[David Ellis]

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

[Ron Stewart]

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.



(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

[David Ellis]

Excellent stuff.

I am a bit surprised, but... okay!  Your results appear solid.

Thanks a bunch for your contribution.

[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   .

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

[skrivis]

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   .

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.

[Ron Stewart]

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

[David Ellis]

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?

[Ron Stewart]

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

[Ron Stewart]

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

[David Ellis]

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    .

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.

[gonefishin]

# 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

[David Ellis]

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

[Ron Stewart]

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

[gonefishin]

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

[David Ellis]

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

[natemil]

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

[David Ellis]

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  

[Rocket]

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   .

Regards

Rod

[David Ellis]

until i took it to a friends house and his diy powerboard blew the damn thing up. Its currently in the states for repair.

 

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

[gonefishin]

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