Golden Gate 2 Reactions
- Thread starter Mr P
- Start date
Guys, yesterday evening I changed from 242 to 300B, but forgot to change the tube voltage. I think, I was listening to 300B on the 242 setting for about 2 hours before changing the switch to the proper position. Can it affect the tubes life or damage them in any way?
Thanks.
Thanks.
In this case it is not a problem because you listened to the 300b in the low voltage setting for the 242.
As long as you don't listen exclusively with the 300b in the low setting, there is no danger.
The other way around is more problematic. Listening to the 242 (or 45 for that matter) in the high voltage setting (for 300b) will deteriorate the 242 or 45 fast or even kill them if it is for hours, due to overvoltage.
Thefore it is always preferred to check the settings when changing tubes.
Well I got the RK 300Bs in today and spent a good few hours rolling between those, some Marconi PX4s, and the Sylvania VT-52.
Winner? The RK 300B. The most linear sounding, the least confused, the best mid range, bass and treble. It is very even handed and controlled.
It doesn't have a dreamy, open mid range like say a TJ Full Music 2A3 does, at the expense of decent bass. It has a very refined mid range - not pushed forward or backwards with respect to the rest of the frequency range, but nicely aligned with it.
It's very resolving and detailed and able to present subtle detail subtly, if that makes any sense.
Thankfully, dimensionality is excellent, in the sense that its portrayal of space is isn't overly hyped. It doesn't deliver bass into your lap like, say, an EML 45 solid plate used to do. There's nothing mad going on with it. It just sounds plausible in the manner in which it places images, not silly hyped.
A flip over to my newly acquired Marconi PX4 and we're immediately presented with a rather rougher mid range with more bite, which is fine when you just don't want the refinement of the RK. Good with Nirvana and the like. A bit more of a rocker of a valve, the Marconi.
Bass is tight and well controlled. My bass panels love it due to its linearity and extension. There's a great sense they being really evenly controlled, which is awesome at high volume on bass centric music.
The valve is fast and able to do quick with consummate ease in what appears to be any part of the frequency spectrum. Treble is subtly detailed and sweet when the source is, but sweet when other valves aren't so sweet, if you catch my drift. I don't believe it is coloured, just less splashy and more accurate that other options.
I am not sure about QC, though. There are three bits of mica that should touch the glass at the top of the valve. On one, they aren't touching. I knew it as soon as I picked the valve out of the box and did a flick test. It rings more than the other valve because these bits of mica support the internal structure to prevent structural resonance.
So we have an excellent performance, really, even with one valve slightly structurally compromised. I will inform KR and see what they say.
Until Ked's 242s show up I can't compare, but I will
Winner? The RK 300B. The most linear sounding, the least confused, the best mid range, bass and treble. It is very even handed and controlled.
It doesn't have a dreamy, open mid range like say a TJ Full Music 2A3 does, at the expense of decent bass. It has a very refined mid range - not pushed forward or backwards with respect to the rest of the frequency range, but nicely aligned with it.
It's very resolving and detailed and able to present subtle detail subtly, if that makes any sense.
Thankfully, dimensionality is excellent, in the sense that its portrayal of space is isn't overly hyped. It doesn't deliver bass into your lap like, say, an EML 45 solid plate used to do. There's nothing mad going on with it. It just sounds plausible in the manner in which it places images, not silly hyped.
A flip over to my newly acquired Marconi PX4 and we're immediately presented with a rather rougher mid range with more bite, which is fine when you just don't want the refinement of the RK. Good with Nirvana and the like. A bit more of a rocker of a valve, the Marconi.
Bass is tight and well controlled. My bass panels love it due to its linearity and extension. There's a great sense they being really evenly controlled, which is awesome at high volume on bass centric music.
The valve is fast and able to do quick with consummate ease in what appears to be any part of the frequency spectrum. Treble is subtly detailed and sweet when the source is, but sweet when other valves aren't so sweet, if you catch my drift. I don't believe it is coloured, just less splashy and more accurate that other options.
I am not sure about QC, though. There are three bits of mica that should touch the glass at the top of the valve. On one, they aren't touching. I knew it as soon as I picked the valve out of the box and did a flick test. It rings more than the other valve because these bits of mica support the internal structure to prevent structural resonance.
So we have an excellent performance, really, even with one valve slightly structurally compromised. I will inform KR and see what they say.
Until Ked's 242s show up I can't compare, but I will
Last edited:
Marconi PX4 isn't going to win any world records...
The price is on the box. 15 shillings each - 75p or not far off a dollar, LOL.And the KR PX4. But not the RK version. Just to be clear I was talking about the Marconi.
Yes, especially on the vocal (Nat King Cole), with correct setting it sounded more natural.
I have not done any further comparison with 242 since then. The more I listen to RK 300B, the more I am charmed with its sound. The sound is very easy on the ear, and at the same time very rich, full, fat. I am struggling with words here, but you probably know what I mean. Can it be too rich or too dark on some trumpet recordings, like on sax or clarinet? I do not know yet. Still think that it is a bit less resolving than 242.
I spent some time with 242 yesterday. Now I understand these comments relative to 300B RK.
RK has a fatter, more extended bass and is relatively laid back, hence the ease in the listenability, I think. A more refined sound.
242 is more resolving, I don't think there is any question about that. It is also more open, has a leaner bass, portrays a great sense of space/air, casts a larger soundstage and is more upfront and exciting. It is very difficult not to like it a lot.
242 is working with my active preamp, but I tried it with my passive too.
I was careful to volume match with an SPL meter as the 242 output is high, 9 o'clock with the 242 being equivalent to about 11:30 with the 300B RK on the volume control of the active pre, with 6 o'clock being zero volume on my active pre.
According to Frank over at Best300B, things start happening with the RK after about 100-200 hours, when it becomes "gold" as he put it. We shall see
Last edited:
The RK 300b was specially designed to be a cross between 300b and 242. I have never heard that properly btw, so my previous reply on 242 was wrt compares on other valves. But there it did not lack bass. Though it can sound different across systems
There does seem to be rather more of it compared to 242. It maybe that at the moment, the RK is a little generous with it. Whether that changes over time I don't know but I would be surprised.
Certainly listening to 242 without ever having the RK I don't think I would be thinking it lacked bass. It is definitely leaner, though, in my setup, when you do the cross compare.
Your comments are spot on. I wonder, how the sound of both tubes will change with break in. Maybe they will sound closer to each other. Anyway, I am now listening to 242, and I have no desire to go back to 300BI spent some time with 242 yesterday. Now I understand these comments relative to 300B RK.
RK has a fatter, more extended bass and is relatively laid back, hence the ease in the listenability, I think. A more refined sound.
242 is more resolving, I don't think there is any question about that. It is also more open, has a leaner bass, portrays a great sense of space/air, casts a larger soundstage and is more upfront and exciting. It is very difficult not to like it a lot.
242 is working with my active preamp, but I tried it with my passive too.
I was careful to volume match with an SPL meter as the 242 output is high, 9 o'clock with the 242 being equivalent to about 11:30 with the 300B RK on the volume control of the active pre, with 6 o'clock being zero volume on my active pre.
According to Frank over at Best300B, things start happening with the RK after about 100-200 hours, when it becomes "gold" as he put it. We shall see
Similar threads
- Sticky
Members online
- Bbock
- Glide3
- SHR66
- ledoux1238
- oldmustang
- joet
- LarryK
- pjwd
- Skanda
- cjfrbw
- 3rdRock
- malmstrom
- the sound of Tao
- tonytsui
- shel50
- Audiocrack
- Sampajanna
- jmhenrie
- Gerbie1990
- dminches
- Jeffy
- Pallen
- Koetsu123
- Treehaus Audiolab
- Argonaut
- gds7368
- Prn78
- bgrav
- Channel1.0
- puroagave
- RSB
- WLP3
- five
- rau
- rt662
- dbdb
- TommyC
- cmarin
- joaovieira
- khashmi
- pcosta
- astrotoy
- moby2004
- nkbg
- Kingrex
- Casasky
- kyoya78
- ecwl
- supersax
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |