First Integrated Amp -- help deciding

[Rockinghorse Winner]

I am seeking to replace an ailing Marantz 2325 receiver with an
integrated amp. I am leaning toward the Japanese tube amps, as they
seem to offer so much for the money, but would be willing to change my
mind if persuaded otherwise. I listen mostly to rock music, sometimes
loudly, though my preference is for high resolution over sheer sonic
power. I am not a bass head, but rather prefer balanced sound with
tight, accurate bass. My speakers are the Epos es-11 bookshelf model,
which are biwired. My CD player is a Sony CDP-CA80 ES. My budget is
1500.00.

I also need provision for 3 aux inputs -TV, FM Tuner and Computer-
[Although I don't have a tuner yet, I plan on eventually getting one].
My listening space is about 18 ft X 14 ft. Thanks for your suggestions.


Rockinghorse Winner
--
--
god bless

http://www.Hello-Radio.Com

http://home.xandros.com/products/home/home_edition.html

http://www.drudgereport.com/irak.jpg
















(nosey!)

[Sander deWaal]

Rockinghorse Winner > said:


>I am seeking to replace an ailing Marantz 2325 receiver with an
>integrated amp. I am leaning toward the Japanese tube amps, as they
>seem to offer so much for the money, but would be willing to change my
>mind if persuaded otherwise. I listen mostly to rock music, sometimes
>loudly, though my preference is for high resolution over sheer sonic
>power. I am not a bass head, but rather prefer balanced sound with
>tight, accurate bass. My speakers are the Epos es-11 bookshelf model,
>which are biwired. My CD player is a Sony CDP-CA80 ES. My budget is
>1500.00.
>
>I also need provision for 3 aux inputs -TV, FM Tuner and Computer-
>[Although I don't have a tuner yet, I plan on eventually getting one].
>My listening space is about 18 ft X 14 ft. Thanks for your suggestions.


Japanese tube amps?
Surely, you mean Chinese? Japanese amps usually are SET (Single Ended
Triode), tend to use extremely obscure and insanely expensive parts
like hand-winded silverwire output transformers, capacitors with a
dielectric of moonlight (or a derivative), and resistors with
unpronouncable names, that tend to change their value when soldered.
But an intended change, you will note ;-)

And more to the point: most Japanese amps I know of, never leave
Japan, are mostly made by fanatic DIY-ers, and more often than not, a
one-of-a-kind job.

That's not a judgement of their sonic qualities, BTW.


But the Chinese.........ah!
They churn out millions of affordable tube amps, just to satisfy the
unsuspecting Western customer, mostly without any regard to quality
control.

Not all, but most. And don't be surprised when "your" company vanishes
without a trace within the warranty period.............


I happened to own the ES11 as well, and it is an excellent speaker to
drive with a high quality tube amp.
To separate the wheat from the chaff wrt. Chinese tube amps is a
mission impossible, there are simply too many of them, and rumours go
that quality varies within the same model, sometimes even complete
different circuits and tube types are used with the same name and
model #.

So, get yourself a nice KT88PP trioded amplifier, or, even better,
build one yourself, so you know what quality you have.

Key are the output transformers, and triode strapping of the KT88s.
All the rest can and may vary, but those 2 are most important to get
the most out of your speakers IMHO.

I can't tell which country you're from, but if you can lay your hands
on a pair of Amplimo/Plitron output transformers, you're halfway
there.

If you can't or won't build a tube amp yourself, find a knowledgeable
hobbyist to do it for you.
There are still many of them out there, and most build amps just to
put them on the shelf with all the others.
They're probably very happy to sell you one, or to build one for
actual use by anyone other than themselves ;-)


The simpler and most probably cheaper option is to look around for a
good small solid state amplifier, you don't need many watts, but what
watts there are, should be of good quality ;-)

As I'm not very familiar with current production solid state amps,
I'll leave sugggestions in that direction to others.

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[Arny Krueger]

"Rockinghorse Winner" > wrote in message
...

>I am seeking to replace an ailing Marantz 2325 receiver with an integrated
>amp.

This is a legacy 125 wpc SS receiver.

> I am leaning toward the Japanese tube amps, as they seem to offer so much
> for the money, but would be willing to change my mind if persuaded
> otherwise.

