switching various passives and preamps made a big difference.
- Always trust your wife's ears.
Ron
-
Thanks Ron!
Yes, this is very solid experience, and very good insight.
The amplifiers I have used in my system have ALL been 46k ohms input impedance or greater. This could be the reason the active preamps sounded inferior. In all of this I also trust the advice of my wife :) .
Also, I have learned recently that subwoofer plate amplifiers all have terribly low input impedance. Please induge me in a short rant. I haven't found one of them with a plate impedance @50k ohm. There are a few with 22k ohm input impedance, but this just isn't high enough. The crux of the low input impedance is the burden placed on the preamp. In many/most cases the preamp will require additional boost (i.e. no passive preamps allowed) to accomodate the low input impedance of these plate amps. However, I suppose it's much more fashionable to sell a 400wpc preamp with 25k ohm input impedance than to sell a 200wpc preamp with 50k ohm input impedance. This is frustrating for a guy concerned with quality :evil: .
In the realm of "difficult loads" amplifiers are no different than speakers. Low impedance in either component requires more current draw from their source. The burden of producing a quality signal is being pushed upstream. This is a sad trend.
-
# I suspect that the Creek's passive (20Kohm pot) rolls off the highs, compensating somewhat for the lack of grunt lower down, making the sound more pleasing to me.
# I don't know the LW1's output impedance. (It's not specified, and the LW1 has that X-coupler circuit in it.) I suspect it didn't not roll off the highs, making it sound too bright.
# The people who say passives are very system dependent are right.
# In my system, switching solid state amps made little difference, while switching various passives and preamps made a big difference.
# Always trust your wife's ears.
Hi Ron,
I wish that I've had the opportunity to give the LW1 a try...but so far I haven't been so lucky. But who knows what the future will bring :)
I've run the creek passive in a couple of different situations and systems. While I love this little preamp for it's small size, remote and price. I've always thought that it not only rolled off the highs...but left a good veil over the music.
So far the passive that I've liked the most has been the S&B Tx102 based NOH preamp. Although I've recently sold the unit to go active with my DEQX-p (I needed more money in my audio budget;) ) But it would have been nice to compare the S&B Tx102 to my Sowter based pre that's currently in pieces. One of these days I gotta get that things done ;)
I'm not sure what your system is...but do you have any room treatments set up?
take care,
dan
-
Dan,
Thanks for your contribution! Did you prefer the S&B magnetic transformer over stepped attenuators too?
I must admit trying a Bottlehead stepped unit several years ago. I couldn't really hear the difference between the stepped attenuator and my Creek passive in a left/right test. I do realize my test was somewhat crude, and potentially unfair.
Following your remarks, I am tempted to try another stepped attenuator. My system is slightly better than @3 years ago. I might hear some impact from the stepped attenuator this time.
Dave
-
Hi Dan,
I wish that I've had the opportunity to give the LW1 a try...but so far I haven't been so lucky. But who knows what the future will bring :)
Even though it didn't work for me, I'm glad I tried out the LW1 too, given how much I've read about it. It was a very expensive audition, though. I ended up paying shipping costs both ways, and I had to pay for two USPS international money orders (max is $700 per money order, any my order was for $735) and the mailing fee. Shipping to/from Canada turned out to be a bigger pain then I expected (very slow, little to no tracking information) too. But, live and learn...
So far the passive that I've liked the most has been the S&B Tx102 based NOH preamp. Although I've recently sold the unit to go active with my DEQX-p (I needed more money in my audio budget;) ) But it would have been nice to compare the S&B Tx102 to my Sowter based pre that's currently in pieces.
I've read lots of good things about the NOH too, but I've never heard it or any other transformer-based passive.
I'm not sure what your system is...but do you have any room treatments set up?
My sources are a Rega Planet, a Sony STS-730ES tuner, and Panasonic DMR-E80 DVR/DVD player. My preamp is a Parasould Halo P3, and my amp is an NAD C272. I haven't regretted the P3 purchase at all.
My system is in our living room. I don't have any room treatments, and the setup is definitely non-optimal. (I have a huge entertainment center between the two speakers.) Nonetheless, it sounds good to me.
There's a lot more info about my speakers and system on the web page I created. I still need to update the Listening Impressions section.
http://home.hiwaay.net/~rgs/ellis1801f/default.html
Ron
-
Dan,
Thanks for your contribution! Did you prefer the S&B magnetic transformer over stepped attenuators too?
Dave
The only stepped attenuators that I've tried have been in either active preamps...or integrated amplifiers. I've only given a So I really wouldn't be able to give a good comparison between the two.
I may be wiring my brothers amp with a DACT attenuator. But I really did like the S&B pre. I'll be interested to see how the Sowter sounds compared to the S&B. My plans are to use the Sowter based transformer pre in my DIY area.
Oh...Send me your mailing address in a pm...
dan
-
The only stepped attenuators that I've tried have been in either active preamps...or integrated amplifiers. I've only given a So I really wouldn't be able to give a good comparison between the two.
Thanks for your candor.
I spent a couple hours of web-time reading about the S&B 102. This is very intriguing. It seems these units have found significant favor among the hifi crowd. However, they are a bit expensive for a preamp, but...
I have also done some reading about transformer coupling versus capacitor coupling in amplifiers. The general consensus is that transformer coupling is a better set of compromises.
However, the comparison in this situation is with very low level signal. AND the comparison is between resistors (i.e. a stepped attenuator), and a magnetic coupling. Hmmm, I am only able to loosely grasp the theoretical issues. I think more reading is necessary. The concepts should be fairly simple. Thermal compression and inductance would seem to be the primary issues.
Oh...Send me your mailing address in a pm...
My mailing address is public. It's on my home page at http://www.ellisaudio.com
Dave
-
Dave,
Since reading about you having both set-ups of mod Golden Tube vs. mod Dynaco @ Chicago AudioFest, I've being looking forward to your thoughts between them.
My compliments for the great job and all who assist to get this show together for the community.
Look forward to your comments.
Thanks,
Doug
-
In Chicago with a fairly large room and about 10 gents, we did some gear comparisons. Given the amplifiers I recommend, only the modified Jolida 302 was not present.
My revised list of reccommended amplifiers in order of preference is thus.
1. Golden Tube SE40 modified by www.soniccraft.com
2. Dynaco ST70 upgraded to an "Ultimate 70" by www.avahifi.com
3. AKSA Nirvana + 55wpc or 100wpc
4. Jolida 302b with modifications.
ALL of these amplifiers are darn good, and I could easily live with any of them, but this is my preference.
I must admit the only truly signficant sonic difference I hear among them is a slightly lean bass in the Ultimate 70 amplifier. The bass is tuneful and accurate, but not rich and deep. I really can't explain this, but believe this is true. I will also admit the difference between the Ultimate 70 and AKSA amplifier seemed greater in my living room than in Chicago. I can't explain this phenomena.
I can explain that the modified SE40 has a taste of that SET sound that many folks crave. The SE40 is certainly not a triode amplifer, but sounds absolutely wonderful. In this regard, Jeff placed a global feedback switch on the back of my amplifier. The audience agreed the sound was better with the global feedback turned off. I also have a tube heater switch on the back of my SE40. I am able to turn the heaters on before tuning the B+ voltage on. This should help my tubes last longer, but has no impact on sound quality.
At this point, I remain smitten with the sound quality of my Golden tube SE40. It's truly wonderful.
However, as mentioned above, all of these amplifiers are darn good. I could easily be happy with any of them.
On the subject of amplifier reccommendations, I performed a comparison with a the bigger FET Valve stuff when visiting Frank VanAlstine at his home a few months ago. Frank managed to apply the Ultimate 70 mojo to his larger amplifiers. The sound quality of his larger amps was much better than I recall from @ 1yr ago, and extremely close to the sound quality of the Ultimate 70. Hence, I also reccommend the FET Valve gear from Frank for those gents having too much money to spend and an itch for unnecessary power.
I must also mention that my SE40 sounded extremely mediocre before modifications. Frankly, I'd rather listen to my old Bryston 3B-ST. After the SE40 modifications, the matter changed dramatically. I suspected this would happen, and it did. :) So, for those folks who are frustrated with their SE40, don't despair or worry about throwing "good money after bad". The @$1k I spent on my SE40 was very worthwhile :!:
-
Hi Dave,
I sure wish i lived closer to the action and could demo equipment without going to expence of purchasing them.
Since i sold my aksa 100 nirvana plus (i didn't dig the diy look) i've actually gone backwards. The ps audio hca - 2 amplifier (i can't believe all the rave reviews and only read 1 negative one) was a shocker. I had it modded and had 40 odd components replaced and it was sounding wonderful, until i took it to a friends house and his diy powerboard blew the damn thing up. Its currently in the states for repair.
I then purchased another well known amplifier and it didn't work in my system either. I should have stayed with the aksa :lol: .
Regards
Rod
-
until i took it to a friends house and his diy powerboard blew the damn thing up. Its currently in the states for repair.
:lol:
Well, it's funny to read about from my perspective. I suppose it wasn't very funny for you.
The AKSA amp is no slouch. It's a wonderful amplifier! Many folks have compared them to very expensive amplifiers and favored the AKSA. One of my customers sold his BAT tube amp following the construction of his AKSA Nirvana +.
I should have stayed with the aksa .
Yep... sometimes different is better. Unfortunately this doens't always happen.
Dave
-
It was neat to listen to a couple of different amps with the Ellis speakers. It was also a joy to meet such a nice person as Dave Ellis. reminded me in many ways of Kevin Haskins, of DIY Cable.
I believe the first SS amp that was set up was the parasound, which sounded pretty veiled and like alot of SS that I've listened to.
The next up was my AKSA 100n+, which I am quite partial to. Even enough to own it ;). But, for what I want...I think this amp out performed the others quite easily. I just didn't hear the articulation, dynamics or depth layering as good in the other amplifiers. Although I did find the Dynaco amp pleasing...it just didn't bring the life into the Ellis speakers like the AKSA did.
The next amp was the modded Dynaco ST70. Which sounded pretty good. Nice balance...decent depth...good tube highs with ok imaging. I'm not sure how much the amp costs. But it was a nice sounding tube amp. Not quite something I'd compare to the delicacy or depth of SET amps or slam of some PP amps. But a nice sound that I could live with in a secondary system.
The last was the modded Golden Tube amplifier. *ugh* Out of all but the parasound, this was my least favorite amp with the Ellis speakers. It seemed to have something a miss with the phase...The staging width was ok...but the imaging was undefined and like there was an unstable image. Compared to both the AKSA and the Dynaco, it also had a very two dimensional type sound with very little layering or depth. It had some ok tube "air" in the highs.
This,of course, is just what I brought away from the listening experience...which I thought was a great time. As I listen to more and more systems, speakers, concerts. I realize that it's such a nice opportunity to get to listen to various systems...or amplifiers...or CD players etc. Because by doing this, we can get an idea what combinations/components we may like...so we could possibly take aim toward a "more" tangible target in our own systems, rather than simply buy and try.
thanks again,
dan
-
The AKSA Nirvana amps was one of the best combinations I've heard with the Ellis 1801s. The best I think is Transcendent Sound OTL T8 amplifiers. Very close is Hypex UcD180s which bested the AKSA in terms of imaging and low-end but was not as sweet in the highs as the AKSA. The OTL was seductive, great sense of rhythm... I gues this is what others call PRAT. Not as good in terms of dynamics where the AKSAs really shine. But the T8 stereo amp's low-end was surprisingly good for 25watts.
If I still had the 1801s, I would be saving my pennies (make that lunches) for the Trascended Sound The Beast OTL,
http://www.transcendentsound.com/Beast%20OTL.htm
-
Is there any consensus on whether the AKSA 55 wpc sounds better than the 100 wpc (assuming a person lives in an apartment and doesn't need the extra power)?
-
Hi Dave,
The aksa has a number of sonic attributes but its biggest strength is that it gets your foot tapping and i found it exciting to listen to. At this stage in my system with several amps i have heard none can beat the aksa in that area.
The modded hca - 2 sounded excellent but does not have the same emotional impact as the aksa.
I have the opportunity to audition the spread spectrum technologies son of ampzilla and will let you know what i think of it if you like. As i said in my previous post it would be great to be able to have a listen to different amps in an atmosphere that you organised :) .
Regards
Rod
-
I believe the first SS amp that was set up was the parasound, which sounded pretty veiled and like alot of SS that I've listened to.
Yep, I forgot about this one. I thought this amplifier represented the biggest disparity in performance. IMO, all the other amplfiers were easily better. The Parasound amp wasn't bad, it's just a commercial amplifier with standard-fare commercial guts.
The last was the modded Golden Tube amplifier. *ugh* Out of all but the parasound, this was my least favorite amp with the Ellis speakers.
Hmmm, strange, I thought the SE40 was better in the comparison test. Next year we should do a direct comparison and discuss the differences between the AKSA and the Parasound. I don't claim to have perfect ears, but they are generally pretty good.
Also, I now have the amplifier in my living room, and it sounds much better to my ears. This will be confirmed this evening when my wife arrives home. I am hearing new musical information in my recordings for the first-time. It's really quite amazing :D :!:
There are a couple other variables extant - I think.
1. The Golden Tube amp is essentially new, and has completely new tubes. In Chicago the only the transformers, 20% of the PCB components, and 1 6SN7 tube were broke-in. The rest of the amplifier had @ 10 hours of playing time. @ 80% of the amplifier was new.
