A new amp in the house...

medium jim · « **Reply #20 on:** 28 Mar 2013, 04:06 pm »

Some suggested that I try KT88's or even KT120's, I appreciate the suggestions, but I believe that 6550's is the way to go as that is what the VS110 was voiced for. Besides, there wouldn't be any difference in the wattage as that is incumbent of the transformers and other factors. One thing is for certain, there is too much clutter in my life right now and I haven't been enjoying music as much and this means that I'm still burning in the new tubes. Having said that, I must be near the end of the burn in process as yesterday I had the it sounds funky in one song and the next wonderful for about an hour then it stabilized for the next few hours.

The soundstage continues to get more evolving and liquid. The mids are the as advertised, sweet and yet neutral. I really like the bass speed and depth, impressive and that the highs are as clear as a bell and not at all tiresome. While it is state as being 100 watts per channel, it clearly is more like 120 and I haven't hit its limit yet. In fact, I find myself having to turn it down!

While its not the Marantz's, it is a very fine amp that does put a smile on my face.

Jim

SteveFord · « **Reply #21 on:** 28 Mar 2013, 09:37 pm »

What made you decide to part with the Marantz's that you had?

P.S.
I have one dead preamp, one sold preamp with a replacement en route so I'm going through tube amp withdrawal.
The Hafler and Bryston combo is okay but they're no VTLs.

Pryso · « **Reply #22 on:** 29 Mar 2013, 12:02 am »

Jim, you made a statement similar to other comments I've heard from time to time. I'm not challenging your perceptions, I'm just curious about this.

You said, "it is state(d) as being 100 watts per channel, it clearly is more like 120". Since power must be doubled (big difference) for a 3 bB increase in volume, how are you able to estimate it sounds like 20 watts (little difference) more than rated with a 100 wpc amp?

And while I have your attention, another question. With Rogue amps they claim a higher output rating with KT-120 tubes than KT-88 or KT-90. You say tube model won't matter for wattage. Guess I may not know enough about electronics to understand that. Isn't the choice of tube type within the range that may be used in part their power output?

josh358 · « **Reply #23 on:** 29 Mar 2013, 12:15 am »

Because they have low levels of negative feedback, tubes soft clip. Transistor amps, on the the other hand, usually hard clip. Since the ear is less sensitive to soft than hard clipping, you can typically get away with a tube amp that's half the size of a transistor amp.

Pryso · « **Reply #24 on:** 29 Mar 2013, 12:23 am »

josh if you were answering me that was not my question at all. I was only considering tube amps.

josh358 · « **Reply #25 on:** 29 Mar 2013, 12:25 am »

Quote from: Pryso on 29 Mar 2013, 12:23 am

josh if you were answering me that was not my question at all. I was only considering tube amps.

Guess I should have waited for Jim, then.

medium jim · « **Reply #26 on:** 29 Mar 2013, 12:26 am »

Quote from: Pryso on 29 Mar 2013, 12:02 am

Jim, you made a statement similar to other comments I've heard from time to time. I'm not challenging your perceptions, I'm just curious about this.

You said, "it is state(d) as being 100 watts per channel, it clearly is more like 120". Since power must be doubled (big difference) for a 3 bB increase in volume, how are you able to estimate it sounds like 20 watts (little difference) more than rated with a 100 wpc amp?

And while I have your attention, another question. With Rogue amps they claim a higher output rating with KT-120 tubes than KT-88 or KT-90. You say tube model won't matter for wattage. Guess I may not know enough about electronics to understand that. Isn't the choice of tube type within the range that may be used in part their power output?

A 6550 tube will dissipate around 27 watts at 65ma, but typically around 30 when measured. One could coax around 140 watts out of quad of 6550's if you want to sacrifice tube longevity and the sweetness.

The design or topology of the amp determines the wattage attainable. Per ARC, the VS110 is good for 120watts before clipping. Then there is the rating of the Transformers. There are amps that can get more watts out of a 6550/KT88, example a VAC 300.1 phi which will deliver 150 per side with a quad of KT88's per side.

Some makers are conservative on their WPC ratings and Marantz and ARC are two of them.

Jim

medium jim · « **Reply #27 on:** 29 Mar 2013, 12:27 am »

Quote from: SteveFord on 28 Mar 2013, 09:37 pm

What made you decide to part with the Marantz's that you had?

P.S.
I have one dead preamp, one sold preamp with a replacement en route so I'm going through tube amp withdrawal.
The Hafler and Bryston combo is okay but they're no VTLs.

I had a need to raise some cash for a project that couldn't wait.

Jim

SteveFord · « **Reply #28 on:** 29 Mar 2013, 12:31 am »

We can all relate to that one.
You know I sold my Sonic Frontiers SFL-2, right?
I do have right of first refusal so maybe it will come home to roost in 2014.

josh358 · « **Reply #29 on:** 29 Mar 2013, 12:44 am »

Dentistry is the enemy of all new audio purchases . . .

medium jim · « **Reply #30 on:** 29 Mar 2013, 12:53 am »

Quote from: SteveFord on 29 Mar 2013, 12:31 am

We can all relate to that one.
You know I sold my Sonic Frontiers SFL-2, right?
I do have right of first refusal so maybe it will come home to roost in 2014.

Steve:

I knew you did and thought why? I expected a huge drop off in performance between the 9's and the VS110, but to my surprise, there wasn't. This is not to say the 9's weren't special, they were and would love to own a pair in the future, just that the VS110 is a sweet amp in its own rights and does some things better.

Jim

Maritan · « **Reply #31 on:** 29 Mar 2013, 03:19 am »

Jim,

Glad you like your new amp.

Steve,

What are you getting to replace the SFL-2?

SteveFord · « **Reply #32 on:** 29 Mar 2013, 05:27 am »

A used AVA AVAStar from a fellow ACer.
I had some bills to take care of and I've heard good things about that preamp so we'll see how it goes.
It's a more modern design but it was really hard to watch the FedEx guys take the box away.
I kind of hope the new owner hates it so I can buy it back!

I consulted the Magic 8 Ball and it says Prognosis Doubtful.

medium jim · « **Reply #33 on:** 29 Mar 2013, 04:00 pm »

To answer Josh, no root canal's or otherwise. It was a business related project/opportunity and I needed more money.

Jim

SteveFord · « **Reply #34 on:** 29 Mar 2013, 04:38 pm »

You misunderstand - Josh is helping the dentist's make their Mercedes payments.
Just get 'em yanked and be done with it. Teeth only slow you down when you're trying to bolt down your food.

josh358 · « **Reply #35 on:** 29 Mar 2013, 04:56 pm »

Believe me, I'm tempted. I think my endodontist must be looking at Alexandrias now. For the second system on the helicopter that lands on his yacht.

medium jim · « **Reply #36 on:** 29 Mar 2013, 07:49 pm »

I had a root canal done about 3 years ago and I had it done at UCLA's School of Denistry, saved a lot, but was still around 2k. Next time I will just have the tooth yanked!

Back to our regularity scheduled programming.

Jim

medium jim · « **Reply #37 on:** 13 Apr 2013, 02:29 am »

I've had the amp long enough now to make a true comparison between the Marantz's and the ARC.

The Marantz's just made the music heavier in weight, whereas the ARC is more airy, more like a SS amp. 95db sounded louder on the Marantz's. The biggest difference is between the EL34/6CA7's of the Marantz's and the 6550/KT88's of the ARC. 6550's are faster in the bass and punchier, the mids are more forward with the EL34's, the highs are a little forward with the 6550's.

It was super hard for me to let the Marantz's go, not because of what they are worth, or the cache, but rather that they had a beautiful presentation and made all genres of music come alive. The ARC is slowly making me forget how good the Marantz's were due to the fact it stands on its own feet and does a beautiful job of making music sound great. The soundstage was my biggest concern, but the ARC creates a big ass holographic soundstage and puts you in the 8th row center.

The biggest surprise has to be how the funky Russian Military 6N1P tubes perform, very silky and neutral and dead silent.

The amp uses very little in the way of negative FB for a tube amp, which accounts for it being as fast as it is, a very good thing indeed.

I can honestly recommend this amp to anyone who has maggies, or the newer VS-115.

A funny aside, I moved the Maggie's early on to get the middle of the soundstage right, only to move them back to almost the original placements once the tubes relaxed. I did have to reintegrate the subs and this came to fruition today. I was able to drop the subs to 60hz which is where they sound the best in this system.

Jim

SteveFord · « **Reply #38 on:** 13 Apr 2013, 09:47 am »

You don't hear too many people say that they don't like the Audio Research gear; every piece I've ever heard has been really impressive.
The tube break I period can drive you crazy, especially when you're really used to a particular sound, can't it?

On an unrelated note, the Magic 8 Ball may have been momentarily confused.
The Sonic Frontiers is on it's way back to me as the owner is going to go in another direction.
He gets a surprise package from me, I get my preamp back, everybody's happy.

geowak · « **Reply #39 on:** 13 Apr 2013, 11:43 pm »

Quote from: medium jim on 28 Mar 2013, 04:06 pm

Some suggested that I try KT88's or even KT120's, I appreciate the suggestions, but I believe that 6550's is the way to go as that is what the VS110 was voiced for. Besides, there wouldn't be any difference in the wattage as that is incumbent of the transformers and other factors. One thing is for certain, there is too much clutter in my life right now and I haven't been enjoying music as much and this means that I'm still burning in the new tubes. Having said that, I must be near the end of the burn in process as yesterday I had the it sounds funky in one song and the next wonderful for about an hour then it stabilized for the next few hours.

The soundstage continues to get more evolving and liquid. The mids are the as advertised, sweet and yet neutral. I really like the bass speed and depth, impressive and that the highs are as clear as a bell and not at all tiresome. While it is state as being 100 watts per channel, it clearly is more like 120 and I haven't hit its limit yet. In fact, I find myself having to turn it down!

While its not the Marantz's, it is a very fine amp that does put a smile on my face.

Jim

I don't think one can go wrong with either Marantz or ARC gear. I mean if one decides to get nice audio gear in the first place, the choice of Marantz or ARC amounts to high quality. Both of these companies have stellar reputations.

That being said, I am still amazed by the work that is being done by the Chinese. Many companies are designing in their home country and building in China. And IMHO the build quality can be quite good. When I went to look and listen to Integrated tube amps, I could not afford a ARC but I could afford the Line Magnetic Audio integrated amp. I compared the build quality and performance and the ARC and LM Audio was very, very similar. Even the remote provided by ARC was made in China. The LM Audio remote was made out of aluminum and of better quality.