[weirdo]

I would like to hear from owners of tube buffers and opinions about the benefits to their systems. ( drawbacks too). Also, if there are any reasonably good DIY kits for such.

grazie.

[doug s.]

I would like to hear from owners of tube buffers and opinions about the benefits to their systems. ( drawbacks too). Also, if there are any reasonably good DIY kits for such.

grazie.

i have three - two different kinds.  i have two now-discontinued ase z-man tube buffers, both w/a  coupla li'l mods.  and, i have a new kailin mu-1 tube buffer.  both are tansparent (imo) ways to smooth out the sound of digital gear & some s/s tunas.  i tried an older musical fidelity tube buffer (no experience w/their latest iteration), & it did much the same, but not as neutral.

also, when i had a preamp issue years ago, using the tube buffer between s/s amp & pre made it considerably less painful to live w/o my tube pre, until it came back from the shop... 

doug s.

[Mister Pig]

I would like to hear from owners of tube buffers and opinions about the benefits to their systems. ( drawbacks too). Also, if there are any reasonably good DIY kits for such.

grazie.

Its my opinion that tube buffers are a band aid. Their primary purpose is to add a bit of euphoric coloration to a system. They are often used with CD players, and in the end hide the flaws of a particular piece.

Also they get to be  bit spendy. Spend a $100 or more on the tube buffer. Then add another set of interconnects(the good ones shouldn't have a pair of captive cables) and then consider rolling a good NOS tube. This can easily push the price north of $200.

I believe it would be better to buy a good used tube pre-amp like one of the older Audible Illusions. They can be had for a reasonable price. Or find a CDP or DAC that uses a true tube output stage. Not one that runs the output of a pair of op-amps through a tube. That's just a built in tube buffer.

Good, luck on your audio journey. But I have to ask, what issue are you trying to address with this buffer?

Regards
Mister Pig

[TONEPUB]

I've got the first generation X series from musical fidelity...

PM me if you want it, Ill make you a decent deal.  It's a great
little box, but I don't need it any more!

Glad to pass it on to a good home!

[Zero]

Like Mister Pig - I would recommend buying a component with an active tube stage, vice adding just one more thing in the chain to act as a band aid.

[doug s.]

is a tube buffer a band-aid?  or is it something that gets you closer to recorded music that sounds real in your home?     i say all electronics that allows you to enjoy recorded music in your home is a band-aid.  so what? 

some folks prefer using no preamp, as they say anything more added between source & amp is a band-aid, & they prefer the sound w/o the added "colouration" of a preamp.  i prefer using a tubed preamp.  is it added colouration?  i don't know, & i don't care - it sounds better, more real.  so it is w/much of audio - some folks abhor tubes altogether, saying they are not as accurate as solid state.  mebbe they're right - on paper.  but which sounds more like real music?   

ymmv,

doug s.

[TONEPUB]

I agree with you Doug...

That tube buffer does a really nice job at smoothing out the sound of an older CD player
or the inexpensive combo players!  I had mine hooked up to a used pioneer 563 and it
was very good indeed...

All depends on what you are after.

[Zero]

Doug,

Sometimes you know when its time to eat crow. In this case, I've developed this nasty habit of using "band aid" liberally. Pass the butter please.

I'm of the camp that does not care what electronics it takes to get your system to a level of satisfaction; just so long as it gets there. As Jeff points out, a tube buffer can act as a valuable part of the chain when paired with an inexpensive source. Heck, you can pair them with pricier electronics until your hearts content, although I believe there is a point to where simply buying a source/pre/amp that has an active tube stage will make the most logical and financial sense. But as always, theres many ways to achieve one common goal. When it comes to hi-fi stuff, I typically favor the route of least resistance.

[doug s.]

for further clarification - my cd system consists of a cheap cd changer feeding a modded art di/o dac.  i have ~$300 into it.  (i also have a second modded di/o that i have ~$300 into, w/o including the cost of a transport.)  but, it's held its ground against cd systems >10 times its price.  so, until i can find something that's better for a reasonable price, it's staying.  (mebbe a musiland md10 or a mytek stereo 96 dac?)  and, i still prefer it thru a tube buffer, tho the buffer's effect is extremely subtle. and, in no way veiling.

i also like using buffers w/tuners.  i have a *lot* of tuners.  including a couple that some consider to be the holy grail of tuners.  like a refurb'd, modified sansui tu-x1.  again, using a buffer, while not necessary, does impart a bit of warmth & soundstaging that i like; again w/o doing anything sonically harmful...

doug s.