I generally don't subscribe to the break-in "propoganda", but there might be something happening. After hearing Carl's wire presentation, I believe there is some truth to break-in. The SE40 has a bunch of Black Gate capacitors too. Many folks have told me these capacitors to change for the better.
2. I am told that tubes DO move after break in, and the amplifier bias needs to be adjusted following the implementation of 7 new tubes in the amplifier. The bias was adjusted initially, but after @10 hours, the bias should shift. I will confirm this next weekend. By this time, the amplifier should have @100 hours of playing time.
3. I don't know if you were present for the feedback switch test. I did this on Friday night, and later Saturday evening. My SE40 has a global feedback switch. The consensus was that the amp sounded better or different with the feedback OFF. Probably 60% of folks (including me) thought it sounded better, and 40% of folks thought it sounded different. Nobody thought the amplifier sounded worse with the feedback off.
I am not making "excuses" for the amplifier performing poorly. I offer these things simply because they might be a factor. I was pleased with the amplifier as it performed in Chicago. I am amazed at the performance in my living room - wow.
Is there any consensus on whether the AKSA 55 wpc sounds better than the 100 wpc (assuming a person lives in an apartment and doesn't need the extra power)?
Hugh Dean thinks the 55wpc should sound better. However, there doesn't seem to be public consensus on this. I have not performed an a/b test with these to amplifiers. My AKSA 55wpc & 100wpc listening sessions were separated by @ 3 months. Nonetheless, I am fairly familiar with the sound of my system and believe these amplifiers sounded... identical. From a sound quality perspective, either would be fine.
I think with most 2-way speakers in the 85db/2.83 volt realm, the 55wpc is the correct choice - especially in an apartment. My first good amplifier had 120wpc. I never used this much power.
Dave
-
If I still had the 1801s, I would be saving my pennies (make that lunches) for the Trascended Sound The Beast OTL,
http://www.transcendentsound.com/Beast%20OTL.htm
Yikes, that looks killer. Do these folks live close to you... wait... they live pretty close to me. KC isn't a significant drive. I should visit them.
I have never listened to an OTL amp.
Dave
-
Also, I now have the amplifier in my living room, and it sounds much better to my ears. This will be confirmed this evening when my wife arrives home. I am hearing new musical information in my recordings for the first-time. It's really quite amazing
Are you able to compare & contrast the GT40 with the reworked
Dyna 70 ?
-
Are you able to compare & contrast the GT40 with the reworked
Dyna 70 ?
The words "compare and contrast" remind me of many college essay questions :) . Many of these were very exhaustive. I'll refrain from such demeanor hererein. I think Stereopile uses way too many words to describe something.
Consider that both amps are totally reworked. Frank VanAlstine www.avahifi.com did the Dynaco/Ultimate 70. Jeff Glowacki www.soniccraft.com did the Golden Tube SE40. The SE40 sounded quite bad before modifications.
Comparing...
The only real difference is in the bass region of the ST70. It's very lean and crisp. I believe most folks would convey that it's too lean. I thought the bass was fine, and indeed very tuneful. The SE40 has the typical robust/fully bass found in most amplifiers.
Aside from this, the SE40 has perhaps slightly better dynamics, lower noise, and a more... correct sound. This remark is very true:
I am hearing new musical information in my recordings for the first-time. It's really quite amazing
Last night my wife listened and was very pleased. She remarked, "wow, that Violin really sounds like a violoin". She commented about several other areas too, and prefers the Golden tube SE40.
If you require more words, you are welcome to call. I'll be home this evening.
Dave
402 991 8528
-
I generally don't subscribe to the break-in "propoganda", but there might be something happening. After hearing Carl's wire presentation, I believe there is some truth to break-in. The SE40 has a bunch of Black Gate capacitors too. Many folks have told me these capacitors to change for the better. ...
While I try to stay out of the fantasy arena as well (except fantasy football...I'm hooked! 12 teams this year :o ) But what I heard at the Chicago Event is oddly very close to what I've heard while breaking in blackgates. The very same...(to me) odd effects and (almost unstable) sound. huh.
Another way to give the *passive* transformer based preamps a try is by using some Sowter 9395 or type 9335 attneuating transformers. They're a bit less costly than the S&B. Of course you have still got the rest of the parts that can add up as well.
Take care,
dan
-
But what I heard at the Chicago Event is oddly very close to what I've heard while breaking in blackgates. The very same...(to me) odd effects and (almost unstable) sound. huh.
Interesting... sure.
I honestly don't know what I am intentionally listening for in this regard. Maybe this will become clear to me when I hear the capacitors change for the better. I currently have my speakers disconnected with 8 ohm resitors attached to the leads. I have my system cycling with contant music applied. Perhaps the sound will change after @ 5 days of constant use.
I generally don't listen for imaging. Sure, I know that violins are on the left and cellos are on the right. I am also keenly aware of lead vocal position. Aside from these, image stability is not my primary focus.
I generally listen for instrumental detail, dynamics, and grit/noise. In these regards, the SE40 is more clear/better than anything else I have used in my system. Electric pianos are VERY obviously electric pianos. Violin's sound much more like violins. I am hearing backup vocals in amazing detail.
Dave
-
I have enjoyed the discussion in this thread for past year or so.
I am running my Ellis 1801's with a PS Audio HCA-2 and a little passive pre called a Sono Silence. The PS Audio has a reputation for great mids and highs but not much bass, and in my system this has very much been the case. The passive was a major step forward (replacing a Mapletree pre in the spring) creating an almost magical combination of detail and airy top end sound. Wonderful with accoustic music and female vocals.
This past spring I had a one day opportunity to match my speakers with Odyssey extreme monos. Wow - the PS Audio is rated at 120 I think but the Odysseys had the Ellis's on their backs purring like I never heard them before. Still lots of sweet sounding detail but now my woofers were doing things I didn't think they could or would do (I had been thinking a new sub) - was I ever wrong. Truly a big dog taking my speakers for a walk and they were doing what they were told.
Next eye opener was last weekend and a borrowed pair of Audio Note J speakers - 92 db. Suddenly my PS Audio amp had a match that had it singing at both ends of the scale. Very nice speaker once you get past the looks and could happily find a home in my living room.
Was thinking there might be a big dog in Dave's Chicago listening room - but most of amps discussed seem mid powered. Not sure if other Ellis speaker owners struggle with bass performance - upper bass is nice and detailed - but other than with Odysseys really no mid or sub bass from the speakers in my living room. I am commited to my Ellis 1801's so thinking about being on the move with amps again - will keep reading this thread to see what is working for others.
My other stuff is Jolida cdplayer, blue note turntable with CIA phono pre, and audio note cables (all copper).
-
I want to chime in about the SE40 that Dave has been so elequently describing. I did the SonicCraft DIY upgrade that used to be sold for $299 (no longer available). This upgrade doesn't get all that Dave's upgrade has, but I suspect I'm most of the way to Dave's amp. I agree with Dave when he mentions that in stock form, this amp isn't so hot. I'm not sure what all the hoopla was about 8-10 years ago. Sure the midrange sounded better than any SS gear I had, but the highs left much to be desired.
I put the new caps (including the black gates), resistors and diodes that came in the kit into the amp over the course of about 12 hours. Turned it on, biased it and hooked it up to my 1801's**. I was then STUNNED by what I heard. This amp seems to have it all. Highs are gorgeous and mids seem to be spot on. The amp even has killer bass.
It is now super, super simple to hear differences between cd's of the same recording but different mastering (i.e. mfsl vs standard issue). Stringed instruments sound great. You can hear/ feel the texture of the strings. The imaging is better. It's easier to pick out the various instruments in well recorded music.
I think I'm done looking for an amp, I just don't see finding something better for the small amount of money I'd be willing to pay. I was going to build an AKSA, but per the above list, I think I'll skip that.
My only issue with the amp is that it might be too bright**. I know that Dave has mentioned that running the speakers flat will tend to make most cd's hard to listen to. With this upgraded amp, he is correct. I'm wondering if the amp is now boosting the treble? Like Dave says, I've heard things in recordings that I've NEVER heard before. Breathing for one. I have one recording of instrumental music (jerry garcia - pizza tapes) and I can hear one of the players breathe. I can hear the conductor breathing during a low passage on one of the sacd living stereo re-releases (btw, these living stereo sacd's are to die for). In either case, I had never heard that before. Impressive.
Jim
**My 1801's are running flat. I don't remember what resistor combination I have, but I do know they are +0 dB on the tweeter.
-
Dave,
I highly recommend you check out Transcendent Sound gear. Bruce sounds like a guy who thinks like you do... is not impressed by fancy components and superflous maketing strategies. He has a loyal following who believe in his skills and ability to teach as he has for years from his books. Heck, you can even catch a Chiefs game... they're having a good season and not making headline news about their off-field escapades.
Regarding AKSA 55 versus 100, if you like to listen to jazz, orchestral music at mid 80 db volume, then the 55 watt amp is fine. If you, like me, like to put on some BTO and play HT movies like Batman Begins (good movie) and concerts such as Eagles "Hell Freezes Over" at higher volumes, then you will appreciate having the 100 watt amplifier.
Have fun,
Al
-
I generally listen for instrumental detail, dynamics, and grit/noise. In these regards, the SE40 is more clear/better than anything else I have used in my system. Electric pianos are VERY obviously electric pianos. Violin's sound much more like violins. I am hearing backup vocals in amazing detail. ...
Cool! Sounds like you found a good match for your speaker, room and self. Few people are so lucky. Congrats.
dan
-
Dan,
I was thinking more about the way we/I conducted the in-room test, and I might have been biased. Since I heard these amplifiers in my listening room I "knew" what to expect. What do you think about using blindfolds next year? This would consume a bit more time, but I think would provide more tangible results.
Al,
For now, I'll continue to use the passive units (Creek and Endler). Eventually I may try a S&B 102, but these are a bit expensive.
Jim,
I think our amplifiers are extremely similar. I have a few more switches though.
I think I'm done looking for an amp, I just don't see finding something better for the small amount of money I'd be willing to pay. I was going to build an AKSA, but per the above list, I think I'll skip that.
Me too.
-
Hello Davis,
As I know that Odyssey mono stratos extreme plays fine with Dynaudio S1.4, what about these ampli with Ellis 1801b since I have the Cayin SC-6LS (CV4024, CV4003)? I would like to know if you have an experience on UCD modules -class D- as well?
Thank you very much for your advise,
best regards.
PS: I have listened to the modified Jolida JD-302B of pemo, it is marvellous but I am looking for SS not DIY ampli.
-
I have never heard any of the Odyssey gear. I have never heard any of the Class D stuff in my living room. Hence, these comments are 2nd hand comments from customer feedback, and industry professional advice.
1. The Class D stuff can sound good, but not great.
2. The Odyssey stuff can sound can sound good, and there was some rumor of actually using good parts inside Odysey amplifiers. This happened a few years ago with one amplifier, but this amplifier was only partially replicated for the masses. I don't know if a fully tweaked Odysey amplifier exists. Such an amplifier would have high zoot capacitors, diodes, resistors etc.. In this case the cost should triple, and the sound quality should improve considerably.
I believe a partially upgraded Odyssey amplifier acutally happened, but have NOT followed this development. Maybe Odyssey actually did start spending very serious $$ under the hood of their amplifiers. I truly don't know.
You will have to ask Odyssey about the parts quality in his amplifiers. Specifically, does he use Black Gate Capacitors, Elna Cerafine, or any of the other good capacitors. Does he apply any Metallized poly bypass capacitors in the power supply. Does he use good IXYS Hexfreds or Harris superfast diodes etc etc.
In all of this, I will offer that about 40% of my customers use "good" consumer grade source gear - on par with Dennon, Rotel, NAD, Adcaom and such. Certainly the 1801 performs just fine with this source gear. I will also offer that my biggest "fans" and most enthusiastic customers use very good source gear with very high quality parts under the hood.
I'll ask Odyssey if he has any input on this matter.
-
Thank you Dave.
This weekend I listened to a 5 channel UcD180 amplifier that Kevin Haskins from diycable.com built. Tried it out with Adires' new line of speakers and Andy's (awm) 1801.
mac, Andy and I commented that we had not heard the 1801's with better SLAM on the low end. The digital amps puts out much more output from the Excel woofer. What also surprised us was the better imaging which was already very good with the AKSA N. With the Hypex, it was wider. No fancy caps, just TSU Panasonics and one large single to ...
I will hear the Ellis 1801b with an UCD400 dual mono by next month. I will tell you if I would be liking it. Still happy with your UCD180?
Best regards.
-
I just turned on my SE40 after a week of soaking through a resistor load to work the amps new guts & Black Gates. I re-biased the amp too.
I now totally understand what you were referring to with regard to the 2-dimensional sound of the SE40 at the show. Relatively speaking, the amp was very 2-dimensional at the show. Things have changed significantly. The inner detail and depth is much better now.
I didn't really think the sound would change this much. I am now in full-agreement with those who believe the components and Black Gate capacitors need time to break-in.
Dave
-
Dan,
I was thinking more about the way we/I conducted the in-room test, and I might have been biased. Since I heard these amplifiers in my listening room I "knew" what to expect. What do you think about using blindfolds next year? This would consume a bit more time, but I think would provide more tangible results.
Myself...I'd tend to move the other way...and just continue to keep things moving well. Keeping people not only interested...but in their seats for a good majority of the time.
Conclusions can and will be made...but I'd leave that to the individuals to take with them. My opinion is that there is way too much eye scanning and conjecture that is involved to come to any conclusion of what is heard.