Depending on the size of your listening room and your preferred listening
levels, you might not be able to obtain a tubed amp that will power your
speakers in the style to which you have become accustomed.

> I listen mostly to rock music, sometimes loudly, though my preference is
> for high resolution over sheer sonic power. I am not a bass head, but
> rather prefer balanced sound with tight, accurate bass.

Your desire for tight bass does not favor a tubed amp.

> My speakers are the Epos es-11 bookshelf model, which are biwired.

The EPOS ES-11 is a 87 dB/watt speaker specified for power in the 75 wpc
range.

> My CD player is a Sony CDP-CA80 ES. My budget is 1500.00.

Unless you're in an area where deep bass is forbidden, you might want to
allocate some of that $1500 towards a good subwoofer.

> I also need provision for 3 aux inputs -TV, FM Tuner and Computer-
> [Although I don't have a tuner yet, I plan on eventually getting one]. My
> listening space is about 18 ft X 14 ft. Thanks for your suggestions.

You might want to look at separates - a preamp and a power amp.

[[email protected]]

Rockinghorse Winner wrote:
> I am seeking to replace an ailing Marantz 2325 receiver with an
> integrated amp. I am leaning toward the Japanese tube amps, as they
> seem to offer so much for the money, but would be willing to change my
> mind if persuaded otherwise. I listen mostly to rock music, sometimes
> loudly, though my preference is for high resolution over sheer sonic
> power. I am not a bass head, but rather prefer balanced sound with
> tight, accurate bass. My speakers are the Epos es-11 bookshelf model,
> which are biwired. My CD player is a Sony CDP-CA80 ES. My budget is
> 1500.00.
>
> I also need provision for 3 aux inputs -TV, FM Tuner and Computer-
> [Although I don't have a tuner yet, I plan on eventually getting one].
> My listening space is about 18 ft X 14 ft. Thanks for your suggestions.
>
>
> Rockinghorse Winner

I'm reviewing this one right now, and it's a very nice piece, loads of
power, hybrid design, beautiful build quality, and the most incredible
remote I've ever seen.

http://www.musicdirect.com/products/detail.asp?sku=AVALVEEXCLAME

Creek integrated amps work well with Epos speakers, too.

Boon

[Rockinghorse Winner]

>> I am seeking to replace an ailing Marantz 2325 receiver with an
>> >integrated amp. I am leaning toward the Japanese tube amps, as they
>> >seem to offer so much for the money, but would be willing to change my
>> >mind if persuaded otherwise. I listen mostly to rock music, sometimes
>> >loudly, though my preference is for high resolution over sheer sonic
>> >power. I am not a bass head, but rather prefer balanced sound with
>> >tight, accurate bass. My speakers are the Epos es-11 bookshelf model,
>> >which are biwired. My CD player is a Sony CDP-CA80 ES. My budget is
>> >1500.00.
>> >
>> >I also need provision for 3 aux inputs -TV, FM Tuner and Computer-
>> >[Although I don't have a tuner yet, I plan on eventually getting one].
>> >My listening space is about 18 ft X 14 ft. Thanks for your suggestions.
>
>
> Japanese tube amps?
> Surely, you mean Chinese? Yes, that's what I meant :)

> But the Chinese.........ah!
> They churn out millions of affordable tube amps, just to satisfy the
> unsuspecting Western customer, mostly without any regard to quality
> control.


I was thinking of Jolida 302B, the 50 watt model.


> I can't tell which country you're from, but if you can lay your hands
> on a pair of Amplimo/Plitron output transformers, you're halfway
> there.
>
> If you can't or won't build a tube amp yourself, find a knowledgeable
> hobbyist to do it for you.
> There are still many of them out there, and most build amps just to
> put them on the shelf with all the others.
> They're probably very happy to sell you one, or to build one for
> actual use by anyone other than themselves ;-)
>

Any kits out there worth building?




--
god bless

http://www.Hello-Radio.Com

http://home.xandros.com/products/home/home_edition.html

http://www.drudgereport.com/irak.jpg
















(nosey!)

[Rockinghorse Winner]

> Your desire for tight bass does not favor a tubed amp.