[Tweaker]

There's quite a bit of discussion over at the Decware forum on the Decware Zbox tube buffer and it is all positive. A lot of the discussion revolves around trying to make sense of what the thing might be doing to make such a dramatic improvement to cd playback but, whatever it is doing they all agree it works and works dramatically, and  it seems to work with cheap and not so cheap players alike.
I used to have a less is more approach to my stereo but over time I've gone from a CD player/preamp to a  digital playback chain that consist of a computer as source feeding a Squeezebox, (wirelessly), which in turn runs through a GW Labs upsampler, Behringer DEQ2496, and a Lite Audio NOS DAC/preamp. Every component I've added to the chain has had a positive impact to the sound. Considering all the additional cabling required it doesn't seem like it should but I've learned that there is a lot about this hobby that is counter-intuitive.

[doug s.]

yup, i have also heard good things about the zbox.  but, at $649, i do not think you need to spend that much.  at least, in the case of the zbox, if you buy direct, you get a 30 day money back guarantee, less 10% re-stock charge.  the ase z-man, tho now rare, ususlly sell for $100-$150 when it comes up used, & the kailin can be found new, usually for close to $200.  it also has a bypass, so you can compare w/& w/o.  it's also kinda cool looking!   



if you really wanna go nuts, there is a company called space-teh, that makes, among other things, several tube buffers, ranging in price from ~$400 to ~$2k:

http://www.space-tech-lab.com/BufferPage.html

their most spendy buffer:


i have also learned that things are not always as you might think - this hobby & elsewhere!   

doug s.

There's quite a bit of discussion over at the Decware forum on the Decware Zbox tube buffer and it is all positive. A lot of the discussion revolves around trying to make sense of what the thing might be doing to make such a dramatic improvement to cd playback but, whatever it is doing they all agree it works and works dramatically, and  it seems to work with cheap and not so cheap players alike.
I used to have a less is more approach to my stereo but over time I've gone from a CD player/preamp to a  digital playback chain that consist of a computer as source feeding a Squeezebox, (wirelessly), which in turn runs through a GW Labs upsampler, Behringer DEQ2496, and a Lite Audio NOS DAC/preamp. Every component I've added to the chain has had a positive impact to the sound. Considering all the additional cabling required it doesn't seem like it should but but I've learned that there is a lot about this hobby that is counter-intuitive.

[Tweaker]

Actually the Zbox is being offered for a "Introductory Factory Direct Price" for $399.00 which is kind of funny because they've been making these for some time now. Just a marketing ploy I've seen others use as well. Steve deckert is a good guy though so I don't hold it against him. . He'll never try to charge $649.00 for these. $399.00 still isn't chump change but for a quality product, that by all accounts produces a not so subtle improvement, it doesn't seem too bad.
I've been aware of the Space-Tech Labs stuff for some time but without an in home trial offer I've not been tempted. I tried Musical Fidelity buffer out of curiosity a few years back and sent it back as the improvement (a very slight widening of soundstage) wasn't worth the price. Didn't detect any tube sound, it was actually very neutral.
The Kalin does look pretty cool although I'm not crazy about the placement of the jacks. Good price, though.

[gooberdude]

Promitheus Audio also sells a stand-alone tube buffer for about $500.

I owned the latest version of the MF tube buffer for some time.    Back when i had an integrated amp and Ipod it was the ticket...fun tubey bass.

Best part was i sold it for only $20 less than i bought it for    

[JLM]

Steve Deckert is a nice enough guy, but his forum is overflowing with zealous DecHead cultists.  The Decware house sound is "lean" tube but dry and fast with no deep bass. 

IMO the question here is two-fold: tube and buffer.  Adding a buffer (impedance matching) does some nice things, mostly fuller/deeper bass.  Adding tubes do a variety of things, typically increased warmth, liquidity, thickness, colorations, and romance.  And tubes can make flabby (loose, exagerated, uncontrolled) bass.

[weirdo]

Good, luck on your audio journey. But I have to ask, what issue are you trying to address with this buffer?

Regards
Mister Pig
[/quote]

 Hello sir Pig, in response to the question and others like it,  the most honest thing I can say is that I want a bit of "smoothing out" of the sound from the thousand or so crappily recorded CD's I have. I enjoy the accuracy of my system  (SS Van Alstine / Gallo Reference /Cambridge 640C)  but when more than 7 or 8 instruments are involved, it gets downright clinical on me. I have developed a taste for romantic symphonies,piano concertos and choral music and I would like them to sound more....romantic.   I think I am eventually going to invest in a good tube pre-amp. ( By eventually, I mean saving up roughly 1200.00 to 1500.00 usd for something reliable and decent). I have found out the hard way that with revealing equipment, you've got to upgrade major components with damn good stuff or you will be left cold.  But for now, I want to try something inexpensive for a tube tweak.  Thanks for the offers and the advice. This is an informative and gentlemanly gathering.   

[Mister Pig]

is a tube buffer a band-aid?  or is it something that gets you closer to recorded music that sounds real in your home?     i say all electronics that allows you to enjoy recorded music in your home is a band-aid.  so what? 

some folks prefer using no preamp, as they say anything more added between source & amp is a band-aid, & they prefer the sound w/o the added "colouration" of a preamp.  i prefer using a tubed preamp.  is it added colouration?  i don't know, & i don't care - it sounds better, more real.  so it is w/much of audio - some folks abhor tubes altogether, saying they are not as accurate as solid state.  maybe they're right - on paper.  but which sounds more like real music?   

ymmv,

doug s.

Fair points. It depends on what you need or want your system to do. I have always wanted my systems to be as accurate as I could afford. I would tend to agree that tube pre-amps can add coloration, although the amplifier dictates whether or not an active line stage is needed. There are some tube pre-amps that are surprisingly neutral, such as the Mapletree units. Wonderful pieces all around.

Part of the issue I have with tube buffers is the cost. The Musical Fidelity ones used to sell for 200 or so, the Decware one for slightly less than 400. Now throw in another pair of interconnects, that's usually at least 100 to 150. Add NOS tubes and its 50 more. That's at least 350 for this project, if not closer to 600. You can buy a Mapletree 2SE with outboard power supply for $750. Or a 2 series Audible Illusions Pre-amp for 500 or so. So I dont see the value of this approach.

I dont feel that tube buffers are a cost effective way to inject the positive attributes of valves into a system. of course that's just my opinion, and should be taken with a gain of salt.

Regards
Mister Pig

[Mister Pig]

Good, luck on your audio journey. But I have to ask, what issue are you trying to address with this buffer?

Regards
Mister Pig

 Hello sir Pig, in response to the question and others like it,  the most honest thing I can say is that I want a bit of "smoothing out" of the sound from the thousand or so crappily recorded CD's I have. I enjoy the accuracy of my system  (SS Van Alstine / Gallo Reference /Cambridge 640C)  but when more than 7 or 8 instruments are involved, it gets downright clinical on me. I have developed a taste for romantic symphonies,piano concertos and choral music and I would like them to sound more....romantic.   I think I am eventually going to invest in a good tube pre-amp. ( By eventually, I mean saving up roughly 1200.00 to 1500.00 usd for something reliable and decent). I have found out the hard way that with revealing equipment, you've got to upgrade major components with damn good stuff or you will be left cold.  But for now, I want to try something inexpensive for a tube tweak.  Thanks for the offers and the advice. This is an informative and gentlemanly gathering.   
[/quote]

The article I completed for the August issue of Affordable Audio addresses the issue you are having with your ssytem. namely, how to configuire it for all kinds of music, and associated equipemnt. The Monarchy NM 24 may fit your needs to a T. I normally wouldnt flog my own review, but it is applicable to your situation.

Regards
Mister Pig

[TONEPUB]

If you would like a great deal on the Monarchy DAC (the earlier model 24, which is tube only,)
PM me.  I've got one that I'm getting rid of.  Great DAC, I just don't need it anymore....

Very nice sound indeed....

[doug s.]

is a tube buffer a band-aid?  or is it something that gets you closer to recorded music that sounds real in your home?     i say all electronics that allows you to enjoy recorded music in your home is a band-aid.  so what? 

some folks prefer using no preamp, as they say anything more added between source & amp is a band-aid, & they prefer the sound w/o the added "colouration" of a preamp.  i prefer using a tubed preamp.  is it added colouration?  i don't know, & i don't care - it sounds better, more real.  so it is w/much of audio - some folks abhor tubes altogether, saying they are not as accurate as solid state.  maybe they're right - on paper.  but which sounds more like real music?   

ymmv,

doug s.

Fair points. It depends on what you need or want your system to do. I have always wanted my systems to be as accurate as I could afford. I would tend to agree that tube pre-amps can add coloration, although the amplifier dictates whether or not an active line stage is needed. There are some tube pre-amps that are surprisingly neutral, such as the Mapletree units. Wonderful pieces all around.

Part of the issue I have with tube buffers is the cost. The Musical Fidelity ones used to sell for 200 or so, the Decware one for slightly less than 400. Now throw in another pair of interconnects, that's usually at least 100 to 150. Add NOS tubes and its 50 more. That's at least 350 for this project, if not closer to 600. You can buy a Mapletree 2SE with outboard power supply for $750. Or a 2 series Audible Illusions Pre-amp for 500 or so. So I dont see the value of this approach.

I dont feel that tube buffers are a cost effective way to inject the positive attributes of valves into a system. of course that's just my opinion, and should be taken with a gain of salt.

Regards
Mister Pig

i agree that accuracy is paramount.  but, simpler does not always mean more accurate, imo.  i have a fantastic tubed preamp, one that is also extremely neutral, & revealing.  tube amps, too.  but i find a tubed buffer is still effective on cd sources & solid-state tuner sources.  if "colouration" means more true to what real live music sounds like, then i am all for it.  what i am trying to say is that "colouration" does not necessarily mean something is not accurate or neutral - things are not always as simple as they might seem.

regards,

doug s.

[Mister Pig]

is a tube buffer a band-aid?  or is it something that gets you closer to recorded music that sounds real in your home?     i say all electronics that allows you to enjoy recorded music in your home is a band-aid.  so what? 

some folks prefer using no preamp, as they say anything more added between source & amp is a band-aid, & they prefer the sound w/o the added "colouration" of a preamp.  i prefer using a tubed preamp.  is it added colouration?  i don't know, & i don't care - it sounds better, more real.  so it is w/much of audio - some folks abhor tubes altogether, saying they are not as accurate as solid state.  maybe they're right - on paper.  but which sounds more like real music?   

ymmv,

doug s.

Fair points. It depends on what you need or want your system to do. I have always wanted my systems to be as accurate as I could afford. I would tend to agree that tube pre-amps can add coloration, although the amplifier dictates whether or not an active line stage is needed. There are some tube pre-amps that are surprisingly neutral, such as the Mapletree units. Wonderful pieces all around.

Part of the issue I have with tube buffers is the cost. The Musical Fidelity ones used to sell for 200 or so, the Decware one for slightly less than 400. Now throw in another pair of interconnects, that's usually at least 100 to 150. Add NOS tubes and its 50 more. That's at least 350 for this project, if not closer to 600. You can buy a Mapletree 2SE with outboard power supply for $750. Or a 2 series Audible Illusions Pre-amp for 500 or so. So I dont see the value of this approach.

I dont feel that tube buffers are a cost effective way to inject the positive attributes of valves into a system. of course that's just my opinion, and should be taken with a gain of salt.

Regards
Mister Pig

i agree that accuracy is paramount.  but, simpler does not always mean more accurate, imo.  i have a fantastic tubed preamp, one that is also extremely neutral, & revealing.  tube amps, too.  but i find a tubed buffer is still effective on cd sources & solid-state tuner sources.  if "colouration" means more true to what real live music sounds like, then i am all for it.  what i am trying to say is that "colouration" does not necessarily mean something is not accurate or neutral - things are not always as simple as they might seem.

regards,

doug s.

Hi Doug,

Sorry to belabour an issue. And I am not trying to be disagreeable. But I don't think I can agree with you on a point.

"colouration" does not necessarily mean something is not accurate or neutral"

I would have to say that is exactly what coloration means. It is a change from what is captured on a recorded performance. I see a continuum that looks like this

romantic---------neutral------------analytical

if "colouration" means more true to what real live music sounds like, then i am all for it.

It seems we may be discussing different points here. I see colorations as a consistant skewing of the tonal balance of a system, or recording. By that definition, a coloration cannot make a recorded performance sound like the live one that was originally recorded. Also, what coloration is consistently absent in the original recording that is provided by the tube buffer? If you ue a tube buffer in a system that already contains tubes, then why doesn't the other tubes provide the same coloration?

An extra stage of gain, such as a tube buffer cannot increase the level of detail retrieval that a source has. Therefore, it cannot improve its sonic abilities. Now, if you enjoy the presentation of a tube buffer, that makes sense to me. I suspect you find the alterations to the original source pleasing, and they are consistant enough to create the illusion of real music for you. However, this is not what I would call neutral, or accurate.

One important point to consider is this. Re-creating "live" music is a stated goal of many audio enthusiasts. It was an idea coined by at least one major high end publication in the last century. But in reality, we cannot re-create a live performance, all we can hope to do is replay a musical performance captured in a recording venue. We are limited by the recording process, and the abilities and goals of the recording engineers. At best we can re-create a performance, but not live music. A small but important distinction in my opinion.

Discussions like this are important. Critically analyzing our opinions, and values is the only way to broaden our perspective. I much prefer an intelligent discussion of these subjects than a rah-rah session where everybody gives their friends backslaps, and congratulates them on their obvious good taste.

Regards
Mister Pig