I know I can be a pain in the butt...but I like things to be easy not hard
*aside* I can remember during one of the Lima shows...An audio reviewer happened to be in the same room I was in, listening to some tubes and AudioNotes. Decent sound.
When the guy hosting the room decided to put some tube dampers on the input/driver tubes of the amp. When the (room) host was done putting them on,he asked what people thought. The audio reviewer quickly answered...Oh yeah. There's a definite improvement in soundstage. Well, soon after everyone else shook their heads in agreement.
Since people were talking thru this entire experience...and the fact that I was off center...I couldn't comment if there was a difference either way. But the one thing I couldn't figure out,was how the audio reviewer could have reached any conclusion at all...especially regarding soundstage. He was sitting with only one ear facing the speakers...and the other ear facing the rear wall. He was also the person that was talking non-stop...not even stopping to listen to the sound that he just commented that had improved. But yet the other shaking heads stilled followed his comments. I just sat there with a chuckle on my face.
*back on topic* Heck with it(I say)...keep things fun! But that's just my thinking...which always isn't so poular.
dan
-
To follow up a bit on Al's thoughts - I would also be very interested in hearing from anyone who has built one of the Transcendent Sound ggd preamps with increased interest for the results when driving an aksa and the 1801b's. :?: :!:
Roman
-
Dan,
I did think about the issue of a "formal" reviewer/spokesperson influence on the crowd. I am very aware of this. I think you and I fully agree about these issues.
I have an idea...
I have little interest in public speaking. Would you like to be the spokesperson next year in the DIY room? :D And... perhaps provide your source gear. :D
I don't mind doing this, and would be very happy if someone else was... eager.
I'd like to evaluate amplifiers just like we evaluated speakers.
The ultimate purpose of DIY evaluation is twofold - I think.
1. Feedback for the gear being "audited"
2. Written conveyance to other folk who were not present.
We do a pretty good job on #1, but a relatively piss-poor job on #2.
I really don't have the gumption to write reviews on a whole bunch of speakers, and I really should not do this. I am a manufacturer. For example... It's not fair/right for me to praise the SEAS H1212 tweeter when George Short's tweeter was among them. I DO like the SEAS H1212 tweeter easily the best of the $25 crowd, but it's wrong for me to place this in a formal letter.
I believe I could be very unbiased, but I am sure that questions of self-interest would arise.
We should chat. I'll send you a private email.
Dave
-
Hello all,
I know that you are allways interested about amp comparisons :wink: . I have the opportunity to compare my Rogers e40a (double push-pull of 6L6 valves) to the well-appreciated Aksa55n+ (one of the rare french owners is living in Alsace, so thanks to Francis).
Here are my feelings:
Yes, I fully agree that the Aksa is certainly the best solid-state amp I have never listen to (under 2500$ to 3500$) because it is fully detailed, has little/no distortion, has much less "SS harschness", has great dynamic on the full range allowing to give rythm to the music, a well-proportioned image and accurate sound-stages. It seems just to miss a few sub-bass spl.
IMHO, its sound is the perfect example of the typical audioholic (good) view about SS gears.
BUT, and this is VERY obvious, at least compared to the Rogers, the Aksa misses a lot of micro-dynamics and micro-details on the full fr range. All the timbres of instruments or voices are as "cutted-off" and the music flow and thus the emotion suffer from this defect. I.e. on reverberation sounds and decreased harmonic notes, the difference is very striking.
The instruments have no better image or better attacks with the Rogers, but the instruments are more real.
Another difference is in the fact that the Rogers is able to fully fill my room at low listening level and this please me a lot.
So I would not change my Rogers with this Aksa.
I have a question for Dave and others having made comparisons between valves amps (i.e. tweaked se40 or ultimate70) and this Aksa:
Is your feeling and listening experience the same than mine in this matter of timbres?
Thanks,
:beer:
:xmas: Santa Claus will bring me a new cd-player... :D :D :D
-
Bonjour Hubert,
You must have been listening to Francis Muller's AKSA!! Thank you for your positive comments about the AKSA 55W - I will assume you've listened to some very good, very expensive SS amps!
Your analysis largely comes down to SS versus tubes. This is often a matter of preference. The micro-detail you refer to is, in my view, introduced by the vacuum tube as it is a high distortion active component. This is not to denigrate it, of course, it's just a fact of life....... There are many people who will listen to nothing but tube amplifiers.
However, the deficiencies you refer to are all addressed when you drive the AKSA with a quality tube preamp, such as my GK1 or Swift. As Nelson Pass has said, if you want it to sound like a tube, use a tube!
There is something organic, almost human, about a tube. But these qualities are not easy to achieve in practice because it comes back to tube choice, topology and operating point - many variables. But a good SS amp can be improved along the lines you describe with a good tube preamp.
While I don't agree with you on the bass performance of the 55W AKSA (which I think is very good), I can say that the 100W is stronger in this area.
It is a credit to David's 1801s that these sonic qualities are laid bare with his excellent design.
Cheers,
Hugh
-
Hello Hugh,
At the moment I saw an Aksa reply to my tread, I thought...he will kill me :uzi: , but...no :angel: , I'm alive :D ; thanks Hugh, you seem to be definitely a kindly guy.
Yes, it's Francis Muller who permited me to listen for the first time to one of your products.
First of all I wish to confirm that the 55n+ is really a very good amp, with an incredible price/quality ratio. I listened a few days ago to a well-known british SS pre+amp combo priced close to 6000$ which had this harsh sound I hate.
I want to go a little farther with your comments (IMHO):
I will assume you've listened to some very good, very expensive SS amps!
Yes, Goldmund, Ayre, Plinius and on, all high-end stuff, all tooooo expensive... to follow my points of view on my life :wink:
Your analysis largely comes down to SS versus tubes
yes, I know, but I don't like this kind of "audioholic chat matter" because I listened at least to one SS gear which did absolutely not sound as a SS gear, none as a valve:
http://www.neodio-hifi.com/en/technology.php
Unfortunately, if it didn't have the lacks of both SS and valves, it didn't have any superiority :cry:
The micro-detail you refer to is, in my view, introduced by the vacuum tube as it is a high distortion active component
How could distortion create a such obvious part of what makes the great numbers of harmonics of a musical instrument timbre?
However, the deficiencies you refer to are all addressed when you drive the AKSA with a quality tube preamp, such as my GK1 or Swift.
Regarding that Francis added a simple 10Ko potentiometer to the amp, is it possible that this component ate the micro-details and micro-dynamics? (please comment seriously your answer because it is the most important question for me in this thread)
While I don't agree with you on the bass performance of the 55W AKSA (which I think is very good), I can say that the 100W is stronger in this area.
Yes, it is quite possible that the Rogers has to much spl in this area (sub-bass) but this fact allow me to listen to it during a part of the night in a very confortable way; IYO, is your 100w able to give me more pleasure at low level than the 55w?
Thanks for your next answer, and sorry for my bad english, now I go :sleep:
Regards,
-
Hubert,
I do agree with your assertions regarding the AKSA, and would place it easily in the $3k+ zone.
There are soo many issues here. As a preface, when I write about quality, I also listen to the micro deatail. This is the layering of low level instruments and harmonics in the music. I seek quality in this realm too. And, the amp must obviously maintain a lack of grit, and very good dynamics.
I don't believe this is a simple tubes versus SS issue. Certainly the AKSA was marginally superior to my modified Jolida 302 and therfore the AKSA sounded significantly better than my unmodified Jolida 302. However, I favored a the VanAlstine Ultimate 70 over the AKSA for the precise reasons you mention. The inner detail was quite impressive. Both of these tube amplifiers are a push-pull EL34 design. However, 1 is better than the other.
I do understand that these amplifiers are both variations of a Williamson design, but there ARE differences in sound quality. I cannot attribute these differences to typology or parts quality, but I suspect the latter is significant. I believe the VanAlstine parts are very tightly matched and of better general quality.
I haven't heard the bass from your Rogers amp, but I did find the AKSA bass very solid - certainly no problems here.
Rather than cite my opinion on the matter of tubes versus solid state, I'll offer a quote. This comes from, "Modern High End Valve Amplifiers" by Menno van der Veen, page 3. "The biggest difference between valves and transistors in their distortion behavior. If we compare amplifier specifications, the distortion produced by a valve amplifier at full power will be in the range of a few percent, while transistor amplifiers distort less than a tenth or even hundreth of a percent in a comparable situation. These figures corroborate the marketing claims that transistors are much "cleaner" than valves. But is that really true? Out of consideration for our neigbors, we do not always listen to music at full power and deafening volume levels. In fact, the typical music program has a low level, with occasional high power peaks; the average power level is not more than a few watts. Now the good thing about valve amplifiers is that the lower the volume, the lower the disortion. For transistor amplifiers the opposite is true... ""Generaly speaking, valve amplifiers handle small signals with teh utmost care, while tramsistor amplifiers amplifiers are much more 'rough and tumble'."
Following this quote, I offer my belief on this matter. There are huge differences in design, quality control, and quality components applied in both SS and tube amplifiers. I believe these matters are much more important than the issue of Tubes versus SS. Currently, I am using a killer good 40wpc tube amplifier with 6L6 tubes in a single ended configuration.
Eventually, I'll likely try some some SE Triode stuff with the correct speaker. I believe there are significant synergy issues here. Bad synergy will result in bad results. No feedback amplifiers subjected to poor loudspeaker impedance curves and low sensitivity is an obvious disaster. Higher loudspeaker senstivity and a very flat impedance curve is extremely critical - I think.
Great discussion.
Dave
-
Dave,
I haven't heard the bass from your Rogers amp, but I did find the AKSA bass very solid - certainly no problems here.
Yes, I agree about AKSAs strong and tight bass; I spoke about SUB-bass from the AKSA which IMO are slightly lean comparing to it's bass-range and comparing to the Rogers; I am far to say the Rogers is the better integrated in the world but I believe too that one of the superiorities of high-end stuff lies in the extension of the bass-range. This greatly enhances the perception of the size of the place of recording and also
increases my pleasure of listening with low level. When I compared pem's upgraded Jolida 302 to the Rogers, sub-bass extension was the main difference.
"Generaly speaking, valve amplifiers handle small signals with teh utmost care, while tramsistor amplifiers amplifiers are much more 'rough and tumble'."
I am currently looking for SS diy or kit having this quality, and will let you know if I succeed.
Currently, I am using a killer good 40wpc tube amplifier with 6L6 tubes in a single ended configuration.
killer good, certainly... but :o how could a 6L6 SE config become 40watts if in Absolute Maximum Operating Conditions the Power out of a 6L6 is 11watts? Where am I wrong?
:beer:
-
It could be parallel single-ended instead of push-pull
-
how could a 6L6 SE config become 40watts if in Absolute Maximum Operating Conditions the Power out of a 6L6 is 11watts? Where am I wrong
There are 3 output 6L6 tubes per channel. Also, the RCA tube receiving manual suggests 11 watts, but the output could be 15 watts per channel. Hence, the 40wpc rating is close.
I am currently looking for SS diy or kit having this quality, and will let you know if I succeed.
I... belive the odds of finding a better SS amplifier than the AKSA are very sliim. The AKSA is extremely good.
The only other possibility might be an older Nelson Pass Aleph amplifier. There aare projects for these amplifiers, but the commercial/used units sell for @$1500. With some high quality DIY parts under the hood these amplifiers might be very good. A fellow DIY guy who has owned many VERY expensive commercial amps (i.e. Rowland, Levinson etc.) said the Aleph amps are on par with the very best.
Hubert, for now, I do recommend a modified Golden Tube SE40 from Jeff Glowacki at soniccraft. It has the exact sonic characteristics you describe in the Rogers and even uses the same output tubes. The finished SE40 will cost @$1600-$2000. But.... unfortunately, the wall-outlet power requirements might be very different. Do you guys use 220v on your side of the pond?
Dave
-
Dave, could you comment a bit more about the advantages of the Golden Tube over the Ultimate 70? Is it just the lean bass that's an issue with the Ultimate 70? Are the midrange and highs similar? If a person were to use it with a separate powered subwoofer, would the lean bass be less of an issue?
-
Dave, could you comment a bit more about the advantages of the Golden Tube over the Ultimate 70?
I will again comment. The SE40 sounded quite bad before modification. The sound was on par with a very mediocre consumer grade amplifier. After amplification, the SE40 had the following characteristics when compared to the Ultimate 70.
1. More low level detail.
2. Less grunge.
3. Equal dynamics.
4. More "appealing" bass.
Are the midrange and highs similar?
They are "similar" in tonal character, but the SE40 is better. If you require more prose, please explain exactly what subjective comments you seek.
If a person were to use it with a separate powered subwoofer, would the lean bass be less of an issue?
No.
The Ultimate 70 has a very lean and accurate sounding bass. It's not "full" sounding. It's lean and crisp. This is not an issue of frequency response.
I recently read this is rooted in output transformer characteristics. Output transformers with high inductance will produce less distortion than transformers with less inductance. (van der Veen, p.90). Strangely, having MORE distortion via the transfomer might actually sound better. The author suggested this is true for most listeners.
Dave
-
Brad,
You were right :)
Dave,
I... belive the odds of finding a better SS amplifier than the AKSA are very sliim. The AKSA is extremely good.
Dave, please comment:
Do the Golden Tube SE40 have
- equal macro-dynamics than the Aksa55n+ in term of tightness, speed, impacts of transients?
