[JLM]

I’m with you on most of your preceding post, except for:

“If you use a tube buffer in a system that already contains tubes, then why doesn't the other tubes provide the same coloration?”

I believe it’s a given that different tubes provide different “voicings”.


I’d say that we really can’t and wouldn’t want to recreate a studio recording, with all the “tricks” played.  But I’d also say that we should want to fully recreate live recordings, however the limits of our technology are not capable of that. 


Flavoring the sound with tubes is akin to having your steak seasoned in any number of ways.  How it tastes is already affected by the method of preserving and cooking it (I suppose some real purists might even want it uncooked).  Beyond that some will take it without seasonings while others would baulk that too much seasoning ruins it.  I’d say that every component in the recording/playback chain can provide its own “voicing”, but tubes, cartridges, drivers, room, and dare I say our own sense of hearing are the most notorious factors.  With all those flavoring factors already at work, I’d vote not to add another.

[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

hi mr pig,

basically, i agree w/you.  but, when i first said "colouration", i was playing a bit - some folks argue that anything added to the signal is colouration; i am saying it ain't always so.  i have found that a tube buffer, when used on sources such as solid state tunas, or cd players, can add worthwhile soundstaging improvements.  of course, detail won't be added.  but, it's been my expereince, w/the buffers i have used, that detail has not been reduced.  i am extremely sensitive to this - if detail is reduced, i am not a happy camper.

regards,

doug s.

[Mister Pig]

I’m with you on most of your preceding post, except for:

“If you use a tube buffer in a system that already contains tubes, then why doesn't the other tubes provide the same coloration?”

I believe it’s a given that different tubes provide different “voicings”.


I’d say that we really can’t and wouldn’t want to recreate a studio recording, with all the “tricks” played.  But I’d also say that we should want to fully recreate live recordings, however the limits of our technology are not capable of that. 


Flavoring the sound with tubes is akin to having your steak seasoned in any number of ways.  How it tastes is already affected by the method of preserving and cooking it (I suppose some real purists might even want it uncooked).  Beyond that some will take it without seasonings while others would baulk that too much seasoning ruins it.  I’d say that every component in the recording/playback chain can provide its own “voicing”, but tubes, cartridges, drivers, room, and dare I say our own sense of hearing are the most notorious factors.  With all those flavoring factors already at work, I’d vote not to add another.

Hi JLM

Yes I would agree with you regarding tube characterisitcs. My solution to ear bleeding recordings that need to be rendered listenable is also a tube change. I keep a pair of 6AN4 Tungsols on my listening rack. When I need to mellow the system out, I pop out the Sylvanias that are my every day tube, and drop in the Tungsols. Mellow, sweet, laid back.....mission accomplished. Somewhat inconvenient, but the simpliest solution in my book.

My personal opinion is that I like to keep the tubes in my system to a bare minimum, in order to keep those flavoring aspects out of the equation. My amps use a pair of Sophia Meshplate 300B, and a pair of 6AN4 pre-drivers. Thats all the tubes in my system. Pre-amp is a passive transformer based design. DAC is solid state. But with that being said, I have heard tube pre-amps I like alot. The Mapletree stuff is excellent, and Monarchy does a fine job on thier tube DAC/Linestage. I could easily build good systems around those pieces.

BTW I have enjoyed this thread alot, it makes for interesting discussion.

Regards
Mister Pig

[JLM]

Mr. Pig,

You said, "My personal opinion is that I like to keep the tubes in my system to a bare minimum, in order to keep those flavoring aspects out of the equation."

So do I (I have no tubes).     Even transformer based volume controls add their own set of colorations (more than most components, but less than drivers, tubes, rooms, cartridges, or individual senses of hearing).

[JLM]

doug s.,

I agree with the interaction of imaging and detail.  Better imaging brings better resolution (more detail), like putting on corrective lenses.

IMO it's all a matter of synergy, whether tube, solid state, or whatever.

The Burson Buffer is a good example of a solid state buffer (impedance matchmaker).  The point I was trying to make above is that you can make a buffer without tubes and that adding tubes to the replay chain is another whole issue.

[slbenz]

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 use both the Yaqin and Musical Fidelity tube buffers in my solid state separates home theater system.  They add that warmth and detail to the midrange that I am looking for in my system.  The only negative for me is that I should have bought the Yaqins before the Musical Fidelity.  The Yaqin is only $175 vs. $299 for the Musical Fidelity.  I liked the Yaqin so much that I purchased a second one to cover the rear channels.  The Musical Fidelity is covering the center channel.  The Yaqin lets you tube roll and change out IEC cords where the Musical Fidelity doesn't let you tube roll and you need to purchase their outrageously priced $449 power supply to upgrade!  With the Yaqins on board, I was able to tube roll until satisfied with the level of detail, presence and midrange warmth I wanted. 

[weirdo]

Well, to finish off the topic ( with thanks to all for suggestions),  I purchased the Yagin tube buffer. For 175.00, what the heck. I've had it in for about a month. The total cost was about 50.00 more condisering I had to purchase a decent second pair of interconnects to hook it up. Interesting. There are some CD's where the music can present a greater mellowness and a less congested slightly microphonic and foreward sound but not quite to the degree I've noticed from a tube pre-amp.  The well recorded CD's are perfectly well played without the device turned on.  It seems to excel in the music from the 50's and 60's , combo jazz and vocal.

 I have rolled in a NOS RCA 6922 tube made god knows when and it sounds different but not better than the stock Chinese tube or JAN 6922 replacement. A stock EH tube is not particularly good for this device. sounds tinney.  Its a cool device, not harmful in the least and fun.  dk

[doug s.]

you may wanna try matsushita 12ax7's for cheap tube rolling.  these are basically mullard clones, at a much more reasonable price, as mullard shipped their tooling over to japan for matsushita to make the tubes. i like them in my kailin tube buffer...

doug s.

Well, to finish off the topic ( with thanks to all for suggestions),  I purchased the Yagin tube buffer. For 175.00, what the heck. I've had it in for about a month. The total cost was about 50.00 more condisering I had to purchase a decent second pair of interconnects to hook it up. Interesting. There are some CD's where the music can present a greater mellowness and a less congested slightly microphonic and foreward sound but not quite to the degree I've noticed from a tube pre-amp.  The well recorded CD's are perfectly well played without the device turned on.  It seems to excel in the music from the 50's and 60's , combo jazz and vocal.

 I have rolled in a NOS RCA 6922 tube made god knows when and it sounds different but not better than the stock Chinese tube or JAN 6922 replacement. A stock EH tube is not particularly good for this device. sounds tinney.  Its a cool device, not harmful in the least and fun.  dk

[Tweaker]

I also purchased a Yaqin bufffer and found it took some of the "sparkle" out of the music. In an edgy/bright system that might be not such a bad thing but I did not like the result. I also did some tube rolling including a NOS Brimar and a NOS Amperex Orange World Logo tube and the result was pretty much the same with whatever I tried, even a Sovtek 6922(!). Where I found it to be great benefit though is driving my subwoofer,(and the 8ft long interconnects). I have a sub/sat speaker system and with the buffer in between the preamp outs and the sub the main speakers sound noticeably better. The bass has not suffered in the slightest as a result either, as far as I can tell.  I'm thinking anyone running a sub from a second set of preamp outputs, especially with long cables might benefit from using a buffer.

[kenreau]

I'm just jumping into a Bolder modified SB3 and they highly recommend the Burson Audio Buffer.  They are $325 +/-, solid state, from Australia and sell on eBay.  Looks very promising.  Has anyone evaluated one of these units?

http://www.bursonaudio.com/

Kenreau

[Bigfish]

I'm just jumping into a Bolder modified SB3 and they highly recommend the Burson Audio Buffer.  They are $325 +/-, solid state, from Australia and sell on eBay.  Looks very promising.  Has anyone evaluated one of these units?

http://www.bursonaudio.com/

Kenreau

I connected a Burson Buffer to my Bolder Analog Modded S3 a couple of weeks ago.  My impressions are that it is a must have if you are serious about an S3 as a source in a high-end rig.  Wayne of Bolder can make it even better so I have added those mods to my wish list.

Ken

[kenreau]

That's what I was afraid of...  what power supply are you using with the SB3?  I've got a modded Elpac on order.  That Ultimate PS sure looks like it is the final frontier, but I can't justify another $1k on a PS.  Looking back at what it takes to make a $300 source sound good is kind of sickening...

[Bigfish]

That's what I was afraid of...  what power supply are you using with the SB3?  I've got a modded Elpac on order.  That Ultimate PS sure looks like it is the final frontier, but I can't justify another $1k on a PS.  Looking back at what it takes to make a $300 source sound good is kind of sickening...

I am running the Bolder Modded Elpac VM 220 Power Supply.  Wayne's Ultimate Power Supply is definitely on my wish list.  There are no easy answers to your comment about the cost of making the S3 into a high-end source.  I take comfort in knowing there are a lot guys on this Circle that use and believe a modified Bolder S3 with Ultimate Power Supply is a very high end source.  Add-in the convenience factors and I was convinced it was the best direction for me to take.  Also, you get to enjoy the S3, mod it as money becomes available and get to enjoy the improvement in sound that each mod or S3 addition (new power supply or Burson Buffer) makes to your system.

I will conclude that the addition of the Burson Buffer made a very noticable improvement to the sound from my system.  Quoting Double Ugly, "There is just more of everything."

Good Luck,

Ken

[zybar]

That's what I was afraid of...  what power supply are you using with the SB3?  I've got a modded Elpac on order.  That Ultimate PS sure looks like it is the final frontier, but I can't justify another $1k on a PS.  Looking back at what it takes to make a $300 source sound good is kind of sickening...

Why is it sickening?   

I feel just the opposite!

It is fantastic that I can get a $300 source (with the various Bolder Cable upgrades) to be an upper echelon digital front end in terms of performance.

George

[TONEPUB]

I just discovered a great tube buffer, but alas it is not affordable!

[kenreau]

Maybe "disturbing" is a better description.  It just strikes me as odd that we take a $300 SB3, add upgrade mods for +/-$1K, upgraded ps for another $1K and a modded buffer for another $600.  The original source device now ends up at 10% of a total $3K outlay of $.  It is great though if it gets you at or near s.o.t.a. though.

Jeff - can you tell us about your un-affordable tube buffer? 

Kenreau

[TONEPUB]

The Manley Massive Passive Equalizer....

It's killer good!  And the studio mastering EQ that is a four
band parametric does a great job at cleaning up those old
LP's and CD's that sound terrible...

Definitely the most fun I've had with my pants on!!

When you don't need the EQ, you can bump it out
of the loop and just use the manley as a tube buffer!

[Rob Babcock]

I have to admit I'm a bit baffled by tubed buffers.   I could see using tubes in the signal path (as I do- my amp is a Butler) but I don't understand how simply inserting them between SS components could do anything other than color the sound.  Whatever info there is is already there- the tube piece isn't "reconstructing" or recreating anything lost by the SS gear...it's really just an EQ, isn't it?

Don't get me wrong, I like tubes!  And I haven't tried a buffer, so take this with a grain of salt.  But salt is a good analogy- imagine getting some McDonalds fries, completely buried in salt (as they always are! ), and adding your own seasoned salt to them.  You're gonna flavor them, for sure, but you're not gonna get the original salt out of them!  You're just burying it with other tastes.

[kenreau]

Rob,

I am a little leery for the same reasons    Adding a buffer, tubed or sand state, appears to fly in the face of keeping a simple, pure as possible, signal path.  Plus another set of ic's, power supply, etc.

The info I read on the Burson website and the 6moons review was helpful.  I've just starting looking into this.  From my initial reading, it appears to be more about impedance matching the signal between devices than working any EQ magic.  Although the Manley device Jeff mentions offers both.

Jeff - what does the Manley buffer retail for?  That is a cool name, from a real cool company.

Kenreau

[TONEPUB]

the manley massive passive goes for 6000 bucks.  It's the same mastering EQ used
in a lot of famous recording studios all over the world.

I'm completely in favor of keeping things as simple as possible.  However
with a lot of other recordings that are not perfect, I'm willing to put up with
another device in the chain to get the sound back!