Might one say that tubes amps favor jazz and classical and SS amps favor
rock and R&B?

-- > You might want to look at separates - a preamp and a power amp.

I have an appointment at the neighborhood audio dealer to hear a B&K
separate combo. BTW, what do you think of B&K?

god bless

http://www.Hello-Radio.Com

http://home.xandros.com/products/home/home_edition.html

http://www.drudgereport.com/irak.jpg
















(nosey!)

[[email protected]]

Rockinghorse Winner wrote:

> Any kits out there worth building?

This one:

http://www2.117.ne.jp/~y-s/A-08S-NEW-eng.html

Boon

[[email protected]]

>
> Japanese tube amps?
> Surely, you mean Chinese? Japanese amps usually are SET (Single Ended
> Triode), tend to use extremely obscure and insanely expensive parts
> like hand-winded silverwire output transformers, capacitors with a
> dielectric of moonlight (or a derivative), and resistors with
> unpronouncable names, that tend to change their value when soldered.
> But an intended change, you will note ;-)

The Japanese have many factory built and kit amps to choose from but
most are low power, very expensive, and a challenge to order from
outside Japan. Most Japanese vendors DO NOT speak any other language
and are not overly interested in dealing with foreign buyers. There are
exceptions.

>
> And more to the point: most Japanese amps I know of, never leave
> Japan, are mostly made by fanatic DIY-ers, and more often than not, a
> one-of-a-kind job.
>
> That's not a judgement of their sonic qualities, BTW.
>
>
> But the Chinese.........ah!
> They churn out millions of affordable tube amps, just to satisfy the
> unsuspecting Western customer, mostly without any regard to quality
> control.
>
> Not all, but most. And don't be surprised when "your" company vanishes
> without a trace within the warranty period.............
>
>
> I happened to own the ES11 as well, and it is an excellent speaker to
> drive with a high quality tube amp.
> To separate the wheat from the chaff wrt. Chinese tube amps is a
> mission impossible, there are simply too many of them, and rumours go
> that quality varies within the same model, sometimes even complete
> different circuits and tube types are used with the same name and
> model #.

The Chinese are terrible vendors in terms of QC and consistency.
>
> So, get yourself a nice KT88PP trioded amplifier, or, even better,
> build one yourself, so you know what quality you have.

For the power he will need several pairs of them if trioded.
>
> Key are the output transformers, and triode strapping of the KT88s.
> All the rest can and may vary, but those 2 are most important to get
> the most out of your speakers IMHO.
>
> I can't tell which country you're from, but if you can lay your hands
> on a pair of Amplimo/Plitron output transformers, you're halfway
> there.
>

The transformers you mention are toroids. Toroid transformers are not
a good choice for tube amplifiers, at least as they are normally built.
They are not new, GenRad made them in the 50s. The problem then was the
problem now: saturation of the core by any hint of DC offset. A split
core is not the answer either, as they then get large and even more
expensive. Either EI or C-core is far better in most cases.

First rate push pull output transformers should be capable of
sustaining their rated power output and THD with a 10% quiescent
current mismatch at 20 Hz. Decent ones will tolerate 5% at 30 or so Hz.
Now that Partridge and Harrison are long dead, decent is the most to
hope for.

> If you can't or won't build a tube amp yourself, find a knowledgeable
> hobbyist to do it for you.
> There are still many of them out there, and most build amps just to
> put them on the shelf with all the others.
> They're probably very happy to sell you one, or to build one for
> actual use by anyone other than themselves ;-)


Most service organizations will not look at homebuilt equipment. If
you are a nonbuilder and want a tube amp, I would buy a new one from a
manufacturer or a restored vintage one of good make from a dealer with
a good reputation and some warranty. Used DIY equipment has no value to
dealers and can't be insured.