- equal perceived spl in SUB-bass range than the Aksa? (as previously said I find the sub-bass of the Aksa too lean -even if tight- comparing to it's bass-range)
Do you guys use 220v on your side of the pond?
Unfortunately, yes.
Thanks,
:beer:
-
Do the Golden Tube SE40 have
- equal macro-dynamics than the Aksa55n+ in term of tightness, speed, impacts of transients?
Equal...No. The Golden Tube is superior in terms of tightness, speed, impacts of transients.
- equal perceived spl in SUB-bass range than the Aksa? (as previously said I find the sub-bass of the Aksa too lean -even if tight- comparing to it's bass-range)
What do you mean by "sub-bass"? Are you referring to bass in the 20hz zone?
Either way, I found the bass of both amps very good. I am really not to particular about a certain flavor of bass. I found the AKSA tighter and leaner than the Golden Tube, but the difference wasn't very significant.
Dave
-
Hello Dave,
The Golden Tube is superior in terms of tightness, speed, impacts of transients.
:!: :!: That's very astonishing :o :o ; the Rogers is slightly less dynamic than the AKSA, thus it gives a less focused - materialized sound.
What do you mean by "sub-bass"? Are you referring to bass in the 20hz zone?
Yes, frequencies below 50-60hz; we use "sub" as "below" like in the word "subway".
Thanks for your comments,
:beer:
-
thus it gives a less focused - materialized sound.
...This is getting into audiophile language that I really don't understand or wish to engage :roll:
The 40hz bass from the Golden Tube on Piano keys and Bass guitar strings sound slightly more full, and the AKSA sounds slightly more lean. The differences are minor IMO.
Dave
-
Hi Hubert,
When you listened to the aksa did you use a good quality preamp? or was a volume pot built into the aksa?
I've used the aksa direct i.e. without preamp and it never sounds as good when i am using my tube preamp.
Perhaps that could explain why you didn't like the aksa that much. I don't own an aksa at the moment and i'm not being defensive at all but it does make a difference to the sound quality using a good preamp.
Regards
Rod
-
Hello,
Dave,
Quote:
thus it gives a less focused - materialized sound.
...This is getting into audiophile language that I really don't understand or wish to engage
I understand your point of view but IMO, using an audiophile language for me is necessary if I want to give an impression of listening by clarifying all characters; i.e. if I say : this piano sounds much more like a piano, it could be about it's size, or it's timbre, or it's fondamental note attack and on... Generally the piano on the Rogers is better timbred but it's size and notes attack are better on the Aksa; Thus I (Hubert) could say the piano sounds better like a piano because timbres are what I prefer to get a certain reality, while others prefer to privilege attacks and size of the instrument.
However, if all characters of the sound are better when listening on one gear vs another, thus no need to precise things. :wink:
Rod,
When you listened to the aksa did you use a good quality preamp? or was a volume pot built into the aksa?
A 10Kohms Blue Alps.
About this matter, one electronic engineer said me that a pot cannot eat informations, only eventually reduce the dynamics.
Also, Francis said me he used the Aksa with 2 good pre-amps: no improvement about micro-details/dynamics, thus it seems not to be the solution for what I'm looking for.
I've used the aksa direct i.e. without preamp and it never sounds as good when i am using my tube preamp.
Could you comment a little more about the differences?
Thanks,
:beer:
-
Hi guys...I'll try not to get too involved in the Ellis speaker discussion (seeing as I don't have a pair). But as some have mentioned to regard the preamp when talking about amplifier/loudspeaker interaction. Which is certainly a good idea.
But also don't forget the other components too...such as CD players and DACs. If they're stock or modified it certainly doesn't matter. They can not only shape the tone and timbre...but also give you a different presentation in soundstage and/or imaging...along with differences in depth, layering and dynamics as well.
Aside from changing DAC's...a change in input/driver tubes, power output tubes, rectifier tubes...room treatments or positioning can also change much of what's heard. Any one of these could give you such a difference in tone, stage, response, dynamics and presentaion to change your conclusions.
This is why for me personally...I've enjoyed talking about varying components at times...but have always been leery...when I could change one element in the "system" which could lead to such a different result.
This holds true for any component in any system. You really do need to treat the system as such. Because a change in the room...loudspeaker...amplifier...preamp ...source (dac, TT) could change the sound and presentation so much.
g'day
dan
-
Generally the piano on the Rogers is better timbred but it's size and notes attack are better on the Aksa; Thus I (Hubert) could say the piano sounds better like a piano because timbres are what I prefer to get a certain reality,
I (Dave) would generally agree with this commentary. I will also add that we have a full upright piano in our living room that is also the home for my stereo. As such, my ear is fairly keen to the sound of the piano in my listening room. In this regard, I am a simple guy. The Golden Tube SE40 makes the piano sound more like a piano.
Dave
-
Hi guys...I'll try not to get too involved in the Ellis speaker discussion (seeing as I don't have a pair). But as some have mentioned to regard the preamp when talking about amplifier/loudspeaker interaction. Which is certainly a good idea.
Good stuff Dan. Please do contribute.
Dave
-
Hello Dave,
As you know, I am to make up my mind about a not DIY power amplifier for my Ellis 1801b by January-February 2006, since I have a Cayin SC-6LS. I would like to know as you were "impressed with the AVA's quality of parts under the hood" if you changed your mind about this amplifier? I didn't get so many comments about this amplifier and none serious with Ellis 1801b. Which SS amplifier you would either recommand to me?
About AVA, I hesitate between Fet Valve 350EXR Amplifier and OmegaStar 260EXH Amplifier. Which one do you think is the best one for my -your :mrgreen: - loudspeakers?
besides, the 350EXR uses a 12AX7 tube for each channel: what is your advice about hybrid amplifier?
Best regards, thank you for answering,
teiki.
PS: a stupid question? Is it better to have one transformer for a stereo amp or one transformer for each channel?
-
PS: a stupid question? Is it better to have one transformer for a stereo amp or one transformer for each channel?
:stupid:
No, no Teiki arii, never stupid questions on this forum, only stupid answers:
ONE transformer per WATT, nothing else! :rules:
:lol: :lol: :lol:
:beer: ONE beer for EACH.
-
PS: a stupid question? Is it better to have one transformer for a stereo amp or one transformer for each channel?
This is a good question. I think that larger single transformers have less loss.
I... really don't know. It seems like dual-transformers are a great marketing tool, and might actually sound better. My totally unverified hunch is that a consumers $$ would be better spent on high quality diodes, and power supply capacitors, but... most consumers don't know understand the difference between a .5c diode and a $1 diodes. Commercial hifi is more about what's "visible" from a marketing perspective. Explaining dioded ripple/ringinng/recovery to a cosumer would be very wordy and couterproductive from a marketing perspective.
Using dual transformers for "improved stereo separation" is much easier.
BTW, my old Bryston 3B-ST had very pretty dual transfomers, but sounded very poor when compared to a single-transfomer VanAlstene FET-Valve 350.
Summary... I really don't KNOW if there is a discernable postive impact from dual power supply transfomers, but they sure do look nice :) . This is really a question for somebody like Hugh Dean. I am sure he has performed this experiment.
Dave
-
I would like to know as you were "impressed with the AVA's quality of parts under the hood" if you changed your mind about this amplifier?
My opinion of this amplifier has not changed. The Ultimate 70 is a dandy amplifier and I recommend it. Frank uses good quality parts, but avoids the use of very high quality capacitors and such, but doesn't use the really high zoot stuff (i.e. Black Gate). He also use a relatively plane-jane coupling capacitor. As noted previously, Mrs. VanAlstine preferred the sound of Sonicaps used in my amplifier. I must also offer that all of Frank's parts are very closely matched, and he does use 1% mil-spec parts wherever possible. In this regard, the AVA product is significantly better under the hood than comparable commercial products.
Which SS amplifier you would either recommand to me?
I recommend a AKSA Nirvana+ 55wpc or 100wpc amp.
Since the 1801 is has a low dcr of 6 ohms, you will be just fine with the 240EX amp. This is what I'd buy.
Most/many loudspeakers that advertise 8 ohm nominal impedance actually have a much lower true impedance. The low dcr number (not commonly listed) is the most important factor. The 1801 is a true 8 ohm nominal loudspeaker, and suffers none of the typical marketing embellishment.
besides, the 350EXR uses a 12AX7 tube for each channel: what is your advice about hybrid amplifier?
@ 2 years ago the FET Valve stuff sounded better than the SS stuff. Recently Frank has changed a few things. This isn't obvious on his web page. There is a considerable amount of hyperbole present, that really clouds what changed and what didn't change. I DO know that all of Franks gear with a tube improved about 1 year ago. I don't know if this improvement follwed in Frank's non-tube gear. If the SS gear hasn't really improved, I suggest you get a 350 series amp. It will sound very good.
I suggest you call Frank, mention my comments, and ask for HIS input on the matter. Frank is a very honest guy.
-
Thank you very much indeed, Dave... :wink:
-
Anyone try one of the amps here: www.audiosector.com? - including the Patek favorably reviewed @ 6moons?
-
I am looking forward to try a Class A SS amplifier with my Ellis speakers.
I know that Dave liked stuff like Dynaco ST-70 (32W), Golden Tube SE40 (40W) or Jolida 302B (50W). From SS amps Dave says that 55W of AKSA 55N+ is more then enough.
My question to you: did anyone tried a 30W Class A SS amplifier with Ellis speakers?
Would you consider 30W Class A SS enough to power the Ellis speakers? (I have in mind a Pass Aleph 30).
I am NOT listening loud: around an average of 85db @ 7' (2m) distance.
-
This is a good question. I think that larger single transformers have less loss.
Summary... I really don't KNOW if there is a discernable postive impact from dual power supply transfomers, but they sure do look nice . This is really a question for somebody like Hugh Dean. I am sure he has performed this experiment.
Hi David and others,
Here is a very early review of an 2001 AKSA 55. The interesting point is the initial review is an AKSA 55 with one transformer and the second part with two transformers. Without putting words into Hugh's mouth, I think he agrees with the review and every AKSA I know of since this review has had 2 transformers.
http://www.tnt-audio.com/ampli/aksa_e.html
Personally, I can't confirm the results as I have always used 2 toriods. :?:
regards
-
My question to you: did anyone tried a 30W Class A SS amplifier with Ellis speakers?
Someone did use a @30wpc Aleph, but this was a few years ago. I don't remember the customers name, but he conveyed favorable results.
Rumor is that these amps do indeed sound VERY good, but I haven't heard them.
Dave
-
http://www.tnt-audio.com/ampli/aksa_e.html
Great article... okay then... it appears there is at least 1 solid affirmation for dual power supply transformers.
Dave
[/quote]
-
Hello Dave and all,
Bellow is a copy of a mail I sended to Francis, a crazy electronic tweaker friend of mine, to Matt (machmat) who selled me 8 west-cap NOS paper in oil to replace the poor MKT on the signal path of my Rogers e40a and to Pierre-Etienne.
Now I know how important is to place good stuff under the wood:
Hello Francis and Matt,
As promised, here are my first impressions about my upgraded roro; Matt, as previously said, Francis made not only the replacement of the 8 mkt placed on the signal path with your west-caps but also improved the signal path with some silver/copper/teflon wiring and by suppressing the balance, changed diodes with hyper fast soft recovery and added some bypass (the original mkt) on the chemical capacitors of the power supply; To finish, he regulated the bias; that's said, let's go:
First of all, the Rogers remains...the Rogers, even if only 10 hours of burn in: it means that, i.e., it remains totaly different from the Aska 55w nirvana+. Its frequency range remains "physiological" with slightly too much spl in sub-bass, a slightly backward mid and (very slightly) too much top hights.
Also, it keeps this "airy sound", not only in trebles but in upper-mid and in low-mid;
Also, it keeps the same timbres (harmonics structure) than before, at the except of trebles which are a lot more neutral.
To summerize: it remains a valve amp, with the common characters mainly attributed to valves (and that's what I love, haha).
Now, the differences:
- less distortions on the total range and particularly on trebles: no fatigue at all, no more harsh sounds; bad cds remain bad but...less bad.
- dynamics are slightly better, transients, attacks are now distributed on the full range, not only on upper frequencies as before. Bass and sub-bass are tighter.
- image: size of instruments are the same but are better differenciated one to the other.
- soundstages: they are larger, particularly in the width; i.e., on some modern musics like world/electroacoustic, with a lot of phase effects and on, I fall completely in a much bigger volume/area: that's very enjoying for me.
Now, the most astonishing:
I listened (and am currently listening) to my old Micromega optic bit-stream because my couple of Goldmund are in the shop to be selled. Thus, I let you understand how all the above described feelings certainly will be enhanced by listening to my next (very good, haha) source (Vecteur L4.2); Pierre-Etienne knows exactly what I mean, isn't it P-E?
Francis: Thank you very much given me your time and your perfect working.
Matt: your west-caps work very well. Please, let me know if once burned-in, caps will give another sound, thanks.
Pierre-Etienne, your tweaked joli-jolida is currently very sad, it wants to be a tweaked roro, haha (perhaps in a second life...)
All IMHO and with humour (P-E)
Cheers,
-
Hi Hubert,
you are very lucky to get this amazing Francis! We were talking pem and I about your tweak. I am sure it will be better again in some hundreds hours.... :o :wink:
-
Yes teiki arii,
Francis is a very kindly guy and it's practical for me that he lives with 15 kms at home. :wink:
About breaking in, Matt mailed me this, :
They certainly will need about 100 hours of breaking in. What mostly
happens is that especially the mid clear up and get cleaner, also the stage
will get more stable, first hours it always is everywhere (floating around
in space) and after some time it finally gets focus. Bass gets more precise
and also high frequencies will be more clear.
