[lonewolfny42]

Another idea Mike....you may want take a look at "hybrid" amps....like Moscode, Blue Circle, Butler, etc....

[mfsoa]

Update-
The VAC is still here and still sounding great.
And it is for sale after all, so now it's decision time.

My friend wants $1500 which I feel is a very good price since the unit's in great shape, has just been to VAC for some updated wiring and stuff, and it's already here so no shipping woes. And Artie like VAC!

I don't think I can do better for the price. But there is still the heat issue, and I've never maintained a tube anything so that's gotten me a little worried.

Is the VAC really as good as I think it is or am I just a tube noob, seduced by the dark, glowing side?

Other options based on having relatives who are dealers for the following (It makes it really hard to buy stuff they don't sell, price-wise) - Any opinions??
1) Just keep the CIA D200s, they are fine amps after all. This'll allow me to focus on upgrading my digital source.
2) If I want tubes but not the VAC, I could check out a MAC MC275 MkV. Is the MAC better than the VAC?
3) Get solid state MAC MC402 (really pushing it price-wise) or Krell 2250.
4) I am intrigued by the possibility of getting two stereo Rotel 100 watt ICE amps (the 1072 I think) and vertically biamping. Essentially quad-mono. I see future flexibility with active low-level crossovers if I ever wanted to tear into my VR4jrs.

Thanks for letting me think out loud. I'm leaning toward the VAC, the damn thing is so pretty and did I say, sounds great?


-Mike

[JAMn Joe]

You can't get much better than VAC without mortgaging your house. MAC isn't even in the same league. If you want affirmation, contact ArthurS (AC Member). Art's purchased both a VAC preamp and amplifier in the last 12 months.

Tubes are easy to work with, just bias and replace when needed. That's it unless you want to roll tubes for different flavors of sound.

[jrebman]

Is the VAC truer to the source? I have no idea. Is it a better amp than the D200s? Don't know that either. I don't care. It just sounds so much better to me.

I found the CIAs to lack the harmonic complexity of this tube amp. I theorize that it's the subtle alteration of this harmonic envelope, from attack to sustain to delay, that makes the VAC so much more listenable. Is the VAC horribly distorted and actually creating info that's not supposed to be there? Could be - Don't know, don't care. I'm just smitten.

I think this whole business comes down to distortions and resonances and which ones work together in a system (including the room as part of the system), and obviously which ones sound pleasing to you.

And for one last thing - Has anyone noticed an overall sence of being ill-at-ease whan listening to UcD amps? I can't put a finger on it, but I would find myself kinda clenching my jaw, even when listening to the tuner. Not in response to anything directly audible, but just that feeling of tenseness. This feeling is completely gone with the VAC.

I *do* notice a certain tenseness when listening to switching amps.  I've been listening to almost exclusively digital amps for the past 1-1/2 years -- with and without tube preamps in front of them, and maybe it is this that finally pushed me to purchase my first new tube amp in years just this weekend.  I'll know soon enough.  There is a lot to like about good digital amplification but in the end the only thing that I can say is that they are not tubes, and tubes are where I started and am destined to stay with.

-- Jim





[/

[DSK]

Hi 1000a, I'm just trying to figure out how you are running your system .... there are volume controls on each of the SB3, NM24, TVC and 1000a. I'm guessing you have the SB3 digital output volume at max or disabled and are not using the linestage part of the NM24 (and thus not its volume control). Do you use the TVC as your main attenuator and just have the Jolida's volume set at max to get it out of circuit?

If so, that would mean that the sub (Run directly from the NM24 SS DAC) volume would not change with the main speaker volume. Or, do you leave the TVC at a fixed setting, the Jolida at max, and just use the SB3 volume so that sub and main speaker volume remains equal? 

Hi DSK

Excellent guestions I responded on another thread specifically about the NM24- cause this will help others interested in the DAC , see below 

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=42597.new#new

Hi 1000a, did you ever hear back from CC Poon re how to use the SS DAC output to your sub while using the tube DAC output to your pre-amp (or integrated) and keep the volume of sub and mains aligned?

[cruz123]

I recently picked up a pair of VAC 70/70 monobloc's that I have mated with Dodd battery preamp and it is heavenly combo.  Previously, I was using a Cary SLI-80 integrated amp, which is highly regarded as tube integrateds go; but the VAC/Dodd combo is in another league.    For your first tube amp, you've started near the top of the food chain and far as I am concerned. 

[AliG]

What's the 'house sound' of VAC?

Specifically, where does VAC's sound sit in 'relative' to Audio Research Ref210 and BAT VK-150SE? (more/less bass/high/midrange??)

[nodiak]

mfsoa, here's to hoping you bought the VAC. imo, live with it awhile, then revisit the "issues" and see if they still matter.
Good luck, Don

[Mister Pig]

Well I left the tube world, at least for awhile. I have owned tube amps for the last 20 years or so. I recently sold my Electra-Print 300DRD amps and replaced them with a Jeff Rowland Consummate pre-amp and Model 5 amplifier.

I eventually got fed up with the inevitable colorations of the individual tubes themselves. It's amazing how different each tube will sound, even within the same family. Every time a piece of equipment changes, I would sort through my tube collection and find the best tube for the system. I tended to gravitate to good Soviet and Chinese tubes cause they had the least amount of bloom and additional warmth.(This was not always teh case,but was especially true with the Audible Illusions 3A I owned) Eventually I realized that I disliked the "additions" of sound that accompanied the tubes. My audio journey led me to pieces of equipment with less and less tubes. The fewer tubes in the system, the more I liked the sound.

So eventually I replaced every tube with the Rowland gear. Which sounds like good tubes without the additional colorations of the tubes themselves.

With that being said, I have a pair of high efficiency speakers that work well with low powered tube amps. I may very well pick up a SET amp again. But the Rowland gear is going to stay here, and I plan on pairing it up with a good planar speaker. Of course audio is a journey, and nothing is set in stone.

Regards
Mister Pig

[rajacat]

So eventually I replaced every tube with the Rowland gear. Which sounds like good tubes without the additional colorations of the tubes themselves.

Now if you like the Rowland because it sounds like a good tube amp how can you say the you don't like the so-called colorations of tube amps?

Can't you change the tone of a sand amp by just swapping various caps? Do the new caps color the sound?

-Roy

[DaveC113]

I eventually got fed up with the inevitable colorations of the individual tubes themselves. It's amazing how different each tube will sound...
Regards
Mister Pig

The same could be said about any part of any piece of audio gear, to a greater or lesser degree.

I just replaced a digital amp with SET, and couldn't be happier. I was fairly happy with my system, but it was lacking realistic tone at times and the sound was always tied to the speakers to a greater degree than the best systems I've heard. Now, vocals and instruments sound "right" and the speakers disappear into the soundstage.

Dave   

[Mister Pig]

So eventually I replaced every tube with the Rowland gear. Which sounds like good tubes without the additional colorations of the tubes themselves.

Now if you like the Rowland because it sounds like a good tube amp how can you say the you don't like the so-called colorations of tube amps?

Can't you change the tone of a sand amp by just swapping various caps? Do the new caps color the sound?

-Roy

Hi Roy,

The Rowland has clarity, texture.an easy flow, and is free from that sterile sound many SS amps have. Actually it has the attributes that I was always trying to move my tube amps towards. The hardest attribute of a tube amp to deal with is the tonal balance. I have had some good tube amps over the years, but they all have a variation in tonal balance that is directly related to tubes. On the positive side, one can argue that tube amps can be "tuned" for a system. The other side of the coin says the amp is inherently inaccurate.

