SET amp owners thread

[cjfrbw]

Can you do some with the mobile in the sweet spot? It makes a difference where you keep the mobile

???
It is a Sony ecm-939LT microphone attached to a small sports cam with a long cord. The microphone is reasonably within the seating zone, short of actually holding it with all of the fumbling and banging around. The microphone has the advantage of not saturating at loud volumes, but the disadvantage of rolling off around 60-70hz so the impact of bass is attenuated. The drum thwacks on Steeleye Span segments come out weak by comparison with live.

The live of course sounds a lot better, but there are some things that come through reasonably well as sketches.

I made these mainly to show that the big BG 75 ribbon has the efficiency to do dynamics with flea powered amps. That claim might otherwise arouse natural skepticism. The segments were recorded at a pretty high volume.

In the 300Hz to 7khz range, the tiny output transformers on the inexpensive Chinese amp don't seem to be a problem.

If you have a particular piece of music familiar to you that you want played, I'll see if I can put it on this system for a recording.

 

[bonzo75]

Ok, got you. Will be good to compare a mobile phone recording to the microphone recording

 

[morricab]

Ok, got you. Will be good to compare a mobile phone recording to the microphone recording

Why? You don't seriously think the phone is better, do you?

 

[cjfrbw]

For Ked: sweaty palm, heavy breathing tremble-cam (IPOD 5 with built in microphone, no external microphone) taken exactly at sweet spot with gratuitous post shot of el cheapo Chinese SET amp (appx @4 watts 6b4g svetlana output tubes):

Rachel Podger Partita no.3

 

[morricab]

Ok, got you. Will be good to compare a mobile phone recording to the microphone recording

just read his microphone rolls off at 70hz so maybe it will sound better with the phone...my iPhone recordings on max resolution seem to be a bit lightweight balanced but go reasonably deep. The TASCAM makes simply very good recordings.

 

[morricab]

For Ked: sweaty palm, heavy breathing tremble-cam (IPOD 5 with built in microphone, no external microphone) taken exactly at sweet spot with gratuitous post shot of el cheapo Chinese SET amp (appx @4 watts 6b4g svetlana output tubes):

Rachel Podger Partita no.3

CAn we hear the system with that cool WAVAC amp instead??

 

[morricab]

For Ked: sweaty palm, heavy breathing tremble-cam (IPOD 5 with built in microphone, no external microphone) taken exactly at sweet spot with gratuitous post shot of el cheapo Chinese SET amp (appx @4 watts 6b4g svetlana output tubes):

Rachel Podger Partita no.3

A bit sharp sounding...perhaps you are straining that little guy? I would not presume it sounds that way live given the microphone/recorder being used here.

 

[cjfrbw]

I'll fire up the Wavac later for a celebrity recording if you want. Ipod tremble-cam or microphone? I think the sharpness is microphone saturation, sounds pretty decent in life, but ear of the beholder and all that. It's also a 360kps flac, so not ultra high resolution.

Gardeners are around here right now kicking up noise for an hour or two.

 

[bonzo75]

I'll fire up the Wavac later for a celebrity recording if you want. Ipod tremble-cam or microphone? I think the sharpness is microphone saturation, sounds pretty decent in life, but ear of the beholder and all that. It's also a 360kps flac, so not ultra high resolution.

Gardeners are around here right now kicking up noise for an hour or two.

iphone

 

[cjfrbw]

With Ipod 5 build in microphone/sweat palm tremble-cam/Wavac, as requested. Great flaming sword Wavac 50 watt 572b on BG 75 ribbon 300hz-7khz.
No doubt here, microphone is a bit overwhelmed.
I wonder if Galaxy 8 would do better.

 

[cjfrbw]

'Nother Wavac one of some psychedelia: Thievery Corporation, 'Doors of Perception'. Sweat palm tremble-cam Ipod 5 with built in mike.

Video is like a 16mm copy of an IMAX movie. Maybe 8mm.

 

[morricab]

Just describe differences because I think the iPod is the limiting factor here and I am sure the sonic difference is huge.

 

[morricab]

Or your Samsung

 

[cjfrbw]

Just describe differences because I think the iPod is the limiting factor here and I am sure the sonic difference is huge.

Difference between wavac and flea? or microphone and ipod?

Wavac is full, rich, lit up. Flea is more like OLED, colors curtaining in from absolute black background. They both sound great to my ears. The vitality of the Wavac is seductive, the beautiful curtaining and evanescence of the flea is seductive as well. The Wavac and flea image comparably in terms of size. I guess the flea has good body, tone and texture, but the black background allows a bit of lambency. Wavac gets the juices flowing.

The BG 75 ribbons honor every amp I have tried with them. I do not perceive dynamic limitations with the fleas when volume levels are equalized , but somebody else might. Audiophiles hear differently, and I won't claim I am at the top of the pack, but I do have an ear for tonal richness.

the Ipod 5 sounds mono, the microphone setup with the sports cam is preferable because you get channel separation.

On the Thievery Corporation cut, the drums around the middle of the cut are huge and come in from outside the left and right of the speakers. On the Ipod 5, they sound like garbage can lids in the center.

Neither recording method show entirely the enormous imaging from right to left, outside the plane of the speakers, the inner detail, the participation of the low bass, the depth of imaging, the relative relationship of the sound images in he soundstage, or the vertical imaging of the line array. They can convey some sense of scale and dynamic contrast, as well as some tone color.

I think I will stick with the microphone/ sports cam method if I make more tapes. I may play with the Galaxy 8 later. I think I have cluttered the thread with enough detritus and debris so far.

 

[morricab]

Difference between wavac and flea? or microphone and ipod?

Wavac is full, rich, lit up. Flea is more like OLED, colors curtaining in from absolute black background. They both sound great to my ears. The vitality of the Wavac is seductive, the beautiful curtaining and evanescence of the flea is seductive as well. The Wavac and flea image comparably in terms of size. I guess the flea has good body, tone and texture, but the black background allows a bit of lambency. Wavac gets the juices flowing.

The BG 75 ribbons honor every amp I have tried with them. I do not perceive dynamic limitations with the fleas when volume levels are equalized , but somebody else might. Audiophiles hear differently, and I won't claim I am at the top of the pack, but I do have an ear for tonal richness.

the Ipod 5 sounds mono, the microphone setup with the sports cam is preferable because you get channel separation.

On the Thievery Corporation cut, the drums around the middle of the cut are huge and come in from outside the left and right of the speakers. On the Ipod 5, they sound like garbage can lids in the center.

Neither recording method show entirely the enormous imaging from right to left, outside the plane of the speakers, the inner detail, the participation of the low bass, the depth of imaging, the relative relationship of the sound images in he soundstage, or the vertical imaging of the line array. They can convey some sense of scale and dynamic contrast, as well as some tone color.

I think I will stick with the microphone/ sports cam method if I make more tapes. I may play with the Galaxy 8 later. I think I have cluttered the thread with enough detritus and debris so far.

I have been recording with either a TASCAM DR-100 mkiii or my iphone7 on the max settings. The TASCAM sounds great but it needs to a quiet environment because it is really a bit too good at picking up background noise. The phone less so and the resolution is good but it thins out the sound compared to reality and bass punch and impact gets lost. I want to combine the video from my 4K LUMIX camera video feeding it with the TASCAM to make a high Rez video with superb audio.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Difference between wavac and flea? or microphone and ipod?

Wavac is full, rich, lit up. Flea is more like OLED, colors curtaining in from absolute black background. They both sound great to my ears. The vitality of the Wavac is seductive, the beautiful curtaining and evanescence of the flea is seductive as well. The Wavac and flea image comparably in terms of size. I guess the flea has good body, tone and texture, but the black background allows a bit of lambency. Wavac gets the juices flowing.

The BG 75 ribbons honor every amp I have tried with them. I do not perceive dynamic limitations with the fleas when volume levels are equalized , but somebody else might. Audiophiles hear differently, and I won't claim I am at the top of the pack, but I do have an ear for tonal richness.

the Ipod 5 sounds mono, the microphone setup with the sports cam is preferable because you get channel separation.

On the Thievery Corporation cut, the drums around the middle of the cut are huge and come in from outside the left and right of the speakers. On the Ipod 5, they sound like garbage can lids in the center.

Neither recording method show entirely the enormous imaging from right to left, outside the plane of the speakers, the inner detail, the participation of the low bass, the depth of imaging, the relative relationship of the sound images in he soundstage, or the vertical imaging of the line array. They can convey some sense of scale and dynamic contrast, as well as some tone color.

I think I will stick with the microphone/ sports cam method if I make more tapes. I may play with the Galaxy 8 later. I think I have cluttered the thread with enough detritus and debris so far.

Carl, at The General's Pnoes demo, I heard these 117dB horns both via Nat Magmas 100W+ and Mayer 1.46W. Everyone else in the room said it was no contest, the Mayers slayed the Nats. Me? I saw it a lot closer, and in the brief demo time btwn them felt that it was a dead heat in many ways. Not any sort of definitive statement, just a strong impression.

 

[morricab]

Carl, at The General's Pnoes demo, I heard these 117dB horns both via Nat Magmas 100W+ and Mayer 1.46W. Everyone else in the room said it was no contest, the Mayers slayed the Nats. Me? I saw it a lot closer, and in the brief demo time btwn them felt that it was a dead heat in many ways. Not any sort of definitive statement, just a strong impression.

Were the characters of the two amps different but roughly equal or were they surprisingly similar. It is interesting to hear this different POV because the MSM hype was that the Mayer was worlds better and you better not use a high powered SET on those speaekers .

 

[morricab]

Difference between wavac and flea? or microphone and ipod?

Wavac is full, rich, lit up. Flea is more like OLED, colors curtaining in from absolute black background. They both sound great to my ears. The vitality of the Wavac is seductive, the beautiful curtaining and evanescence of the flea is seductive as well. The Wavac and flea image comparably in terms of size. I guess the flea has good body, tone and texture, but the black background allows a bit of lambency. Wavac gets the juices flowing.

The BG 75 ribbons honor every amp I have tried with them. I do not perceive dynamic limitations with the fleas when volume levels are equalized , but somebody else might. Audiophiles hear differently, and I won't claim I am at the top of the pack, but I do have an ear for tonal richness.

the Ipod 5 sounds mono, the microphone setup with the sports cam is preferable because you get channel separation.

On the Thievery Corporation cut, the drums around the middle of the cut are huge and come in from outside the left and right of the speakers. On the Ipod 5, they sound like garbage can lids in the center.

Neither recording method show entirely the enormous imaging from right to left, outside the plane of the speakers, the inner detail, the participation of the low bass, the depth of imaging, the relative relationship of the sound images in he soundstage, or the vertical imaging of the line array. They can convey some sense of scale and dynamic contrast, as well as some tone color.

I think I will stick with the microphone/ sports cam method if I make more tapes. I may play with the Galaxy 8 later. I think I have cluttered the thread with enough detritus and debris so far.

It would be interesting to upgrade the output transformers on your cheap chinese amp. Also, have a look at the caps inside as they are likely chinese knockoffs and not top quality. I have a PureSound preamp that was pretty sounding but muddy in resolution. Given that it is a single triode per channel (it is actually only 1 double triode where each half is a separate channel) with transformer coupling, there was not a whole lot of parts in the circuit. It has a pretty complicated power supply with tube rectification and a couple of large chokes. I replaced power supply caps with Nichicon and Mundorf and this made a small but noticeable improvement. The big improvement though was the replacement of the chinese output transformers with Lundahl C core line output transformers. MUCH clearer, particularly in the bass. You could probably get some Lundahls or James transformers for a couple hundred bucks and a few hours to install and that little amp might sing even sweeter and probably a more robust sound as well...something to consider.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Brad, I'm an outlier in that group (imagine, outside an already outlier group from 99.9% of the population Lol).
Just when I said I didn't notice any major uptick btwn the two, the group felt difference was a chasm.
Yes, the Nat was "grungier"...hard to beat Mayer on silence. And solo piano from 70 yrs ago recording is not my genre to make a definitive take. But I felt there was no major deficiency in tonality, just some shortfall on the micro stuff. Now w Pnoes, critical l/t I'd guess. For the rest of us mere mortals, I didn't feel the Mayers slayed, as was the impression I had from the reverential reputation I'd been made aware of.
Gonna leave it there, my impression is just a snapshot...I wouldn't base a buying decision on it Lol.

 

[morricab]

Brad, I'm an outlier in that group (imagine, outside an already outlier group from 99.9% of the population Lol).
Just when I said I didn't notice any major uptick btwn the two, the group felt difference was a chasm.
Yes, the Nat was "grungier"...hard to beat Mayer on silence. And solo piano from 70 yrs ago recording is not my genre to make a definitive take. But I felt there was no major deficiency in tonality, just some shortfall on the micro stuff. Now w Pnoes, critical l/t I'd guess. For the rest of us mere mortals, I didn't feel the Mayers slayed, as was the impression I had from the reverential reputation I'd been made aware of.
Gonna leave it there, my impression is just a snapshot...I wouldn't base a buying decision on it Lol.

It depends on the recording somewhat how deep you want to dig. I love my Rush albums but they don’t really shine sonically on any high end rig So far. In the car from YouTube I am rocking though. Put a piano Sonata from Beethoven on the car and it’s a no go but on a true high end rig it’s awesome. Just the way the recordings are engineered I guess. Digging as deep as possible with classical and good jazz matters to the meaning but not nearly so much (in fact in can be detrimental) with heavily compressed rock music. There it is about best and drive (ok some sounds really good on high end gear like some Steely Dan or Dire Straits).