:beer:
-
I found the Amp that works fine with my Cayin CDT-17A CDP and "my" Ellis 1801b Stand-floor: an Accuphase E-212 with XLR plugs...So I shunt the single-ended AOP on each channel. I changed OPA604AP for OPA627BP and I am very glad with that system: terrific! :idea:
Best regards,
Teiki.
Another configuration that it works very well and less expensive, the pem's: Vecteur L4.2, Jolida JD-302B, Ellis 1801b bookshelf... 8)
http://www.accuphase.com/e-212_e1.htm
-
I changed OPA604AP for OPA627BP
Smart move! The OPA627BP is a darn good opamp.
Unfortunately, my CD player uses a difet, so the OPA627(A or B) simply won't work.
Dave
-
Unfortunately, my CD player uses a difet, so the OPA627(A or B) simply won't work.
Let you try the AD843JNZ, and listen... :idea: :wink:
-
Let you try the AD843JNZ, and listen...
I ordered a couple of them from DigiKey. I'll post my comments in a few weeks. They were more expensive than the BB2604 so maybe the AD843JNZ are actually better. I also have some LM opamps that I need to try.
Thanks for the tip.
-
Luxman R117, Luxman LX104 or a Linn Klassik. All work great. Only problem is when the CD has really low bass. The woofer looks like it is going to come right out but it doesn't. Might need to add a sub at some point to get the full deal.
-
Let you try the AD843JNZ, and listen...
I ordered a couple of them from DigiKey. I'll post my comments in a few weeks. They were more expensive than the BB2604 so maybe the AD843JNZ are actually better. I also have some LM opamps that I need to try.
Thanks for the tip.
I tried OPA134, AD845, AD847 and AD843...AD OPA are a little rough but "timbres" are very nice...but less "musical" than BB...IMHO. :idea: :wink:
-
Luxman R117, Luxman LX104 or a Linn Klassik. All work great. Only problem is when the CD has really low bass. The woofer looks like it is going to come right out but it doesn't. Might need to add a sub at some point to get the full deal.
It's not the amplifier, it's the recording. I have a choral/pipe organ piece of music that does this too. The frequencies are probably in the 20s. The woofer oscillates, but it doesn't cause any problems. The music sounds wonderful.
But... yes, a good sealed subwoofer would deal with these frequencies much better.
Dave
-
If an AD847 worked, then I suggest you try an AD817. This device has a much larger output section die and thus has less thermal modulation feedback at low frequencies.
Thermal modulation feedback in an IC is when the output (current gain) section generates heat driving a load, especially at low frequencies, and because the tiny bits in an IC are very closely physically coupled, this heat is then fed back into the front end (voltage gain section) and this modifies its linearity. This is a very undesirable thermal feedback loop that screws up bass performance in particular.
Frank Van Alstine
-
If an AD847 worked, then I suggest you try an AD817. This device has a much larger output section die and thus has less thermal modulation feedback at low frequencies.
Thermal modulation feedback in an IC is when the output (current gain) section generates heat driving a load, especially at low frequencies, and because the tiny bits in an IC are very closely physically coupled, this heat is then fed back into the front end (voltage gain section) and this modifies its linearity. This is a very undesirab ...
Thank you very much Franck! Yes I hope that AD817 is better than an AD847: because I found this last one not so good and I am polite... :idea: :wink:
-
Hi all,
I listened to the Simple Killer Amp from Greg Ball; here are my listening impressions (in Rellums post1):
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=72172&highlight=
In a few weeks, I will listen to an LC Audio, zero feedback amp; will see if such a solid state is able to reproduce the inner details of i.e. my present valves amp.
:beer:
-
Hubert and friends - have you listened to the 1801b's with the SKA?
-
Hello rez,
have you listened to the 1801b's with the SKA?
Yes, me and Francis on the 1801's and Francis on his Cabasse (don't remember the exact type but they are 3-way, 2x21cm d'appolito + mid/tweeter "dual-concentric").
Conclusions related to the two types of speakers and related to different cd-players were the same: the SKA gives an extremely undistorded sound, allowing long listening sessions at average to high levels without ANY harshness and thus highly unfatiguish.
:beer:
-
Dave,
Any plans for yourself to spend time with Frank's new equipment or the new AKSA Lifeforce amplifiers?
-
I... didn't know that Frank had something new/different.
I did manage to a/b the Ultimate 70 with Franks other FET valve amplifiers @ 1 year ago (I think?). They sounded very similar and very good. Frank did mention the Ultimate 70 was the first of Franks amps to have some new fangled stuff under the hood. Perhaps the pervasively imbued product line is now called the "Life Force" series. I really don't know. // I just visited Frank's web page and didn't see "Life Force". Where is this located?
I continue to use Frank's Ultimate 70 in my basement and remain very happy with it. Others who have auditioned this amplifier convey that it has exceptional midrange and highs, but the bass is slightly lean & too tight. I prefer this. Other folks occasionally don't.
Given that very few unamplified instruments (relatively speaking) produce low bass I can easily understand how low bass can become very subjective.
Dave
-
I apologize Dave, my post was very confusing.
The new equipment of Frank's I was referring to is his Ultimate seris of amplifiers.
The Lifeforce "LF55" can be found at www.aksaonline.com. It is one of Hugh Dean's creations in Australia.
Thanks for your reply Dave!
-
Yep,
I already have the Ultimate 70. It's very good. IMO, in an a/b comparison with a full nirvana+ 55wpc amplifier, the Ultimate 70 had better midrange, and highs. The AKSA was marginally better in the bass region. However, I later performed a very similar a/b comparison in a different room with the Ultimate 70 and a AKSA Nirvana + 100 wpc amp. Strangely, the 100wpc was extremely close in the highs and mids while maintaining marginally better bass. Given a choice for "most music", I'd probably prefer the AKSA 100wpc Nirvana + amp. With classical & Jazz I'd still marginally prefer the Ultimate 70.
In all of this, I am only 1 guy with an opinion. I certainly don't understand all the issues.
I really don't understand how/why the AKSA 100wpc amp would sound better than the AKSA 55wpc amp. The volume level was modest. Neither amp was close to clipping. ALSO, I did not a/be the two AKSA amps in the same room/system. The Ultimate 70 was used as an "intermediary" for my comparisons & comments.
In the end, these amplifiers are extremely close. I could be very happy with any of them in my system for @ $1k. At $2k (or slightly more), my heavily modified Golden Tube SE40SE is... all that :D . My stock SE40SE was terrible, but after many mods... oh my!
I haven't heard the Life Force stuff yet. This may happen.
-
I haven't heard the Life Force stuff yet. This may happen
David, I hope it does happen - and soon too!
Hugh
-
Hugh
Steve Harrison will provide solid input that may prompt me. Steve has excellent ears, and a excellent specimen of your 55wpc amps.
Can you think of any reason why your 100wpc amp might sound better than the 55wpc amp? The speakers (mine) have a low DCR of 6 ohms and are @85db sensitive. The spl was not significant. The source material varied, but clean recordings were used.
Hey, also, rumor is that you are a retired G.I. . Did you work electronics in the military too?
Dave
-
Hi David,
Your impressions are not universal. There are some prefer the 55N+. Given the two designs are essentially the same except for the output stage, sonic differences can usually be sheeted home to the reduced damping factor and greater capacity to absorb phase shift. The reaction of the amp to phase shifts in the speaker is extraordinarily important; the problem essentially relates to the compensation regimes to keep the amp stable. Any short term instabilities absolutely kill the sonics. The amp/speaker interface is not fully understood subjectively and this is why their design remains as much an art as a science.
I suspect this applies to a lot of technology. A master of his trade will take certain design options almost unconsciously, and perhaps is not even aware of this process. This results in a certain 'sound' from a particular designer - one could say this of your speakers - and this is no bad thing.
Yes, I joined the Oz Army as a conscript Infantry soldier in the early seventies. I exploited the Army's very good education system, earned my degrees, and rose through the ranks, retiring as a Major from the Education section in 1993.
Looking back, I see my Military service as a terrible waste in many ways. It did teach me a lot about human nature and organisations and it did give me some valuable military skills, but it played hell with my amp design abilities, which is a real shame........ :lol:
Steve Harrison should have his 55LF in the next day or so, and will give you a very good summary of its qualities! :thumb:
Cheers,
Hugh
-
Thanks Hugh,
I do recall reading that other folks preferred the 55wpc amplifier, and have no problem with this. Candidly, I can't explain the reason's for my preference. I simply thought there must be something different in the "black box" creating an impact that I didn't/don't understand.
I... have a further question for you, but I'll move it to your forum.
-
Hello all,
Those having followed this thread know that I prefered to keep my tweaked Rogers E40a vs a few wellknown diy or kit solid states I listened to.
I hate posting comparison impressions because all the manufacturers I meeted/mailed with are kindly guys and have huge respect for them. However...how to say...
In simple words: I will sell my Rogers for this one:
http://www.lcaudio.com/index.php?page=31
Astonishingly it has joined together qualities of the amps I previously listened to: the inner-details of my valve and huge dynamics on the total fr range; as a result: the truest timbres I never heard, a very great separation between the instruments in a symphonic orchestra and very accurate imaging and soundstaging. And all this, with a simple potentiometer.
Only my personal impression :D
-
Hi Hubert,
Thanks for your kind words about my SKA - GB150D amps with Dave's 1801's. Funny, I haven't heard Dave's speakers yet - and Dave hasn't heard the SKA.
Dave, you know you can build the whole 150W /channel SKA amp for ~ $350! :thumb:
Cheers,
Greg
-
Hi Greg,
sure, they are other issues than listening preferencies in the choice of an amp. Price is one, availability, reliability of services are a few among others. I confirm the SKA sounds great regarding its price and your services are top notch.
BTW, Francis Muller made the last mods you adviced on my SKA. I will listen to tomorrow evening :wink:
Kind regards.
Hubert
-
I haven't posted on this forum or AC for many months. In fact, I almost sold my my 1801b's recently for lack of use. I have a beautiful pair of walnut 1801s that Darren Thomas built for me when Dave was busy moving a few years ago.
The reason for my lack of use of the 1801s was my inability to find a amp that would provide a perfect match in my highly acoustically treated listening room. Enter Response Audio, the AC-er who mods Jolida tube gear. I have owned a modded Jolida integrated in the past and did not like the match with the 1801s. Now, Response Audio's, Bill Baker is making dedicated amps built from the Jolida integrated platform called the 3205. The 3205 can be purchased as an integrated or a true power amp. My 3205 Signature Jolida power amp, in addition to having a list of mods a mile long, has a beautiful walnut faceplate. My preamp, you ask, is a Juicymusic Blueberry Extreme also encased in walnut which matches my amp and speakers. Highly appealing to my better half. My wife has always preferred the sound of my 1801s to the single drivers that I have been using the past year.
I have found the pairing of the Response Audio 3205 with an active preamp and my 1801s to be a match made in heaven in my household. Dave was right, a modded Jolida is a perfect match for the 1801s! Thanks to Bill Baker at Response Audio for offering an excellent product.
-
Thanks for the kind words tybee. I hope you don't mind me posting a picture of your amp but I think a few AC'ers will remember seeing this piece. Tybee's amp is a straight power amp with all Signature upgrades implemented along with a attenuation circuit installed at the input to allow better matching with most tube preamps.
Happy listening tybee and all Ellis Audio speaker owners!!
(http://www.responseaudio.com/Custom3205-2.jpg)
-
Tybee,
I haven't listened to all of the Jolida gear, but wish to convey my belief on the issue of synergy as it pertains to your findings. This has the potential to become very long. I will first offer some preamble.
Stated simply, not all tube gear is good. Not all solid state gear is bad. Indeed, the very best of either flavor will sound very appealing. Notably, @ 18 months ago Frank VanAlstine accomplish some work on his hybrid amplifiers that was VERY audible to my ears and very positive. The previous variety of Franks gear was inferior to the my modified Jolida - at least to my ears (and Mrs. Ellis too :wink:).
Soooo, I suppose what I am conveying is that there can be less desirable hybrid amplifiers, and the inverse can also be true. I have NOT heard the Jolida Hybrids in any form, but suspect that your ears are very correct. I have heard Bill Baker's work on the Jolida tube amps, and it's very solid. Indeed his amplifiers are very competent. aa
With specific regard to your situation, I believe synergy is/was not the issue. I believe that Bill's Jolida tube amps are very good, and your previous Jolida hybrid was a lesser piece of hifi gear. Others may disagree, but this is my 2c.
Hmmm, that didn't get too long.
And, congratulations on your next step towards audio heaven.
Dave
-
Tybee - thanks for your comments on the 3205's - had been reading earlier about Bill's new Bella 3205s which I assume are in the same ballpark. But I have thought 50-60 watts was not enough power for my Ellis' although have never tried a lower powered amp with the speakers. I have been thinking new amp for my system for about 3 years (started this thread to hear what other Ellis owners were having success with) but flop around between trying lower powered tubes (big powered quality tubes are expensive) or the many options for going more affordable big like ice power and Class D. Best I have heard with my 1801s is expensive and very large Odyssey extreme monos (not mine) - great control and bass - but not a good fit for my room and what I want in my system. So I continue to sit on the fence looking for the right amp that will match up well with my system - Modwright Sony cd player, Audio Note M2 pre, Onix subwoofer, and Ellis speakers.
-
Davids,
Let me first say that I prefer tubes with the Ellis 1801s, and I am not a big fan of digital amps at this point. I have yet to hear a digital amp that captures the soul of music, but there may be a digital amp that can. If you use an active pre-amp with a 50-60 watt tube amp, I believe you will have plenty of headroom in most rooms. The 1801s are so revealing to me that they will reproduce the sonic characteristics of what you put in front of them. As Dave has previously posted, the 1801s will reproduce badly recorded material as it was recorded, but well recorded material sounds terrific. Since I like a small dose of lushness, I prefer a tube amp, active tube pre-amp and tubed CDP to give the 1801s alittle warmth. I am currently using Reality speaker cables, and I thought they might be too dry, but they are working well. The Reality cables are able to convey the detail without being too analytical.
Anyway, Response Audio's 3205 amp sounds very good with the 1801s. I have used 6550, KT77, and EL34 power tubes with the Signature 3205 showing good results. I really like EL34s with the 1801s. Hope this helps.
-
Dave,
In response to your comments about my description of synergy, I would like to offer a few thoughts. When I refer to synergy, I am referring to how all of the components in a system interact together to optimize the sound reproduction for the listener. For me, synergy not only includes the amp, preamp, CDP or turntable/arm/cartridge, but it also includes the speaker cable, interconnects, speaker stands, component racks, vacuum tube combinations, 1801 speakers and most importantly, the listening room. For me, when all of the system components blend and work together correctly, the sound reproduction is wonderful.
I continue to be amazed at how changing a tube or a speaker cable or power cable can change the character of the sound of the 1801s. Like the tale of the three bears, the porridge is too hot, too cold, or just right. I am finding that mating the right components together makes the sound to my ears, just right. Often times, as many of us try to put together systems to satisfy our listening tastes, we put the wrong combinations together which results in frustration and Audiogon sales. For me, the 1801s have many sonic strengths that certain components can help reveal. As I previously mentioned, I love tube equipment with the 1801s. Bill Baker has provided a great amp and Mark Deneen of Juicymusic has given me a great preamp with built in phono. Nathan Loyer of Eighth Nerve not only provided me excellent acoustical room treatment, he has also created some excellent power cables and isolation components (Nerve Endings). Chris Futrick of Solidwood has created my custom wooden 1801 speaker stands and rack shelving. Greg Staley of Reality Cables makes an excellent speaker cable and Kevin Haskins of DIY Cable has provided me some excellent ICs as well as a custom phono cable for my Grace 707 tonearm.
My past attempts at finding suitable components to work with the 1801s were a failure. I suspect many who have given up on the 1801s did not find that right combination of components to satisfy their listening tastes. This ongoing thread is important for the satisfied 1801 users to share with others the positive experiences with amplification as well as other system components that work well together with the 1801s. I know you have tried to overcome the fear of many that a 30 watt tube amp is not enough power for the 1801s. As I have previously posted, I have used an 8 watt Eastern Electric tube amp with my 1801s with success. Granted the 8 watter did not have the headroom of my Response Audio 50 watter, but the 8 watter did not embarrass itself. The little EE tube amp did drive my 1801s and sounded decent, but I would not recommend this amp for everyday use with the 1801s. It is better suited for single driver speakers offered by other fine vendors who offer products here.
Let me end this long response by saying the 1801s have recently provide me some sonic magic that I have been missing for awhile. Mrs. Tybee, who has better ears than me, says the 1801s in my current configuration scores her vote as a keeper.
-
For a very low price and quite good quality, I can tell you that Flying Mole DAD-M100proHT are astonishing for their price. I actually don't like at all the "class D ampli" -nuforce and Jeff rowland with ice power from B&O-, but these ones are wonderful and a bargain. No need to spend too much money for a very good system. It works very well with a lot of speakers: Ellis 1801b including the Revel Studio Ultima... :o
I have compared my system with McIntosh C26/MC7270...
I use a Vecteur L4.2 OAD, an optimized cayin Preampli SC-6LS OAD (Telefunken "Diamond" ECC83 smooth plates, Mullard BVA CV4003/M8136 "shield" box plates/ RTC E80CC) with two Flying Mole DAD-M100proHT monoblocks OAD and Ellis 1801b OAD... 8) :D
the modded Cayin preamp SC-6LS OAD (the tubes are not the now ones):
(http://img481.imageshack.us/img481/4281/dsc23312eb.jpg)
(http://img481.imageshack.us/img481/7982/dsc23280ul.jpg)
-
Just finished and plugged in my 1801b's for the first time tonight. Just couldn't stop listening - including stuff I hadn't listened to in a while and these speakers are just magic. Also, I found the Greg Ball 150D was outstanding with my previous speakers, Celestion SL6s's, but the matchup with the 1801b's is just sublime.
-
Hi Rez,
Nice to see you've struck a synergistic combo with the 1801b's and my GB150D amps. :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: (synergy makes 3)
You are very astute with your upgrades and DIY +ve. :green:
Cheers,
Greg
-
My past attempts at finding suitable components to work with the 1801s were a failure.
Yep, source gear does have a very significant impact. This is the reason I want to foster active discussion in this forum. It's in my very selfish best interest to have my customers use good source gear. It ensures the customer obtains the very best sound from the 1801.
The other very significant area of concern are recordings. A fairly common response from 1801 customers is their realization that recording quality varies significantly. The bad recordings are clearly obvious simply because the quality of the good recordings are sooooo good.
I think (??) the listener can hear some commonality between distortions on the bad recordings and the distortions present from source gear. I can't say this for sure, but it could be the case. What surely cures both ailments is better source gear and better recordings. Both of these are quite rare.
Dave
-
Also, I found the Greg Ball 150D was outstanding with my previous speakers,
Nice to see you've struck a synergistic combo with the 1801b's and my GB150D amps.
This is the 2nd person to convey exuberantly positive results with the GB150 amp. I have heard nothing contrary. Thanks for your contributions Greg!
I do have a question for Greg or rez. Is it most common for folks to run the GB150 in Class A mode at 50wpc? I think this would be plenty of power, but am uncertain what most folks are implementing.
Dave
-
Hi Dave,
It is coming up to a year on Friday since the first GB150D amplifier kit was shipped. The amplifier was designed as a versatile topology which could be configured as Class AB or Class A and AC or DC coupled. Only a handful have been set up as Class A and with one notable Class A only exception (hi Jacco), all others have reverted to Class AB use - primarily to take advantage of the great headroom in 150W mode and no tangible loss of sonics over Class A operation.
This is as intended - I have deliberately targeted what I believe to be the main source of loss of sonic purity in Class AB - power supply artefacts, and virtually eliminated them, within the unique yet simple amplifier topology. This has the huge advantage over conventional approaches of being simple, compact, easy to build and needing a smaller power supply resource to achieve standout sonic results.
For those willing to take on the challenge of building this DIY amplifier, and Rez is one, a first timer I believe, who have been absolutely transfixed with the sonic result.
There certainly appears to be a synergy with the 1801b's that others have found - which I :( have yet to experience!! :thumb:
Cheers,
Greg
-
I received Steve Harrison's AKSA Lifeforce 55 a couple weeks ago. I haven't performed a solid a/b versus my very Modified Golden tube SE40SE yet, but my initial reactions for the AKSA Lifeforce are thus.
Yep, the AKSA Lifeforce is superior to the 55 Nirvana + and Superior to the Ultimate 70. The midrange and highs have suprising depth and detail while never sounding harsh. Eventually I'll get around to performing a solid comparison between the Lifeforce and the SE40SE. I also hope to get a comparison with a friends OTL amp. For now, my initial reaction is that the Lifeforce is an extremely capable world class amplifier.
It's also my unconfirmed observation this amplifier has some very good hand picked parts on the Circuit board. The capacitors are all "boutique" units, and not all the same flavor. Certainly electrolytic capacitors have a different sound character, and I believe Hugh has tediously selected the right capacitor its appropriate duty. I believe this is at least part of the "magic" in the Lifeforce amplifier. Of course, there are many who believe that all electrolytic capacitors sound the same. Hopefully some exposure to the Lifeforce amplifier will convince these folks otherwise.
Dave
-
I have used an 8 watt Eastern Electric tube amp with my 1801s with success.
Is this the specific amplifier you tried?
http://www.tnt-audio.com/ampli/minimax_pwr_e.html (http://www.tnt-audio.com/ampli/minimax_pwr_e.html)
Several years ago I heard a Pilot 240 tube amplifier with a push/pull El84 setup that sound amazingly strong. The speakers used were an 85db 2-way having @ 8db sensitivity. This was my first exposure to lower powered tube amplifiers. I enjoyed it, and it sounded darn good! My second exposure immediately followed.
It was a SET 8wpc 300b Cary. It sounded bad. It was awfully thin, and was a bit gritty. The only thing it did well was place a saxophone precisely in the imaging soundstage. The image was located high and to the left. Aside from this, the 300b SET Cary with these 85db speakers was a loser.
My hunch is that amplifier stability is a significant factor when pushed, and the 300b Carywould do much better with a more sensitive speaker having a flat impedance.
Dave
Dave
-
I received Steve Harrison's AKSA Lifeforce 55 a couple weeks ago. I haven't performed a solid a/b versus my very Modified Golden tube SE40SE yet, but my initial reactions for the AKSA Lifeforce are thus.
Yep, the AKSA Lifeforce is superior to the 55 Nirvana + and Superior to the Ultimate 70. The midrange and highs have suprising depth and detail while never sounding harsh. Eventually I'll get around to performing a solid comparison between the Lifeforce and the SE40SE. I also hope to get a comparison with a friends OTL amp. For now, my initial reaction is that the Lifeforce is an extremely capable world class amplifier.
It's also my unconfirmed observation this amplifier has some very good hand picked parts on the Circuit board. The capacitors are all "boutique" units, and not all the same flavor. Certainly electrolytic capacitors have a different sound character, and I believe Hugh has tediously selected the right capacitor its appropriate duty. I believe this is at least part of the "magic" in the Lifeforce amplifier. Of course, there are many who believe that all electrolytic capacitors sound the same. Hopefully some exposure to the Lifeforce amplifier will convince these folks otherwise.
Dave
Hello everyone,
Aksa owner here. I think I might like to add a few comments about my two amplifiers. The Aksa Nirvana amp that I loaned to David a couple years ago was a Nirvana spec Aksa 55 with some blackgate caps and a few other parts changes, but was not a Nirvana Plus spec amp, as that specification did not exist at that time. After receiving the amp back from David, I continued the modification process to full Nirvana Plus specification, and did some other changes as well. My highly modified Nirvana that David listened to for those months was fairly close to the N+ final version, but not all the way there. Small point perhaps, but I would like to note it.
The LifeForce 55 that is now on loan, is a completely stock amplifier module, with all stock parts in the amp module board. However, the configuration is not as a straight stereo amplifier. The amp is configured as a complete dual mono amplifier, complete with signal attenuators, series stepped attenuators to be exact, on each channel. Thus, there is no need for a preamplifier in the system. This is not the stock version that will be released by Aspen Amplifiers, when that comes to pass.
The LifeForce amp module is essentially a redesign of the original Aksa amplifier circuit. It shares many of the original design concepts and sound with the original Aksa amp, but does have some significant differences. The LifeForce has no H2 or H3 designed into it, and is very neutral in sound character, a technical design difference. The bass performance of the amp is significantly improved from the Aksa amplifier, and there are other sound differences as well.
There is now a user review of the LifeForce 100 at Critics Circle that was posted just a week ago. There are several user reviews of LF55 and LF100 on the Aspen circle under the thread title, Listening Impressions and Listening Impressions II.
-
I am using two Giovanni Stochino ultra fast amps as published in Electronics World. I have been using these on a pair of Dynaudio Finale speakers for the last 5 years or so. They are 100W amps slewing at 300V/us with very low distortion. I like their sound very much and always enjoyed listening to the Dynausios through them. Source in a Gryphon Tabu CD player through the Elektor battery powered pre-amp.
-
I have some... bad news. I have invested too much money in my Golden Tube SE40SE (about $2400 total). It has slight/pleasant tube-like sound and very good detail, but, it's inferior to the AKSA LF55.
Yesterday I conducted the official listening test with Mrs. Ellis, and she confirmed greater detail, layering, depth of soundstage, and bass resolution when using the AKSA LifeForce 55wpc amplifier. The difference wasn't monumental, but it was present, and I agreed wit my wife's comments. She doesn't speak "Stereophile", but the words that kept coming up were, "Yep, this one is better". She would then explain why this was true from varying aspects. The summation is that the LF55 is indeed a marginally better amplifier than my heavily modified Golden Tube SE40SE.
I really don't know what Hugh did inside this amplifier. My guess is the parts quality is a consideration and indeed the capacitors are all top-notch stuff.
Congratulations to Hugh Dean for making an incredibly good amplifier. I didn't think this would happen, but it did.
There are several afore mentioned products that I have not auditioned/experienced. The current hierarchy list is:
1. AKSA LF55/LF100
2. Golden Tube SE40 Modified by Jeff Glowacki at www.soniccraft.com (http://www.soniccraft.com)
3. VanAlstine Ultimate 70 (2 years old).
4. Jolida 302b - modified
I will also offer some comment herein regarding the common commercial amplifiers. The short summary is... the best quality parts are necessary to obtain the best possible results. There are many good amplifiers on the market with fancy marketing campaigns touting their circuit typology. While this matters (i.e. the Levinson 33 massive regulated power supply), the very best sound quality WILL ALWAYS be obtained when using the best possible components internally. Specifically, electrolytic capacitors with labels "Black Gate" (by Rubycon), "Elna Cerafine", "Nichicon Gold" are arguably the best possible components. Coupling capacitors in tube circuits with labels "AudioCap Theta", "Sonicap", "AuriCap", "Jensen", "Mundorf Silver/Oil" etc. etc. . There are certainly better quality diodes too. It is worthwhile to note that high quality components will cost 10x to 20x more than "standard" components. This is why 99.9% of hifi amplifiers don't use them... and remain inferior.
This assertion is a generalization that assumes equally competent amplifier designs, design goals, and quality control. I believe it is well within the reach of most amplifier designers to build a great amplifier using high quality components. I do NOT believe it is within the reach of the accounting department to build a great amplifier using high quality (i.e. expensive) components. Typology matters, but parts quality IS significant. Given the same typology, an amplifier with better components will indeed sound better.
Dave
-
I really don't know what Hugh did inside this amplifier.
Somebody said me that, at least, he removed something :o but I'm sure he will explain it himself... :P Typology matters, but parts quality IS significant. Given the same typology, an amplifier with better components will indeed sound better.
Indeed, topology IS the important thing, as it is for speakers. I prefer average priced caps on a 1801 than silver/gold on...some other speakers aa
-
This is becoming a "can of worms". :o
Indeed, topology IS the important thing, as it is for speakers.
I... think that perhaps I need to clarify my opinion on this matter. I agree that typology is important, but Typology isn't the only important element. I believe this is valid for amplifiers and speakers.
I remain convinced that an optimized typology for a loudspeaker crossover is essential to the good results. I would much rather have mediocre component quality with a well optimized crossover typology than great quality components with a poorly implemented typology. My very first DIY speaker kit used a SEAS T25-001 tweeter and a Scanspeak 8545 midwoofer and it sounded terrible - until a gracious gentlemen redesigned the crossover. Then... oh, my!! It was wonderful!
When I started in this hobby 7 years ago there weren't many folks capable of creating an extremely good loudspeaker crossover in the DIY realm. Dennis Murphy, John K, Phil Bamberg, Geoffrey Dillon and George Short were very capable. Certainly Mr. D'Appolito and Mr. Linkwitz were capable on the commercial front too. I heard a very solid rumor that many commercial folks were using a modeled crossover (not rigorously tested) in their commercial speakers (more on this later). There were certainly other capable folks but not too many of them.
Today there are many more solid designers. Heck, I met a young guy named Chris D'Allesio (spelling?) that did very good work. Also, Scott Sehlin is solid, and so is Curt Campbell. There are also the Packer fans; Scott, Nate and Matt. And... Mike Bengfort. All of these guys are very capable grass-roots DIY guys, and this is just in the Midwest region. And... Dave Ellis managed a "quickie" crossover using the Accuton C95 and OW1 in about 4 hours that was on par with the 1801.
I don't intend to infer that obtaining an optimized crossover is something that could be done in a weekend by a rookie with some modeling software. My effort follows, oh, @ 6000 hours of reading and testing. Other folks are surely smarter and are able to climb the learning curve quicker. I do intend to infer that many folks are capable of good typology.
I believe this is true among speaker guys and amplifier guys.
The only caveat I will offer (and repeat) is that a few amplifier typology issues are VERY complex. As mentioned previously, the fully regulated power supply in the very expensive Levinson is profound.
After obtaining good typology, parts quality will provide that extra 10% of performance that is so difficult to obtain. It can also be detrimental. Many electrolytic capacitors are labeled with 10-20% tolerance because this is a reality for many components made in China. IME any decent capacitor will be @2% tolerance. And, this is on the obvious measurable differences.
Hererin I will offer some questions on the fringe of my knowledge that I believe impact manufacturing quality. I don't have the answers to these questions in the amplifier realm and some of them may be a non-issue. Nonetheless, I believe many of these have substance for amplifiers and loudspeaker crossover components.
What happens when the film used in a poly capacitor becomes a bit thin/porous? What happens when the chemistry of the film changes from 1 roll to the next. What happens when the metalized material crystallizes at a different rated due to ambient temperature variation? What happens when the spray nozzle depositing the metalized material becomes partially clogged. Why aren't all capacitors annealed. Is all end-spray the same? Are there more quality control problem areas????
In the speaker realm...
Are all voice coils perfectly centered in production run? Do all surrounds have the same chemistry? Are all surrounds the same thickness? Do all tweeter domes have ideally dispersed coating material? Are all paper cones the same mass? Are all voice coils concentric? Are driver motor tolerances always consistent? Are all top plate and pole piece assemblies precisely machined?
The answer to all of the speaker questions is mostly "no" - in varying degrees of extremity. Some folks do an extremely good job with these things. Other folks have, ahem, less than ideal results.
My point in rambling, and am rambling, is that loudspeaker/amplifier research & development and the brilliant implementation by engineers when building a component is most often NOT commensurate with the end result. The board members and accountants must realize a profit, and this often necessitates the use of inexpensive components and their commensurate quality.
Indeed, topology IS the important thing, as it is for speakers. I prefer average priced caps on a 1801 than silver/gold on...some other speakers
Primarily, the focus of this string is amplifiers, not speakers.
I believe amplifiers are much more sensitive to component quality than loudspeakers. This assertion has significant room for interpretation... so I'll clarify one aspect.
Upgrading from a Solen Capacitor to a Sonicap behind the tweeter of the 1801 is modestly audible. After living with them for several years, I will always use a Sonicap. However, I can easily understand that folks may wish to use the solen or something similar. It has a touch more grit, and some folks may prefer this. It adds splash and sizzle. Also, I think the use of a Mundorf Silver/Oil is completely unwarranted in a tweeter circuit.
Upgrading from a Solen Capacitor to a Sonicap in a coupling circuit of a tube amp is significantly audible. This upgrade was earth-moving for me when first accomplished in my CD player.
IMO, using a good quality coupling capacitor has 5x more impact than using a good quality tweeter capacitor.
I also feel it's somewhat fair "evidence" to use the results of the folks on the AKSA forum who upgraded their AKSA amps to Nirvana + versions and their results. All commentary on this matter is extremely positive. Better components DO matter.
In summary, I believe many folks can obtain a very good typology and this remains absolutely necessary. After this, the quality of the components used is decisive.
Dave
-
I received this applicable query today:
Dave. While I have you here; wanted to ask you about the Aspen LF55 amp that you had a chance to hear, I saw your post on their web site. Did you try it with your 1801's? My next project is looking into replacing my old Crown DC300a amp and the LF55 sounds like a no brainer, providing you have the money for it. I saw on your web site that you said that you are cheap, well, I think I am cheaper. How did you like it and was there anything else out there you would recommend in place of it? The LF100 may be a little to hi in price for me. Wanted to know if you found the 55 powerful enough. What can you add to this? Ed
I did indeed use the LF55 with the 1801 and it has plenty of power. This is true with all good @60wpc SS amplifiers. This continues to be my sentiment regarding the necessary power to drive the 1801 speaker to full spl.
I really don't understand the intimate issues regarding power ratings, sound quality, and commercial grade amplifiers. It seems VERY prevalent that many of these amplifiers had something very strange happening with their power ratings. It seems they are very generous/exaggerated. The result is that many of these amplifiers can't manage to push clean power with the same finesse as a better quality hifi amplifier having the same power rating. This was very true when using a comparison between my Bryston 3B-ST (120wpc), Jolida 302b (35wpc), and stereo Kenwood 126 (125wpc). The Kenwood seemed to clip at the same spl or slightly lower spl than the Jolida. The Bryston was a powerhouse of an amplifier when compared to the wimpy Kenwood having approximately the same power rating. This is surely strange, but I can't avoid the reality of this situation.
Many gents have conveyed that higher wattage commercial grade amplifiers simply sound better than the lower wattage commercial grade amplifiers. I certainly will not dismiss their sentiment regarding commercial grade amplifiers. I do believe there is truth in their comments, but cannot objectively explain why. I only know that among better quality amplifers that @35wpc push pull tube (i.e. El34) or @60wpc SS is enough for the 1801.
I continue to be cheap, but my amplifiers are much better than in the past. The LF amplifiers are getting expensive. Spending less will net lesser sound quality, but can certainly result in a very decent sounding amplifier. I truly don't have a sonically alternative to convey that is less expensive. I have certainly experimented with a few things, and had a fair amount of feedback from my customers. If you want to spend less, I recommend the Nirvana + 100wpc amp. I do realize this sends up a red flag when contrasted against my previous commentary regarding power ratings, but I believe there is something strangely different and better in the Nirvana + 100wpc amp than extant in the 55wpc unit. I can't explain this, and haven't accomplished a solid a/b test. However, a faithful speaker-geek cohort did this test, and provided clear feedback on the matter. I have also experienced both amplifiers in my system, but there was a significant time disparity.
If you want to experiment with something inexpensive, buy a Jolida 302b. The only Achilles-heel is this amp eats the more fragile Svetlana EL34 tubes at a rate of 1 every 4 months (in my living room). Nonetheless, it's a very decent amplifier from the factory and can become extremely good with some soldering.
If you want to experiment on the super cheap, I recommend a used Jolida 202a or Pilot 232 or Pilot 240 tube amp. These amps will have enough juice for comfortably loud listening, but won't push the 1801 to its limit. It seems the Pilot 232 has become more popular in recent years and the prices are rising. I have a hunch these old amplifiers had very good transformers.
Dave
-
I forgot to mention something in my post above.
Most of the Crown amps seems to have an input impedance that is quite low - about 10k ohms. Most hifi amps and most preamps are 50k ohms. Higher impedance amps are a much easier load to drive with via CD player and passive preamp. With a low impedance load, the need for an active preamp. So, my swapping to an amplifier with a @50k ohm input impedance, you may be able to use very simple circuitry for the preamp - passive.
However, this is largely dependent on the CD player. I have heard some CD players that really needed an active preamp - even with a 100k ohm amplifier.
So, this is something that needs to be tested via system synergy and experimentation.
Dave
-
I will be using a Bottlehead Foreplay III preamp and a Dynaco st70 (ARC C3 mod) to drive a soon to be purchased set of speakers. the Ultimate 70 appears to be wonderful performer with ellis 1801s. But it is usually only the higher volume levels that are covered by descriptions in this post. For example, I have read lots of "will my XXX amp push enough sound pressure through my 1801 speakers to make me happy (and disturb my neighbours)". It is clear now that an st70 with 35wpc will handle the 1801b very well in an average to small listening room. And the sound should be rather wonderful.
But, can someone please tell me more about listening to your 1801 and ultimate 70 combination:
at low volume levels?
how would you describe the sound-floor?
can the amp and speaker combination deliver adequate low-level sound reproduction?
(I do not mean bass, I mean can you hear pages being turned on the music stand in the back row)
and the detailing at softer listening levels?
do you enjoy your system completely at moderate listening levels, with as little fatigue as possible?
do you feel connected to the music before turning the volume up to chest-thumping levels.
Hope my questions are clear enough. I have older and wiser neighbours who do not like loud listening levels and in fact I do not prefer them either. I most prefer to hear all the music on a recording in a dynamic presentation at moderate levels.
thanks very much for all of your replies.
J.P.
-
The Bottlehead Preamp...
I had the opportunity to audition an earlier version of the bottlehead preamp several years ago. This version was Version 1, and had all the bells-and-whistles. There were no further bottlehead mods/additions that could be performed on this preamp from the bottlehead providers. It was the full cascode with Auricap coupling capacitors. The cost of parts was about $475 with the stepped attenuators. For testing, the bottlehead preamp replaced my Creek Passive preamp between my Anthem CD-1 and Bryston 3B-ST.
Candidly, I didn't like the Bottlehead preamp :(. My wife agreed. It sounded very fat, warm, mushy and round. A fair amount of the detail present in the recordings was absorbed by the bottlehead preamp :nono:. I can easily see where this preamp might have a keen advantage in some systems having considerable Solid-State hash (caused by many factors), but my system was okay in this regard. I didn't need the "filtering" of the bottlehead preamp to hide anything in my system.
However, I have not followed the Bottlehead progression. They are obviously on Stage III, and some changes have occurred. They might have fixed the problems present with the earlier preamps. I really don't know :scratch:. I suggest following the rhetoric on this issue. If the propensity of the rhetoric from folks experimenting with old and new variants of the Bottlehead preamp include commentary such as, "much cleaner, more dynamic, I can hear the strings etc. etc." - okay, great! However, if those commenting convey, " warm, lush, smooth etc. etc. " - uh, I don't recommend this product.
I do think the warm, lush, smooth, fat sound of the original Bottlehead preamp creates a very retro sound that many people may appreciate. Certainly it made my system sound very similar to an experiment where I implemented an old EL84 console radio 15wpc power amp in my system. It sounded very warm, lush, smooth and fat.
I do suggest using a passive preamp. Most variants of the Dynaco amplifier have a very high input impedance that will be very "friendly" to your CD player. Specifically, I highly suggest using the standard Scott Endler stepped attenuators that will plug directly into the front of your Dynaco. This is what I use and I think they are just dandy 8) aa . And, they do sound better than a standard-grade volume pot. They look really cheap, but their performance is striking :thumb: .
My commentary on amplifiers in the previous pages and the hierarchical ratings is based on how they sound at perhaps 2 watts (average) of dissipation at the loudspeaker terminals. The peaks vary based on music content, but listening is indeed at a very low level. I rarely listen at chest thumping levels. I won't get into stereophile rhetoric beyond what I have already commented previously in this discussion string. All of my comparisons and previously mentioned hierarchy consider noise floor, clarity, dynamics, tonal quality, and instrumental balance. Further, thick commentary would be of little use since you will be using a different version of the ST70.
how would you describe the sound-floor?
Not as dead as my Golden Tube SE40SE, but nonetheless VERY quiet.
can the amp and speaker combination deliver adequate low-level sound reproduction?(I do not mean bass, I mean can you hear pages being turned on the music stand in the back row)
and the detailing at softer listening levels?
Definitely!
do you enjoy your system completely at moderate listening levels, with as little fatigue as possible?
Again - Definitely!
do you feel connected to the music before turning the volume up to chest-thumping levels.
And again - Definitely!
I don't know anything about the ARC C3 mod for the Dynaco ST70. It may be very competent, but I have never heard or read anything about it. My only additional input on the matter is this:
1. A local hifi enthusiast recently compared my Ultimate 70 to his slightly modified(not ARC C3) Dynaco ST-70. He decided to sell his Dynaco ST-70 - enough said.
2. Frank VanAlstine wrote some very good commentary about the original flaws in the Dynaco ST-70. I believe most of them are here: http://www.avahifi.com/root/equipment/amplifier/70_rebuild_plans.htm (http://www.avahifi.com/root/equipment/amplifier/70_rebuild_plans.htm) Specifically, the portions of his commentary addressing the need for the ST70 to "choke-down" the bass from the feedback circuit seem very applicable. I don't know if all Dynaco mods address this issue, but I do believe this issue is very valid.
3. There are MANY iterations of the Williamson push-pull amplifier present, and most seems to use the EL34 tube. There is good reason for this. The El34 is a very nice sounding tube (I prefer the common Svetlana C logo version), and will push enough juice for most folks in their home hifi system. As such, I think believe your pursuit of of a modified Dynaco ST70 is very wise :) :thumb:.
Dave
-
Jipper,
Do you have a link for the ARC C3 Dynaco mods?
-
Sheepisly, I admit that I had very little reference to go on with this purchase (the audio research C3 mod ST70). I read a great deal about the standard st70. I read about the various other mods I could find details about. And as I am just beginning in the "how to design an amplifier", some of the information about what each modification accomplished was not completely understood. The few pages where I could find (no handy list of pages) some mention of the C3 mod were all very favourable. I thought any Dynaco would be a good place to start my own learning.
So, I don't have a place to point you towards for more information on my st70 C3. Sorry. But I will provide a copy of the ARC manual once it arrives. I will then be able to share a complete breakdown.
JP
-
I thought any Dynaco would be a good place to start my own learning.
I agree completely :thumb: !! This amplifier will be a GREAT place to start learning about amplifiers. It perhaps slightly easier with non-pcb valve amps, but having a schematic will help dramatically. I have spent hours with looking at the bottom of my amplifiers with the schematic immediately adjacent while studying my valve amplifier books. I am not an amplifier wizard, but find the study of relatively simple valve circuits quite fascinating. However, when things get complex I lose track of the electrons mentally.
A snippet - Valve amps without slow turn on circuitry or a tube rectifier will eat tubes faster. Tube amps with slow turn on circuitry or a tube rectifier will have extended tube life. There are a few other variables, but the most important is having a gentle application of primary power after the heaters are warm.
Dave
-
I tried a SKA (simple killer amp), slighty modified with a massive psu yesterday. It was beautiful.
vH pH
-
I tried a SKA (simple killer amp), slightly modified with a massive psu yesterday. It was beautiful.
Groovy! Thanks for the contribution!
Do you have a link?
What other amplifiers did you replace?
Dave
-
I have something to add to this string.
A while ago I decided to experiment in something different. i purchased a Cary 572SE MKII and a friend allowed me to borrow his CARY SLP 50 Preamp. The amplifier is a 20wpc SET design. It has enough juice to drive the 1801b to a reasonable level in my living room.
Before mods this setup sounded very MEDIOCRE. There were some good things about it, but the sound was somewhat colored, the bass was very lean, and the midrange was gritty. I suspect this amplifier is on par with many commercial offerings that has potential with a few modifications. I have been spoiled by having a very good amplifer in my living room and experiencing better DIY amplifiers previously.
After a few mods the sound is markedly better, but the highs remain a bit zingy, the bass remains lean. The detail is strikingly good, but the amp has "no" bottom end. If I actually achieve decent results with this amplifier I will post my full comments.
Dave
-
Hi Dave
Here is the link to Greg Ball's SKA website:
http://www.diyhifi.org/amplifierguru/guru_002.htm
Greg lives just a track a bit from me here in Queensland.
Bluesky
-
Happy New Year guys,I am prepare to DIY a PASS ALEPH Mini AMP to replace my old QUAD405 AMP,the PASS has a A type output of 28wpc/8 oms,anyone who can give me suggestions whether it will working well with the 1801s?
-
Happy New Year guys,I am prepare to DIY a PASS ALEPH Mini AMP to replace my old QUAD405 AMP,the PASS has a A type output of 28wpc/8 oms,anyone who can give me suggestions whether it will working well with the 1801s?
I don't recall anyone using that specific amplifier with the 1801s, but i do have 2 thoughts.
- A somewhat wealthy fellow DIY enthusiast who also uses SEAS magnesium drivers went through many rather expensive amplifiers and recalled that the Aleph was perhaps the best of the bunch - including a few Jeff Rowland amps.
- My Cary 572 SET has plenty of juice for normal to modestly loud listening levels, but it's 20wpc is about the least amount of juice that I'd recommend. It has 20wpc.
Hopefully these data points are helpful.
Oh, it has been a few years since I looked at the design for the Aleph, but I recall it being a relative simple design. Don't skimp in the coupling capacitors.
//
I found this site, and it conveyed the Aleph Mini has 10wpc, not the 28wpc you mention?? Are you sure that you have the specs for the correct project?
http://diyamps.com/aleph/aleph.shtml (http://diyamps.com/aleph/aleph.shtml)
Dave
-
I hesitate at the ALEPH after some gentle told me that the quad405 may have a more balanced sound than the ALEPH MINI,I am waiting for audition before a decision,also,the fact is the AM consume more power :(
Please check this:http://www.hifizone.net/shop_view.asp?id=976 indeed It has a 28wpc output,I think it is reasonable because it has +/-18vdc rails,not +/-15vdc
I do not think there are any coupling capacitors in the original AM,but can add one if some colored-sound is wanted,Please check :http://www.hifizone.net/forum_view.asp?forum_id=14&view_id=1324
Hey Dave,have you sold out all your 1801b kits?My money is still on the way :cry:
-
Strangely, I couldn't load either of those links at hifizone?? Perhaps a membership is required to view them.
If there are no coupling capacitors in the design, adding them would be a very bad idea.
It wouldn't seem that bumping the line voltage by 3vdc would raise the output from 12wpc to 28wpc. I am not an expert, but this doesn't seem correct.
Hey Dave,have you sold out all your 1801b kits?My money is still on the way
I have 3 W18 drivers remaining.
I don't know I mentioned this previously, but SEAS changed the W18 driver quite dramatically. The new one has a completely different surround and the shape of the response above 2500hz reflects this. The new driver also has more inductance (this is bad). The most important part in all of this is the crossover for the 1801 would have to be completely redesigned to accommodate the changes in the new W18 driver. Having already endured a few minor changes in the W18 driver I am unwilling to continue in this stead.
The scarlet lining in these problems is the Accuton C95 driver. It's better. If the W18 driver remained constant, I wouldn't have discovered this.
After the 1801C is finished, I should be able to manage a less expensive project in 6-12 months.
Dave
-
Hi Dave,
Do you have an estimated timeline when the 1801c speaker will be completed and ready for shipping?
Thanks
Rod
-
Do you have an estimated timeline when the 1801c speaker will be completed and ready for shipping?
My prototype pair are already complete, but I want to evaluate a few minor crossover changes before a final stamp of approval. I should have these evaluated by the end of this month. There are a couple parallel inductors that I may have custom wound to eliminate a few resistors. But this is minor in the grande scheme of things.
Dave
-
(http://www.hifizone.net/upload/shop/2006122244748.jpg)
(http://www.hifizone.net/upload/shop/p2006122244719.jpg)
(http://www.hifizone.net/upload/shop/2006122244736.jpg)
(http://www.hifizone.net/upload/forum/200632815116.gif)
-
can the pictures been saw?
-
can the pictures been seen?
Yep, I have them.
That's a very sharp looking amplifier!
I was also able to load the other pages you mentioned below - today. I don't know why I couldn't load them earlier. Unfortunately, the text on the pages is unreadable.??
Perhaps the 18v dc rails AND the use of a very low impedance loudspeaker (3-4 ohms) make 28wpc available ?? This is only a guess. And, such a configuration may overload the output transistors.
Dave
-
Hi Dave
Happy New Year to you. It's been a while since I posted, but here is a montage of my system. Rebuilt 2 x Stochino amps with handmade anodised aluminium cases and my 1801s. Still working on phase 2, which is adding the SS23W subwoofer to the system, to be integrated through a Borbely 24dB filter and leaning towards one of Anthony Holton's 400W modules (www.aussieamplifiers.com) to power it. Hopefully I'll have this up and running in the next few months and can report back...where is time going??
(http://www.atomicnirvana.com/system-montage.jpg)
-
Do you have an estimated timeline when the 1801c speaker will be completed and ready for shipping?
My prototype pair are already complete, but I want to evaluate a few minor crossover changes before a final stamp of approval. I should have these evaluated by the end of this month. There are a couple parallel inductors that I may have custom wound to eliminate a few resistors. But this is minor in the grande scheme of things.
Dave
Hi Dave
I checked the T/S parameters of the two woofers,I found the ACCUTON has higher sensitivity than the SEAS,but the ACCUTON has a heavier moving mass by 2g,also higher voice coil inductance,is that means the 1801c need a more powerful amp to handle with?if so,what is your recommend wpc-output for the amp to work well with 1801c?
-
Hi Dave
I checked the T/S parameters of the two woofers,I found the ACCUTON has higher sensitivity than the SEAS,but the ACCUTON has a heavier moving mass by 2g,also higher voice coil inductance,is that means the 1801c need a more powerful amp to handle with?if so,what is your recommend wpc-output for the amp to work well with 1801c?
My amplifier reccommendations remain unchanged.
And, within reason, voice coil inductance will have absolutely no impact on real-world amplifier requirements. Sure, there may be room for mathematical discussion on the matter, but the real world difference with regard to these two woofers doesn't exist. The same is true with regard to the moving mass.
The only issue that might be a consideration is the 2db change in spl. But, this is a very small change, and has virtually no impact.
The only issue that might be a consideration is the higher Qms of the Accuton C95. This results in a higher impedance peak in the bass region. However, thus far I have experienced the 1801C on 3 amplifiers; a modified Golden Tube SE40SE, a AKSA Life Force MK 2 100, a Atma Sphere OTL 60wpc. These amps present a relatively wide variation of output impedance and there is no notable problems with regard to the hump in the impedance hump presented by the higher Qms Accuton C95 woofer. The OTL Atma Sphere and Single Ended Pentode SE40SE perform just dandy.
Dave
-
Hi Dave
Happy New Year to you.
And a happy new year to you also Smithy666.
Very nice looking stuff! Are the amplifiers in a case for cooling? I can't quite discern what the blue case thingy is doing.
DAve
-
No, the blue surround is actually 7 feet tall and is a wall unit for tv, books etc. There is actually two side by side and all my audio gear fits in the bottom of each. Not your average lounge room...
-
Hi Dave-
I'm curious. I've got a Golden Tube SE (which we've discussed before) that has many of the upgrades that your amp has. Those upgrades made a big difference and the amp is wonderful. I want your opinion on whether or not I should add a second SE40 se to my system (per Jeff's recommendation that these are even better amps monoblocked) or should I purchase a Lifeforce amp? The money will be about the same either way (used se40se + upgrade components + tubes).
Thanks!
Jim
-
Well Jim,
I am not sure my comments will be much help, but I will convey them in random order.
I really can't see anyone having good ears preferring my SE40SE over the AKSA LF100 amp in a blind test. The LF100 has more information, and good information everywhere in the musical spectrum :thumb:.
HOWEVER, when I disconnected the LF100 and sent it to TonePubs and re-connected my SE40SE didn't lose anything in the musical experience :). Thought the SE40SE lacks a bit of resolution, it has truly wonderful tonal quality. I could easily live forever with my SE40SE.
I feel that perhaps I am becoming somewhat of a tube-guy. I have to admit the LF100 DOES sound better, but my SE40SE sounds really good too.
I believe both of these amplifiers approach the realm of quality where a different product is merely different, and doesn't really get better.
I still would like to try a some DeHavilland 845 or Levinson 33 amps, so I can't comment on this flavor of amplifer in any form of reference.
I have also NOT tried a 2nd SE40SE amp in my system.
Over the years I have eventually learned that Jeff is right about sooo many things. Having another amplifier is likely one of them. Certainly I have recently learned that Accuton Drivers are... just as Jeff told me several years ago.
My inclination is to recommend that you remain happy with one very good amplifier. However, this is easier said that done and I am not leading by example very well :roll: :duh: .
I am sorry that I couldn't be of much help.