Sure you can change the sound of a SS amp by changing parts. Just like you can on a tube amp. But then you assume the role of designer, and the amp is no longer representative of what the manufacturer envisioned. But with tube amps, there is no accepted baseline of how it should sound. You notice how few owners are willing to accept the sound of the unit with stock tubes. Even though thats what the designer intends for it. With many tube amps, it can be argued that the sound is relative...and there is no reference point for how it should sound.

Regards
Mister Pig

p.s. I do enjoy tube amps, owned them for 20 years. But I do not blindly accept the dogma of tube advocates.

[Mister Pig]

I eventually got fed up with the inevitable colorations of the individual tubes themselves. It's amazing how different each tube will sound...
Regards
Mister Pig

The same could be said about any part of any piece of audio gear, to a greater or lesser degree.

I just replaced a digital amp with SET, and couldn't be happier. I was fairly happy with my system, but it was lacking realistic tone at times and the sound was always tied to the speakers to a greater degree than the best systems I've heard. Now, vocals and instruments sound "right" and the speakers disappear into the soundstage.

Dave   

Hi Dave,

Glad to hear you are enjoying your system. There are many attributes of a SET amp that are satisfying. The speaker/amplifier combination is critical, but magical when its gotten right. I enjoyed SET amplifiers for many years. Whenever I do return to tubes, I would like to give a triode push/pull amplifier a listen to. Or possibly an O.T.L. For now, I am enjoying the Rowland, and plan on pairing it up with a good planar.

I find the tonal balance to be the most balanced that I have heard in a long time. I notice on Chris Issak disc for instance that his voice has an even balanace with the accompanying music. While with all my various tube based systems his voice was pushed out in front of the song, quite unnaturally. I always thought it was inherent in the recording, as it occurs several various tube amps I have had. Not with the Rowland. I also get improved fine detail, which is a hallmark of a good SET amplifier. The Rowland is better than the Electra-Print in this regard, and an Art Audio Diavolo I have owned.

I don't intend to influence anyone one way or the other. Say I am right, they are wrong. All I am doing is putting out a different observation. There are many paths to audio nirvana, and the experience in this journey is what this hobby is about.

Regards
Mister Pig

[rajacat]

So eventually I replaced every tube with the Rowland gear. Which sounds like good tubes without the additional colorations of the tubes themselves.

Now if you like the Rowland because it sounds like a good tube amp how can you say the you don't like the so-called colorations of tube amps?

Can't you change the tone of a sand amp by just swapping various caps? Do the new caps color the sound?

-Roy

Hi Roy,

The Rowland has clarity, texture.an easy flow, and is free from that sterile sound many SS amps have. Actually it has the attributes that I was always trying to move my tube amps towards. The hardest attribute of a tube amp to deal with is the tonal balance. I have had some good tube amps over the years, but they all have a variation in tonal balance that is directly related to tubes. On the positive side, one can argue that tube amps can be "tuned" for a system. The other side of the coin says the amp is inherently inaccurate.

Sure you can change the sound of a SS amp by changing parts. Just like you can on a tube amp. But then you assume the role of designer, and the amp is no longer representative of what the manufacturer envisioned. But with tube amps, there is no accepted baseline of how it should sound. You notice how few owners are willing to accept the sound of the unit with stock tubes. Even though thats what the designer intends for it. With many tube amps, it can be argued that the sound is relative...and there is no reference point for how it should sound.

Regards
Mister Pig

p.s. I do enjoy tube amps, owned them for 20 years. But I do not blindly accept the dogma of tube advocates.

Hi Mister Pig,

What is accuracy? If a sand amp measures well but sounds sterile is it accurate? Did the music, when it was being recorded, sound sterile or did it sound involving and musical? Could it be that measurements still aren't refined enough to predict that the device will communicate the full essence and emotional content of a performance. For instance many feel that tube systems have a more
 holographic presentation. How do you predict and measure a 3D soundfield?

