What's best in tube-friendly loudspeakers?

I increasingly favor tubes only at lower watts, 50 or so, not liking powerful push pulls much. The KR va 200 is very good for a high wattage tube amp, and the Berning quads have tubes at 200w. Those aside, on speakers that need higher power and drive I prefer SS.

For 26 years I have had low-watt parallel push-pull triode mono blocks (15 W/ch), which I loved.

A year ago I have switched to a 100 W/ch amp with KT150 tubes and I prefer it -- it sounds more natural, next to sounding faster and even more dynamic.

In other words, I don't see your point.
 
For 26 years I have had low-watt parallel push-pull triode mono blocks (15 W/ch), which I loved.

A year ago I have switched to a 100 W/ch amp with KT150 tubes and I prefer it -- it sounds more natural, next to sounding faster and even more dynamic.

In other words, I don't see your point.

In other words, 15w was too low for your speakers... You didn't get that for 26 years. I am also not comparing how a 15w sounds compared to 100 in your system... I can completely accept the latter sounds better, though you have not compared to enough quality 50w tubes or quality SS amps

Do you think if I say 1w on the General's speaker sounds way superior to 18 or 40 illustrates my point? (He and Bill will agree with that point btw so this is not about whether that example is true or not).

My actual point is... If you have a speaker you are driving with high powered tubes, you either have the wrong amp or the wrong speaker. Get a speaker you can drive with below 50, where the below 50 sounds better than your 100w amp, or get one that sounds great with SS amps. FM, Soulution, boulder, 458, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alrainbow
Only because of heat and tube replacement. IMHO, powerful tube amplifiers, such as VTL 750 or Siegfrieds, ARC REF250 or 750 or conrad Johnson LP275s or ART can sound really great.

They sound too slow and sluggish. As compared to running quality low powered amps on speakers those amps work with or high powered SS amps on speakers those work with.
 
In other words, 15w was too low for your speakers... You didn't get that for 26 years. I am also not comparing how a 15w sounds compared to 100 in your system... I can completely accept the latter sounds better, though you have not compared to enough quality 50w tubes or quality SS amps

Do you think if I say 1w on the General's speaker sounds way superior to 18 or 40 illustrates my point? (He and Bill will agree with that point btw so this is not about whether that example is true or not).

My actual point is... If you have a speaker you are driving with high powered tubes, you either have the wrong amp or the wrong speaker. Get a speaker you can drive with below 50, where the below 50 sounds better than your 100w amp, or get one that sounds great with SS amps. FM, Soulution, boulder, 458, etc.

All audiophiles who have heard my system with the old low-watt amps have admired -- without any exception! -- the dynamics of my system. In fact, dynamics was always one of the first things they pointed out. So no, 15 W/ch was not too low for the speakers.

And no, just because I drive my speakers with an amp that, in terms of wattage needed, is total overkill for them, this does not that the amp is wrong for them. There is actually a school of thought that you should have overkill power on your speakers, rather than just 'adequate' power.
 
I didn't say anything about adequate power. Lower wattage tubes sound better. 46, 2a3, 45 are generally known to be the best sounding tubes, followed by 211 and 845 and a few others. That's why. Of course, there are not many speakers you can drive with amps using these tubes, especially in single ended mode, so you lose sonic quality as you head up the power wattage with the tubes required there. Am sure there can be the occasional exception. I haven't heard the wavac 833c 150w but the General had it and preferred the lower wattage quality tubes while another guy moved from that wavac to Vitus for his kind of speakers. Both directions make perfect sense to me based on other valve amps I have heard. You either head down the wattage rating on valves or head up in SS
 
I didn't say anything about adequate power. Lower wattage tubes sound better. 46, 2a3, 45 are generally known to be the best sounding tubes, followed by 211 and 845 and a few others.

I'm quite the opposite- I prefer my KT150-based Ref75SE to all of the 211, 845, 300B amps I've owned. But I am no SET fan, particularly in the bass.

I share similar thoughts on tetrode amps with a zillion tubes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaveyF and Al M.
I didn't say anything about adequate power. Lower wattage tubes sound better. 46, 2a3, 45 are generally known to be the best sounding tubes, followed by 211 and 845 and a few others. That's why.

My old amps had 2A3 tubes, were highly regarded in sound quality back in the day, and a few years ago upgraded with external power supplies to make the tubes operate even better (and they did actually sound better too that way). And no, they did not sound better than the KT150 tubes as implemented in my amp (penthode, class A/B).
 
My old amps had 2A3 tubes, were highly regarded in sound quality back in the day, and a few years ago upgraded with external power supplies to make the tubes operate even better (and they did actually sound better too that way). And no, they did not sound better than the KT150 tubes as implemented in my amp (penthode, class A/B).

Again... That is on your speakers. I compared the same 2a3 amp to 550, 833c and jadis integrated which uses a KT88 or 120 or one of those... On one speaker, room and source remaining the same, the 2a3 sounded better. On the other speaker, the other valve amps sounded better. Your speaker fits into the other category. So this is indeed possible when you compare only on one speaker.

My point is, I prefer speakers where the 2a3 type amps sounds better, or whole loads of watts of SS sounds better. The speaker on which the KT valves sound better than the 2a3 (there are many) is either not the right speaker or does not have the right SS amplification. I just find all systems driven with KT valves meh. And again, it is quite possible for KT valves to sound better than 2a3 on a particular speaker
 
Again... That is on your speakers. I compared the same 2a3 amp to 550, 833c and jadis integrated which uses a KT88 or 120 or one of those... On one speaker, room and source remaining the same, the 2a3 sounded better. On the other speaker, the other valve amps sounded better. Your speaker fits into the other category. So this is indeed possible when you compare only on one speaker.

My point is, I prefer speakers where the 2a3 type amps sounds better, or whole loads of watts of SS sounds better. The speaker on which the KT valves sound better than the 2a3 (there are many) is either not the right speaker or does not have the right SS amplification. I just find all systems driven with KT valves meh. And again, it is quite possible for KT valves to sound better than 2a3 on a particular speaker

Totally agree with the system driven KT valves being meh. Don’t get the point myself.
 
Again... That is on your speakers. I compared the same 2a3 amp to 550, 833c and jadis integrated which uses a KT88 or 120 or one of those... On one speaker, room and source remaining the same, the 2a3 sounded better. On the other speaker, the other valve amps sounded better. Your speaker fits into the other category. So this is indeed possible when you compare only on one speaker.

Don't equate the KT88 (and which NOS or KR version can actually sound very good) and utterly crappy KT120 to the KT150.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaveyF
I'm quite the opposite- I prefer my KT150-based Ref75SE to all of the 211, 845, 300B amps I've owned. But I am no SET fan, particularly in the bass.

I share similar thoughts on tetrode amps with a zillion tubes.

I wouldn't use SET amps on speakers where they couldn't drive the bass. The SETs are way more nuanced on tone and inflections than high powered tube amps. Where they lacked bass, I would either change the speaker, or get in good SS amps.
 
Again... That is on your speakers. I compared the same 2a3 amp to 550, 833c and jadis integrated which uses a KT88 or 120 or one of those... On one speaker, room and source remaining the same, the 2a3 sounded better. On the other speaker, the other valve amps sounded better. Your speaker fits into the other category. So this is indeed possible when you compare only on one speaker.

My point is, I prefer speakers where the 2a3 type amps sounds better, or whole loads of watts of SS sounds better. The speaker on which the KT valves sound better than the 2a3 (there are many) is either not the right speaker or does not have the right SS amplification. I just find all systems driven with KT valves meh. And again, it is quite possible for KT valves to sound better than 2a3 on a particular speaker

If you are a horn lover, then what you stated might make some sense. Where we do agree, is that basically the lower powered version of the tube amp typically sounds better. For instance, my Jadis at 45 watts/ch sounds better, to my ears, than any of the higher powered Jadis amps.
However, like Keith states, don’t equate the typical KT tubes to KT150’s.
I think you may need a lot more exposure to KT 150 based amps to see how they match up far better with most speakers than do 2a3’s. (Except maybe bright, cupped hands horns that is, lol).
 
If you are a horn lover, then what you stated might make some sense. Where we do agree, is that basically the lower ion of the tube amp typically sounds better. For instance, my Jadis at 45 watts/ch sounds better, to my ears, than any of the higher powered Jadis amps.
However, like Keith states, don’t equate the Typical KT tubes to KT150’s.
I think you May need a lot more exposure to KT 150 based amps to see how they match up far better with most speakers than do 2a3’s. (Except maybe bright, cupped hands horns that is, lol).

Of course they match up up far more speakers than 2a3. The AR 250SE sound great, but on all speakers where I need such power, there are better SS alternatives.
 
Of course they match up up far more speakers than 2a3. The AR 250SE sound great, but on all speakers where I need such power, there are better SS alternatives.
Not necessarily. I recently heard a very high powered ss mono amp on a pair of medium efficient speakers, the same speakers were heard the previous week with a medium powered tube mono block...The tubes sounded, to my ears, easily superior. I didn’t hear the typical dryness that I most always hear with very high powered ss. Instead the stage opened up a little more and the timbre reproduction was more realistic...imo. Now one thing that the very high powered ss amp had over the tube amps...a BIG difference in price!
 
  • Like
Reactions: christoph and Al M.
  • Like
Reactions: morricab
I would even go so far to say big Focals only sound with good SET :p

And which SETs have you heard them with? I would like to hear with a hybrid Luke KR 200, but they totally failed with Nagra and Trulife 70w. Bill's set up with analog domain was much better. In the end they sounded much better when sold and replaced with speakers that can run on low powered SETs
 
Again... That is on your speakers. I compared the same 2a3 amp to 550, 833c and jadis integrated which uses a KT88 or 120 or one of those... On one speaker, room and source remaining the same, the 2a3 sounded better. On the other speaker, the other valve amps sounded better. Your speaker fits into the other category. So this is indeed possible when you compare only on one speaker.

My point is, I prefer speakers where the 2a3 type amps sounds better, or whole loads of watts of SS sounds better. The speaker on which the KT valves sound better than the 2a3 (there are many) is either not the right speaker or does not have the right SS amplification. I just find all systems driven with KT valves meh. And again, it is quite possible for KT valves to sound better than 2a3 on a particular speaker

Ked, you argue:
"My point is, I prefer speakers where the 2a3 type amps sounds better, or whole loads of watts of SS sounds better. The speaker on which the KT valves sound better than the 2a3 (there are many) is either not the right speaker or does not have the right SS amplification."

So by a priori defined dogma you think that 2A3 type amps must sound better than KT type amps, and thus if they don't, something must be wrong with the speaker, the matching of the speaker, or the SS amplification for that speaker rather than the KT type amp used on it?

This is the backward logic of dogmatism. I prefer following empirical evidence instead of preconceived dogma.

You said:
"I just find all systems driven with KT valves meh."

As others have pointed out, KT150 tubes are a different ballgame than other KT tubes. And yes, I have heard KT150 type amps that in some respects sounded less good on my speakers than my 2A3 amps. It is all about implementation, not just the tube itself (as for the quality of 2A3 implementation in my previous amps, I have commented above).
 
Since you are getting caught up in what I mean by trying to interpret it your way... Let me rephrase it...
Thing is KT will sound better than 2a3 on many speakers... But on those speakers a good SS amp will sound better than KT. Doesn't matter if 150 is better than 88. I have heard enough AR 250SE systems they were meh. I have also heard a few high powered jadis (never heard the ja 30) and VTL systems. In some systems these push pull amps also sounded better than the SS amps compared with. But, ultimately these are not speakers I like, at all. These push pull amps also color recordings compared to SETs or some quality SS amps.
 
Since you are getting caught up in what I mean by trying to interpret it your way... Let me rephrase it...
Thing is KT will sound better than 2a3 on many speakers... But on those speakers a good SS amp will sound better than KT. Doesn't matter if 150 is better than 88. I have heard enough AR 250SE systems they were meh. I have also heard a few high powered jadis (never heard the ja 30) and VTL systems. In some systems these push pull amps also sounded better than the SS amps compared with. But, ultimately these are not speakers I like, at all. These push pull amps also color recordings compared to SETs or some quality SS amps.

You inadvertently confirmed my point.
 
Not necessarily. I recently heard a very high powered ss mono amp on a pair of medium efficient speakers, the same speakers were heard the previous week with a medium powered tube mono block...The tubes sounded, to my ears, easily superior. I didn’t hear the typical dryness that I most always hear with very high powered ss. Instead the stage opened up a little more and the timbre reproduction was more realistic...imo. Now one thing that the very high powered ss amp had over the tube amps...a BIG difference in price!

I am sure you will find more such examples. That doesn't change the point that there are SS amps and speaker matches that sound much better than KT 150 and associated speakers
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing