3s4 tubes quickie preamp

[Wanderer]

Well I only have the GE tubes that came with the kit. For a few bucks per I'll take a couple pair that aren't GE just to give them a whirl.   

[underdawg]

ok I am going to have to let you guys know I turned the guy down, he would not honor types or same makers, it was random 50 tubes for 113.00 shipped. Since so many didnt want certain brands, and some wanted only certain brands I gave up. He is on the bay , easy to find, hes asking 3.00 per 3s4 but I talked him down to 2 , so you guys could prob do the same, but he wont guarentee manufacturers. Thank you to all who were willing.

[galyons]

Thanks for your effort!!

Cheers,
Geary

[earwaxxer]

It seems that the bulk sellers always want to sell them mixed because thats probably how they bought them in the first place. If they sell off all the popular tubes they are stuck with the 'dogs', and they end up not making any money on the whole thing.

As PB was saying some time ago, or maybe it was Doc, that the price of tubes can really be all over the place depending on demand. If the Quickie gets to be a 'craze', the sought after tubes could get pricey. I'm sure there are some Telefunken hoarders out there just waiting for the price to go up!

[underdawg]

I bet your right, I have been trying to get a pair of telefunken 3s4 for months, dont see it happening.

[earwaxxer]

I will say though IMO and experience, tube rolling with the Quickie, and probably with any tube kit,  will produce a variety of results depending on the sound you are 'looking for' at the time, or what it is about your system sound that you may be looking to 'improve'. If you are in the mood for a 'mellow' sound and you sub in a mellow tube it seems to be exactly what you are looking for. After a while though, you may want to tighten things up a bit etc.

I have had several 'favorite' brands over the years as my system sound evolved. I have found that tube rolling is fun and can give good results in that it can make your system sound 'different', and that, in and of itself, is a refreshing change. With familiarity, the sound can get 'stale'. Our hearing can get fatigued. We can change it to suit our moods etc. Cool stuff.

I do also believe that there is a 'quality' of very good reproduction that we dont get sick of. We are at peace. Thats why we do what we do. In search of 'that'.

[Paul Joppa]

Two unrelated things:

1) Back at the beginning of Bottlehead, the original SEX amp inspired some enthusiasm for the 6DN7, other designs appeared, and the supply dried up/get expensive. When we tried the stereo version 2.0 that fad had passed, and there is no real trouble finding 6DN7s currently. The version 2.0 was designed - back in 2004, eight years ago! - with the possibility of substituting the 6EM7 just in case, but it has not been necessary. Fashion drives prices, but it fades fast.

2) Psychoacoustics! A new sonic always sound like the most familiar similar thing (which is usually the real-life version)  until we get used to it. Then we learn to recognize it as a thing unto itself and hear the differences against other audible things. For example, the earliest Edison cylinder recordings were at first indistinguishable from the real live singers - Enrico Caruso for example. By the time electric recordings came along, the purely-mechanical recordings were crap and the electrical ones sounded indistinguishable from the live singer. Same thing for 33RPM. This has continued into the digital age, but by now we hear the digital artifacts pretty clearly and 24/192 sounds right to a lot of people. I guarantee you it won't last!

FWIW, at this time nothing is as good as first-generation tape to my ears. There is probably an age/experience issue as well as the simply technological one, so I won't claim that to be the Final Truth.

[4krow]

Amen Paul,
   Psychoacoustics have interested me since the beginning of this hobby. Just about any change influences our opinion, good or bad, when there may be little to discuss in the first place.

[earwaxxer]

well said Paul and Greg... The take away is enjoy what you have, and if you are looking for a 'change' there are many inexpensive options to be had for those willing to search around a bit.

[Jim R.]

Almost all changes will sound *different* in some way -- it can often take hundreds of very aried and careful listening to see if that change is for the better or not.

Paul, you said:

"24/192 sounds right to a lot of people. I guarantee you it won't last!"

DSD is here and growing as well as the number of dacs offering it, sources for downloads, and and software players that support it.  And the prices are coming down, and with several new outlets for the files about to come online this year.  Right now the least expensive DSD 64/128 capable dac costs $845 and very soon there will be a DSD capable portable DAC as well.

-- Jim

[Dr. Toobz]

What seems strange, though, about DSD being the next "darling" format for most audiophiles is how much work it has to do in order to sound good when PCM already gets the job done. The best dynamic range figures I've seen for the 1-bit, 2.8Mhz DSD (such as used for SACD) is 120dB, which is more like 20 bits vs 24. Then, there's all the ultrasonic noise, created by taking the huge amount of quantization error inherent to using single bit sampling and pushing it above the 20kHz limit of (young) ears, and this noise appears to be very high in energy if you look at a spectrogram. One has to wonder if this would create intermodulation distortion or other nasties in the actual audioband. Finally, for all the audiophile complaints about the use of negative feedback, isn't what DSD is doing to get a clean signal from 1-bit quantization just a big old feedback loop?

This seems like a lot of trouble to go through just for 20Hz-20kHz audio with a (maximum) of 120dB dynamic range. 16/44.1 with dithering already gets you most of the way there! I don't plan on picking up one of these DSD DACs when they come down in price 

[Jim R.]

Well, it's off topic, so I won't say anymore, but I gave it a try today, and even on a brand new dac the jump from 24/192 is significant and easily heard.  The fact that many major record labels are going to DSD  for their archival format is a pretty good sign that the sonics are there and the format is going to be here for a while.  This is not SACD though at some level the format is the same.  As well the intermediat format in almost all D-S dacs is essentially DSD, so why go through two conversion steps that are unnecessary?  Regardless of theoretical arguments, the test for me is the sound, and it is really nice.

-- Jim

[earwaxxer]

For me, in the end, its a matter of practicality - I own 1500 cd's and have most all of the music that I like. I'm not buying them again. I also believe that the real progress in digital sound lies in clocking, timing errors (jitter) and digital filters, not in ever higher sampling rates and bit depth. I would rather spend money on some good clock(s) that bring out the best the digital.

[Jim R.]

Eric,

The jitter issue is now quite easily handled by most modern dacs so that given the right choice of technologies, it is now turning out to be one of the least difficult problems to deal with.  On the other hand the number of dacs that are using extreme sampling rates (even with PCM files) are making significant improvements in the time domain and the overall shape of the notes, which is turning out to be a much more important aspect than has been previously thought by most.  Of course right now, most of these cost a pretty penny, but the Chord Qute PCM/DSD dac at $1800 is bringing near hi-res sound to redbook standard PCM files -- using such a technique.  Bottom line is that it all matters and as each new piece of the digital audio puzzle gets a shot in the arm from some new technology, we as listeners can't help but be the winners.  What I briefly heard today with the 64x DSD file was sublime, and the 128 is supposedly even better but I didn't have any sample files to try.  Everything matters.

-- Jim

[earwaxxer]

"everything matters"  --- I agree Jim - Chord makes some good kit. PFGA is the rage with filters. Chord was on my short list - I ended up with Schiit Gungnir. I figured I would go with the NOS approach and do the filters on the front end with software.