[95bcwh]

After listening to Salk HT3 for nearly one month, I decided to re-visit a friend of mine who owns the following system:

Audio Research CD 3 MK II CD Player
Audio Research LS26 Line Stage Preamplifier
Audio Research VT 100 MK III
Focal JM Lab Electra 1027 Be

  I have listened to the same system before before I ordered the Salk HT3, my impression was pretty good. When I first listen to the HT3, my distant memory told me that the HT3 hold itself well against the above setup, maybe just a little bit better but not much. I run my RWA modded SB3 straight into Bryston 4B-SST into the HT3, the total cost of my set up is nowhere near the my friend's system, not to mention the $3000 worth of cables/IC on his system vs me just using zipcord and Zu Gede IC, hence the big price difference also influenced my initial judgement.

  Today when I played Jim's demo CD on my friend's system, my impression is.. wow... what a difference!!  The Electra 1027 sounded "blurr" relative to the HT3, the imaging is not as focus and precise as the HT3, the soundstage is not as wide, one of the most striking difference is, the sound that used to come up between the center of my two HT3 and the left HT3 speaker, now appears to come up from the left Electra 1027 speaker only.
 
  The Electra 1027 has "warmer" sound, a few songs with vocals/trumpet  which sounded "just a little" harsh on my system now sounded silky smooth on the Electra 1027. But this smoothness come at the expense of transparency, the sound of drum and bass in jazz music no longer sound real, as if there was a piece of cloth between me and the musicians.

  So I'm puzzled again (as usual), is there a chance that I can achieve the silky smooth sound (e.g. human vocal, trumpet) while not sacrificing transparency, soundstage and imaging?

  I have recently tried to use my stock Tact 2.0S to roll-off a little bit of high frequency, it makes the vocal slightly better, but I lose transparency. Looks like there's no easy solution. Maybe something is wrong with my ear again
 
  Thanks for sharing your thought.

  barry
 

[andyr]

Hi Barry,

Yes, I certainly do think transparency can co-exist with "tube" sound.  But it depends who's amp you are listening to ... some makes of ss amp make you wish you were listening to a beautiful tube amp (so transparent but sterile are they!).  Some tube amps make you wish you were listening to a good-sounding, transparent ss amp, so lush and "woolly" are they!!   

I put "tube" in quotes because I think you probably need to define what you mean by "tubey" sound.  From my limited listening of tube amps, I suspect there are probably tube amps ... and then there are SETs.  I listened to a 30wpc SET and it was glorious ... the soundstage was much more forward than the ss amp which had been powering the speakers previously - the singer was right there in the room!!     Amaaazing!!

You just have to keep on auditioning!   

My own amps are ss but were designed by someone who loves tubes ... so he tried to make them sound as "tubey" as he could.

Regards,

Andy

[JLM]

In my somewhat limited experience with them, tube amps can provide more fustrations than magic, but as always YMMV.  Tubes get hot, output tubes need annual replacement which can get quite expensive, their sound change with age, many lack bass output, most have very low damping factor (poor bass control), and of course they color the sound (type and amount varying by the tube).  Depending on your personality rolling tubes (trying different models/brands) can be fun, or drive you crazy.

Yes, tubes can provide transparency and magic, at least thats the tease that holds tube fans in place.  As andyr stated, SETs hold the most promise, but typical output is 1 - 8 wpc and yet all the above minefield of caveats still hold IMO.  Personally I don't want anything in the system that will end up colorizing everything I hear with the same tones.  OTOH digital and chip solid state designs offer at least a degree of the magic.  Another option would be to add a tube pre-amp or tube buffer stage to take care of the aging, replacement, and damping factor issues.

Note that Bryston amps are known to have a clinical, almost sterile, studio voicing.  And the amp/speaker synergy factor cannot be neglected.  I don't know your speakers, but if they're brutally honest (highly detailed and analytical) in nature you can have "too much" of a good thing going on.

[Frihed91]

Modern tube amps are more dynamic with tighter bass and the mid-range tends less toward lushness than openness and transparcy.  With the advant of hybrid designs, the hearing distinctions between good tube, SS and hybrid equipment is becoming more and more blurred.  Blue Circle, for example, provides a range of SS and hybrid amps that have a tube quality to the mid range, but with a very modern bass.  BAT and ARC turn things on their heads in the opposite direction (in a good way).

Bryston....well, I think they cater to those who love the old 1960s SS sound and if you love Bryston it's hard to imagine loving tube gear.

[zybar]

Barry,

Why do you feel like you needed to try and rool off the highs?  How did you do it with the TacT?

Personally, I would replace the Bryston (it just doesn't do it for me) with a pair of CIA D-200's.  I can vouch for the D-200/TacT/HT3 combo delivering the goods!

George

[zybar]

Barry,

Why do you feel like you needed to try and rool off the highs?  How did you do it with the TacT?

Personally, I would replace the Bryston (it just doesn't do it for me) with a pair of CIA D-200's.  I can vouch for the D-200/TacT/HT3 combo delivering the goods!

George

BTW, you really haven't heard what the TacT can do till you get Anthony's mods in there...

George

[avahifi]

I am using Salk Veracity HT3s as my reference speakers now.   I think I understand what you are hearing (or want to hear). 

Frank Van Alstine

[WEEZ]

My guess is, that what 95bcwh was describing was differences in the speakers more than the amplification. I'm inclined to think that the Salk's are simply a lot more resolving than the Focal's. Who knows  .

I also think that 'transparency' doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. For example..transparency doesn't have to mean 'sterile'. The Audio Research gear that I've heard doesn't fall into the 'classic' tooby sound. In fact, I thought it sounded very transparent. 

Hmmm

WEEZ

[zybar]

My guess is, that what 95bcwh was describing was differences in the speakers more than the amplification. I'm inclined to think that the Salk's are simply a lot more resolving than the Focal's. Who knows  .

I also think that 'transparency' doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. For example..transparency doesn't have to mean 'sterile'. The Audio Research gear that I've heard doesn't fall into the 'classic' tooby sound. In fact, I thought it sounded very transparent. 

Hmmm

WEEZ

Weez,

You are right that the HT3's are more resolving than the Focal speakers (or many other speakers) and that accounts for much of the difference.

However, having spent a lot of time with the HT3's, I do think that there are better matches out there than the Bryston amp.  Since Barry is looking to improve in certain areas, I think that an amp change can accomplish this task.

Besides the D-200's, I would also look at the following amps:

Dodd 120's
AVA Ultra 550
McCormack DNA-500
Belles Ref 350A

George

[95bcwh]

George,
 
  Thanks.. I will get D200 for my home trial for sure, the other amps I will try is AVA, and Extreme Mono, plus the Moscode, one step at a time. 

  Bryston is just my first step into this, the good thing about Bryston is its re-sale value. Becaue I haven't heard the other amp, I don't dare to say how good Bryston is.

  My room has a serious dip around 250 Hz. I'm pulling all other frequency down (see below).


  I had a new target curve where I roll off the low frequency around 20Hz more severe than this. I haven't yet played the stock Tact long time to break it in, right now, it sounds too sterile for me, I still prefer the sound of running my SB3 straight into my amp. I have yet to install Anthony's PS and DAC. My SB3 is battery mod so I can only play it for about 6 hours each time. I've just ordered a stock SB2 so I can use it for break in purpose, also in the future I will get Wayne to modify it.

  Thank you all for sharing..keep it coming..

  barry
 


 
 
 

Barry,

Why do you feel like you needed to try and rool off the highs?  How did you do it with the TacT?

Personally, I would replace the Bryston (it just doesn't do it for me) with a pair of CIA D-200's.  I can vouch for the D-200/TacT/HT3 combo delivering the goods!

George

[95bcwh]

This focal 1027 Be was Stereophile 2005 Class-A speaker.

If Stereophile think it worth such high classification.. then I think Jim HT3 should be Class AAA. One additional A for better sound, another additional A for being less costly.

My guess is, that what 95bcwh was describing was differences in the speakers more than the amplification. I'm inclined to think that the Salk's are simply a lot more resolving than the Focal's. Who knows  .

I also think that 'transparency' doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. For example..transparency doesn't have to mean 'sterile'. The Audio Research gear that I've heard doesn't fall into the 'classic' tooby sound. In fact, I thought it sounded very transparent. 

Hmmm

WEEZ

[Jon L]

Tubes get hot

True.  I would never use one of those tube amps with 12-20 output tubes, for heat, but mostly b/c amps with fewer output tubes tend to sound more clear and coherent.  And let's not forget how HOT class A SS amps get also. 
 

output tubes need annual replacement which can get quite expensive, their sound change with age

Properly designed tube amps most definitely do not require output tubes changed annually.  It depends on usage, but with "normal" listening time, output tubes should last quite a few years.  Small tubes last even much longer than that.

many lack bass output, most have very low damping factor (poor bass control)

Very true, but mostly for low-power SET when used improperly into non-high sensitivity/low impedance speakers.  Good push-pull tube amps can have stunning bass quantity and quality.  Truth be told, for acoustic music, tube bass can be very much more satisfying than overdamped, leaden, textureless bass that many SS and digital amps produce.
 

and of course they color the sound (type and amount varying by the tube).

Once again, true.  On the other hand, every mosfet, J-fet, bipolar device also color the sound in their own way as well.  I would even say there is no audio device that doesn't "color" the sound to some degree.
 

Depending on your personality rolling tubes (trying different models/brands) can be fun, or drive you crazy.

So true, not to mention how much $$$ this can cost.  It's really a darn shame how much tube prices have gone up in recent years, in no small part to certain tube dealers who are hoarding and hyping/overcharging.  Regardless of sonics, runaway tube prices are the main reason why I personally may want to move away from tubes in the future; however, if you use mostly small signal tubes and use tube amps with few tubes only, it's not so bad...

I have stuck with my current main tube amp (VAC renaissance 30) for like 10+ years, and I have auditioned tons of others, including SS and digital, over the years.  At the end of the day, notwithstanding the "tube colorations" and all, I 'WANT' to listen to my tube amp, even after months and years, which I cannot say for most SS and digital units, many of which sound fabulous in the beginning.  But after weeks and months...

[andyr]

Hi Barry,

The graph you provided shows a dip at 250Hz, as you commented.  However, I suspect this is not due to the room itself but to your speaker placement.

As I understand it, due to cancellation effects, if the driver is 'x' off the front wall, you get a dip at the frequency where 'x' is a 1/4 wavelength.

Doing an approx calc, 1100 / 250 = just over 4'.  Are your bass drivers 4' out from the front wall?

Regards,

Andy

[JLM]

Jon L,

I agree with all your responses, except tube life (some can last 20 years, others less than a year).  One of the tough aspects dealing with tube electronics is trying to generalize.  Tubes definitely make audio into less of a passive past time with tube rolling, the sound changing as the tubes age, learning electronics basics, and choosing between all different types of tube amp designs out there.

[95bcwh]

Andy,
  Thanks for the tip. You're probably right, my woofer is about 3 ft 3 inch from the front wall. Here's a plan view of my small room.


  Because I have 4 inch panels around my speakers, I have no idea how I should calculate the distance to "wall", should I include the panels as part of the "wall"?
  
  I used to place my speaker along the short wall, but I like the bigger soundstage the current setup give me, the trade-off is that I now have to sit close to my rear wall, and the bass is a little too strong on certain songs.

    

Hi Barry,

The graph you provided shows a dip at 250Hz, as you commented.  However, I suspect this is not due to the room itself but to your speaker placement.

As I understand it, due to cancellation effects, if the driver is 'x' off the front wall, you get a dip at the frequency where 'x' is a 1/4 wavelength.

Doing an approx calc, 1100 / 250 = just over 4'.  Are your bass drivers 4' out from the front wall?

Regards,

Andy

[Carlman]

output tubes need annual replacement which can get quite expensive, their sound change with age

Properly designed tube amps most definitely do not require output tubes changed annually.  It depends on usage, but with "normal" listening time, output tubes should last quite a few years.  Small tubes last even much longer than that.

[/quote]

Everyone I know with a tube amp has replaced AT LEAST 1 tube/year that I know.  NOS tubes just go bad.  Sure, on paper, and in theory a new tube, made to the proper spec should last a few years.... but I just don't know anyone that hasn't had to replace them sooner for various reasons.

Oh, and don't forget the matching/balancing and biasing...  I couldn't agree more with JLM's comments about tubes.  I liken tubes to record players but worse because it's a little harder to figure out where the problem started.

I think a tubed record player would turn me away from audio entirely.  

All that said, I have heard some transparent tube amps that had that liquid midrange... Rogue M150's.  I think they're a little out of your range used but not by much.  

-C

[zybar]

Andy,
  Thanks for the tip. You're probably right, my woofer is about 3 ft 3 inch from the front wall. Here's a plan view of my small room.


  Because I have 4 inch panels around my speakers, I have no idea how I should calculate the distance to "wall", should I include the panels as part of the "wall"?
 
  I used to place my speaker along the short wall, but I like the bigger soundstage the current setup give me, the trade-off is that I now have to sit close to my rear wall, and the bass is a little too strong on certain songs.

Barry,

I really suggest that you listen the other way so that you can sit farther away from the speakers.  At only 6 1/2 feet, you aren't far enough away to let everything really blend together and allow for a seemless intergration (maybe Jim or Dennis can comment on this).  If you went the long way you could also get some space behind the speakers as well as yourself.  THis will absolutely improve nulls and peaks and give you a more even sound (with proper placement of course).

George

[WEEZ]

I agree 100% with zybar's suggestion. You've got enough sound traps to take care of any side wall problems. You frequency response will smooth out and you'll hear more depth to the soundstage.

Well worth trying...

WEEZ

[95bcwh]

I agree 100% with zybar's suggestion. You've got enough sound traps to take care of any side wall problems. You frequency response will smooth out and you'll hear more depth to the soundstage.

Well worth trying...

WEEZ

 Thanks guys!!!   Everyone who saw my plan told me to switch my speaker placement to firing down the long dimension, and I shall do that!

  The reason why I arranged them as shown in the picture, is I'm trying to fllow the instruction that come with the HT3, that the speakers should be at least 18 inch from any walls. Now because my room's width is only 10ft, if I allow 18 inch on both side of my speakers, that means the speaker will be just about 6ft apart.  Can anyone tell me if placing acoustic panels on the side walls would means that I don't have to follow the typical rule of placing speakers 2-3ft from side walls?

  Best regards
  barry

[andyr]

Andy,
  Thanks for the tip. You're probably right, my woofer is about 3 ft 3 inch from the front wall. Here's a plan view of my small room.

  Because I have 4 inch panels around my speakers, I have no idea how I should calculate the distance to "wall", should I include the panels as part of the "wall"?
  
  I used to place my speaker along the short wall, but I like the bigger soundstage the current setup give me, the trade-off is that I now have to sit close to my rear wall, and the bass is a little too strong on certain songs.

Hi Barry,

It could also be the 3.5' from the side walls (as well as/rather than the 3' from the front wall).

Why don't you just try an experiment ... keep the speakers the same distance from the front wall but move both speakers inwards until the bass drivers are 5' from each side wall.  Then do another measurement and see if your 'dip' is at a different (lower) frequency.

In any case, I would've thought your speakers should be equidistant from each side wall?  Even moving the L one to 3.5' instead of the current 2.1' would reduce the ditance between your speakers so that you were listening in an isoceles triangle (rather than their distance apart being so much greater than the distance from speaker to you.

And, no, I think you would ignore the thickness of the panels when plying with 'dimensions'.

Regards,

Andy