Do sand amps have a baseline? Many times the caps, resistors, etc are selected to meet a price point and the designer knows that sound  quality could be improved just by using better parts. Even using the cheap parts the amps still measure well but do sound better with the boutique caps, etc. Vintage amps are restored using better and more modern parts and the sound quality is better while still using NOS tubes. I believe you can tune or "voice" a sand amp.

-Roy

p.s. Maybe one advantage of tube gear is that you can voice without breaking out the soldering iron. Just changing tubes is a lot easier than having to open up the interior to clip and solder.

[Mister Pig]

So eventually I replaced every tube with the Rowland gear. Which sounds like good tubes without the additional colorations of the tubes themselves.

Now if you like the Rowland because it sounds like a good tube amp how can you say the you don't like the so-called colorations of tube amps?

Can't you change the tone of a sand amp by just swapping various caps? Do the new caps color the sound?

-Roy

Hi Roy,

The Rowland has clarity, texture.an easy flow, and is free from that sterile sound many SS amps have. Actually it has the attributes that I was always trying to move my tube amps towards. The hardest attribute of a tube amp to deal with is the tonal balance. I have had some good tube amps over the years, but they all have a variation in tonal balance that is directly related to tubes. On the positive side, one can argue that tube amps can be "tuned" for a system. The other side of the coin says the amp is inherently inaccurate.

Sure you can change the sound of a SS amp by changing parts. Just like you can on a tube amp. But then you assume the role of designer, and the amp is no longer representative of what the manufacturer envisioned. But with tube amps, there is no accepted baseline of how it should sound. You notice how few owners are willing to accept the sound of the unit with stock tubes. Even though thats what the designer intends for it. With many tube amps, it can be argued that the sound is relative...and there is no reference point for how it should sound.

Regards
Mister Pig

p.s. I do enjoy tube amps, owned them for 20 years. But I do not blindly accept the dogma of tube advocates.

Hi Mister Pig,

What is accuracy? If a sand amp measures well but sounds sterile is it accurate? Did the music, when it was being recorded, sound sterile or did it sound involving and musical? Could it be that measurements still aren't refined enough to predict that the device will communicate the full essence and emotional content of a performance. For instance many feel that tube systems have a more
 holographic presentation. How do you predict and measure a 3D soundfield?

Do sand amps have a baseline? Many times the caps, resistors, etc are selected to meet a price point and the designer knows that sound  quality could be improved just by using better parts. Even using the cheap parts the amps still measure well but do sound better with the boutique caps, etc. Vintage amps are restored using better and more modern parts and the sound quality is better while still using NOS tubes. I believe you can tune or "voice" a sand amp.

-Roy

p.s. Maybe one advantage of tube gear is that you can voice without breaking out the soldering iron. Just changing tubes is a lot easier than having to open up the interior to clip and solder.

Hi Rajacat,

I never made any reference to a point that one amp is more accurate than the other. Unless you were in the studio at the time of the performance, and ensure that the mix is as pure as possible, then you have no way to judge the accuracy of the recording that you have. That's one sticky issue with this hobby.

So whats your definition of "better" parts? More expensive ones? Ones produced by boutique manufacturers? Ones made of rarefied materials. Just how do you know that the part you are considering is the best part for the application? How do you judge the performance of the overall circuit?   In short, what insights do you have that allow you to accurately evaluate a designers choice of parts?

Ah the "missing measurement" theory. Or the idea that we can't measure the right parameters. That has always been a cornerstone to the subjectivity position. I remember my conversations with jack Elliano, a great tube designer. Jack always felt that good gear will measure well, but you still gotta listen to it. Jack does admit that some gear will measure well, but sound underwhelming. However Jack never discounted the necessity of measurement tests or the validity of their findings. Course he works with hard cold facts, and "audio mysticism" never held much water with him. Another designer I talked to had an interesting theory on boutique parts. He said "if you want to improve the sound, design a better circuit, cause boutique parts will still preform the same electrically." he built a DAC that used a fancy schmancy custom wound transformer on the output stage. He ended up finalizing his design with a good quality off the shelf unit, cause the sound did not improve with the boutique transformer. I would tend to agree with his position. Design a better circuit.

[rajacat]

So for any given circuit it really doesn't matter what quality of parts are used it will still sound the same? To say that I'm representing the subjectivist school is not accurate. To call this "audio mysticism" is also not accurate. Do you think that all possible measurements of audio equipment and sound have been discovered? Keeping an open mind is necessary for the advancement of the science and art.

Really, if everything could be accurately measured all amps would sound the same. The ears are the final arbiter.

-Roy

[Mister Pig]

So for any given circuit it really doesn't matter what quality of parts are used it will still sound the same? To say that I'm representing the subjectivist school is not accurate. To call this "audio mysticism" is also not accurate. Do you think that all possible measurements of audio equipment and sound have been discovered? Keeping an open mind is necessary for the advancement of the science and art.

Really, if everything could be accurately measured all amps would sound the same. The ears are the final arbiter.

-Roy

Hi Raja,

The point regarding parts and circuits is bsically this. The designers point is that it is better to refine the architecture of a circuit and use affordable parts that meet the needs of the circuit parameters. Instead of throwing a collection of very expesnive parts at a mediocre circuit.

Another point is that the designer of a circuit spends a lot of time selecting parts to achieve the desired performance in his circuit. So tossing various expensive boutique parts at a component will result in a different sound, but not necessarily better performance. Since most weekend modders perform this task and evaluate in the context of their system, there is no set reference to reliably measure the changes. Sure there are serious DIY'er who have a nice bench of test equipment, but generally they are not going to rely only on thier listening expeeriences to judge the overall effectivness of their changes.

With that being said, yes the listening pleasure of the listener is the final test. If you pay for it and enjoy it, thats the litmus test. However, this is not any kind of basis for proclaiming superiority of SS or tube topology.

Regards
Mister Pig

[Thebiker]

mfsoa,
When I went out shopping for a serious upgrade to my stereo a few years ago, the first thing I told the manager at the shop I deal with was that I didn't want to "mess with tubes and all that maintenance".  So I shopped all sorts of solid state, in all price ranges. 

While I was shopping an old friend gave me a Scott 222C integrated piece that he had in storage along with a complete set of NOS tubes he had for it..  I took it home, cleaned it up and changed to the unused NOS tubes.  It was all over.  I have since sold the Scott, but I can't listen to SS much anymore.  It just sounds flat and lifeless to me.

So, now I use Cary and Manley and have never enjoyed my music more.

As for music for the pets of the house, use a radio.  It will take less power than your SS rig did and the dogs won't mind.

Good luck Mike, hope you buy the VAC, they make great toys .

Walt

Hmmm, just noticed the thread was started in 2007 .  Did you buy the VAC?

[mfsoa]

Thanks for the VAC encouragement, guys.

Yes I bought the amp and also picked up a VAC Standard MKII preamp. They sound super together and I haven't even popped the top on the pre to see what tubes are in it.

Right now I'm experimenting with a 600+ watt Sunfire amp on the woofers, and the VAC amp on the mid/tweet cabinet. Sounds wonderful.

As far as the VAC sound, I haven't compared to much so I can't really say. I hear a wholeness to the presentation that goes beyond the typical audiophile terminology. You don't listen for "soundstaging" "tonal balance" etc. - All those things are there but no longer matter because somehow the emotional content of the music has been promoted to top priority.

-Mike

[jimdgoulding]

Mike-  My daughter's boyfriend and I were listening on my system to an uncompressed recording on Sunday and he commented how separated things are.  But they are not separated all that much by location- a trio in the nearfield Blumein miked and I'm playin it loud!  What gives the players that sense of separation he was talking about is the dynamic life of each instrument.  Something I have found tubes to deliver best and I only have a tube pre.  My second one.  Nevertheless, I feel ya.