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Rockinghorse Winner" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >I am seeking to replace an ailing Marantz 2325 receiver with an integrated
> >amp.
>
> This is a legacy 125 wpc SS receiver.
>
> > I am leaning toward the Japanese tube amps, as they seem to offer so much
> > for the money, but would be willing to change my mind if persuaded
> > otherwise.
>
> Depending on the size of your listening room and your preferred listening
> levels, you might not be able to obtain a tubed amp that will power your
> speakers in the style to which you have become accustomed.
>
> > I listen mostly to rock music, sometimes loudly, though my preference is
> > for high resolution over sheer sonic power. I am not a bass head, but
> > rather prefer balanced sound with tight, accurate bass.
>
> Your desire for tight bass does not favor a tubed amp.
>

There are tube amplifiers such as the larger VTL and Audio Research
models, and the classics like the McIntosh MC3500 and MI200, Marantz 9,
and various large Altec theater amps which will meet his needs. The
price is probably not going to meet his budget.

The largest good hi-fi output transformer in current vendor production
of which I'm aware available to the DIYer is probably the Acrosound 350
clone wound by Sowter in Britain. This is not a 100 watt unit even, not
at 20 Hz. ARC, Conrad Johnson and VTL Manley make production amps in
these power ranges but I don't think they will sell output transformers
to hobbyists. I know people have used the Ampeg SVT bass amp opt for
hi-fi use, but whether it is suitable is unknown to me, nor do I know
whether the one supplied by the Kornblum organization (St. Louis Music)
today is up to the standard of the original unit. They will sell them,
I do know that. The SVT is rated at 300 watts, but that's probably at a
high distortion figure.

[Eeyore]

Rockinghorse Winner wrote:

> I am seeking to replace an ailing Marantz 2325 receiver with an
> integrated amp. I am leaning toward the Japanese tube amps, as they
> seem to offer so much for the money, but would be willing to change my
> mind if persuaded otherwise. I listen mostly to rock music

In which case you don't want toobs.

They flatter by deception ( aka distortion ).

Graham

[Eeyore]

Rockinghorse Winner wrote:

> > Your desire for tight bass does not favor a tubed amp.
>
> Might one say that tubes amps favor jazz and classical and SS amps favor
> rock and R&B?

Toobs are popular with ppl who like added colouration instead of fidelity.

Most rock music has plenty enough distortion already you don't need any more !

Mosfet output stage amps are typically very good if you can find one.

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Rockinghorse Winner" > wrote in
message

> Your desire for tight bass does not favor a tubed amp.

> Might one say that tubes amps favor jazz and classical
> and SS amps favor rock and R&B?

One might say that, but I would be prone to disagree with it.

It is my opinon and experience, that the best tubed amps for reproducting
music are as accurate as a good SS amp, but cost a ton more money to obtain
and operate. Rememeber, I literally grew up in the days when tubes were all
that we had, and my first 4 or 5 amplifiers were tubed.

I do get into tubed amps as musical instrument amps. However, instruments
amps are about making music, not reproducing music. To me the ideal
amplifier is like a straight piece of wire with gain and power. If it is
small, efficient, reliable and has a low initial cost, so much the better
(for me).

It is not that I'm categorically against shaping the timbre of music to suit
a place and occasion. I think that there are good tools for doing shaping
the timbre of what we listen to, and that these tools are designed to give
the listener or the technical person the best possible opportunities for
getting the shape he desires.

Amplfiers that lack tone controls (which include most modern amps and
preamps) can only shape the timbre of music in one way. The demands of a
particular listening circumstance are highly varied. Therefore, a tool that
shapes music only one way, or a limited numbers of ways is highly
inadequate.


> -- > You might want to look at separates - a preamp and a
> power amp.

> I have an appointment at the neighborhood audio dealer to
> hear a B&K separate combo. BTW, what do you think of B&K?

Pricey but good.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" > wrote in
message
> Rockinghorse Winner wrote:
>
>> I am seeking to replace an ailing Marantz 2325 receiver
>> with an integrated amp. I am leaning toward the
>> Japanese tube amps, as they seem to offer so much for
>> the money, but would be willing to change my mind if
>> persuaded otherwise. I listen mostly to rock music
>
> In which case you don't want toobs.
>
> They flatter by deception ( aka distortion ).

I disagree with the idea that distortion is deception. However, it is
deceptive to say that the random application of distortion always or even
often results in greater realism.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Rockinghorse Winner wrote:
> I am seeking to replace an ailing Marantz 2325 receiver with an
> integrated amp.

BTW, you'll probably get some good money for this on ebay even if it's
ailing. It may be worth repairing before selling it. I've seen these
going for what I consider stupid money considering their age and what
you can get new for equivalent money.

http://cgi.ebay.com/MARANTZ-2325-RECEIVER-EXCELLENT-CONDITION-WORKS-PERFECT_W0QQitemZ200045577539QQihZ010QQcategoryZ50 591QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Eeyore" > wrote in
> > Rockinghorse Winner wrote:
> >
> >> I am seeking to replace an ailing Marantz 2325 receiver
> >> with an integrated amp. I am leaning toward the
> >> Japanese tube amps, as they seem to offer so much for
> >> the money, but would be willing to change my mind if
> >> persuaded otherwise. I listen mostly to rock music
> >
> > In which case you don't want toobs.
> >
> > They flatter by deception ( aka distortion ).
>
> I disagree with the idea that distortion is deception.

No. The way they 'flatter' some sounds is a form of deception i.e. it's not to
do with the accuracy or purity of the sound.


> However, it is
> deceptive to say that the random application of distortion always or even
> often results in greater realism.

Yes. It is often applied artisticly in the recording studio with outboard gear
for example but having a constantly distorting amplifier with no means of
turning it off is no advantage.

Graham

[Powell]

"Arny Krueger" wrote

>>I am seeking to replace an ailing Marantz 2325 receiver with an integrated
>>amp.
>
> This is a legacy 125 wpc SS receiver.
>
Actually what you are referencing to is a 125
watts of Music Power. RMS power per channel
is 70 watts. I assume you know the difference.

[Powell]

"Rockinghorse Winner" wrote

>I am seeking to replace an ailing Marantz 2325 receiver with an integrated
>amp. I am leaning toward the Japanese tube amps, as they seem to offer so
>much for the money, but would be willing to change my mind if persuaded
>otherwise.
>
You might consider an integrated amp which has a tubed
preamp section and SS power amp output. You might
also consider the used high-end market.

[Arny Krueger]

"Powell" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" wrote
>
>>> I am seeking to replace an ailing Marantz 2325 receiver
>>> with an integrated amp.
>>
>> This is a legacy 125 wpc SS receiver.
>>
> Actually what you are referencing to is a 125
> watts of Music Power. RMS power per channel
> is 70 watts. I assume you know the difference.

http://www.angelfire.com/wi/blueswapper/2325review.html

Check the last paragraph of the first column.

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:


>Your desire for tight bass does not favor a tubed amp.


Solid state bigotry noted.


>> My speakers are the Epos es-11 bookshelf model, which are biwired.


>The EPOS ES-11 is a 87 dB/watt speaker specified for power in the 75 wpc
>range.



Wrong.
It is specified for a minimum of 25 watts (I can scan in the spec
sheet, still have it here).


I lived for years with this speaker, and used it with a variety of
amplifiers, tubed, solid state and hybrid, ranging from 15 to 50
watts.

Never had any loudness problem (besides, the speaker will start
compressing when driven above ca. 50 watts).

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[Sander deWaal]

Rockinghorse Winner > said:


>I was thinking of Jolida 302B, the 50 watt model.


No experience with that model, but triode conversion is almost always
an improvement, despite the power amplification factor and power.


>Any kits out there worth building?


Look at http://www.turneraudio.com.au , no kits, but ready made
amplifiers that will outlive you.

I'm not aware of affordable kits in the KT88/6550 range, but hey'll
exist for sure.

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[Sander deWaal]

said:


>> Any kits out there worth building?


>This one:

>http://www2.117.ne.jp/~y-s/A-08S-NEW-eng.html


The kit certainly is worth building, the power isn't enough to drive
the Epos ES11 to satisfactory levels, unless you're living in a
Japanese cardboard closet ;-)

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[Sander deWaal]

said:


>> So, get yourself a nice KT88PP trioded amplifier, or, even better,
>> build one yourself, so you know what quality you have.


> For the power he will need several pairs of them if trioded.


Not really.

As I wrote in another post to YKW (You Know Who), the ES11 will give
plenty of loudness with a mere 20 watts trioded KT88 amp.

I know, I owned both the speakers and the amps.
Heck , I lived for years with an 807 PP trioded amp that only put out
15 watts on a good day.

Granted, the apprtment I lived in at that time was small.


>> I can't tell which country you're from, but if you can lay your hands
>> on a pair of Amplimo/Plitron output transformers, you're halfway
>> there.


> The transformers you mention are toroids. Toroid transformers are not
>a good choice for tube amplifiers, at least as they are normally built.
>They are not new, GenRad made them in the 50s. The problem then was the
>problem now: saturation of the core by any hint of DC offset. A split
>core is not the answer either, as they then get large and even more
>expensive. Either EI or C-core is far better in most cases.


You obviously never built anything with Plitron/Amplimo transformers,
or even heard an amp using them.

Else, I can't understand your problems with them.

They're excellent, when the amp design is good.

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[[email protected]]

Sander deWaal wrote:
> said:
>
>
> >> Any kits out there worth building?
>
>
> >This one:
>
> >http://www2.117.ne.jp/~y-s/A-08S-NEW-eng.html
>
>
> The kit certainly is worth building, the power isn't enough to drive
> the Epos ES11 to satisfactory levels, unless you're living in a
> Japanese cardboard closet ;-)

True, but build this, and you'll be buying a pair of Fostex drivers and
building your own cabinets next!

Boon

[Sander deWaal]

said:


> The largest good hi-fi output transformer in current vendor production
>of which I'm aware available to the DIYer is probably the Acrosound 350
>clone wound by Sowter in Britain. This is not a 100 watt unit even, not
>at 20 Hz. ARC,


Look here:
http://www.turneraudio.com.au , a site by Patrick Turner.
http://www.turneraudio.com.au/output-trans-winding.html gives, among
other things, the details for a 300 watts tranny, that's for sale on
request.

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[[email protected]]

Powell wrote:
> "Rockinghorse Winner" wrote
>
> >I am seeking to replace an ailing Marantz 2325 receiver with an integrated
> >amp. I am leaning toward the Japanese tube amps, as they seem to offer so
> >much for the money, but would be willing to change my mind if persuaded
> >otherwise.
> >
> You might consider an integrated amp which has a tubed
> preamp section and SS power amp output. You might
> also consider the used high-end market.

The one I recommended above, the Valve Audio Exclame 100, is one of
these. The Unison Unicos are too, and I think they're pretty special
integrateds.

Since the original poster used the Marantz for so long and was
presumably satisfied, one option would be to find a mint McIntosh 1500
or 1700 receiver. These are also hybrid designs and have the added
benefit of a very, very good tuner section. And, they tend to last for
a long time.

Boon

[George M. Middius]

Powell said:

> > This is a legacy 125 wpc SS receiver.

> Actually what you are referencing to is a 125
> watts of Music Power. RMS power per channel
> is 70 watts. I assume you know the difference.

No difference. All same. No difference.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Powell]

"Arny Krueger" wrote

>>>> I am seeking to replace an ailing Marantz 2325 receiver
>>>> with an integrated amp.
>>>
>>> This is a legacy 125 wpc SS receiver.
>>>
>> Actually what you are referencing to is a 125
>> watts of Music Power. RMS power per channel
>> is 70 watts. I assume you know the difference.
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/wi/blueswapper/2325review.html
>
> Check the last paragraph of the first column.
>
Yes, that's correct the Power Bandwidth (link) is the
same as Music Power. RMS is a different rating
system altogether.

[Arny Krueger]

"Powell" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" wrote
>
>>>>> I am seeking to replace an ailing Marantz 2325
>>>>> receiver with an integrated amp.
>>>>
>>>> This is a legacy 125 wpc SS receiver.
>>>>
>>> Actually what you are referencing to is a 125
>>> watts of Music Power. RMS power per channel
>>> is 70 watts. I assume you know the difference.
>>
>> http://www.angelfire.com/wi/blueswapper/2325review.html

>> Check the last paragraph of the first column.

> Yes, that's correct the Power Bandwidth (link) is the
> same as Music Power.

No, Power Bandwidth (link) is *not* the same as Music Power.

Units of power bandwidth = Hz
Units of RMS power = watts

> RMS is a different rating system altogether.

Units of music power = watts
Units of rms power = watts

RMS power and music power are not altogether different rating systems.

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:


>RMS power and music power are not altogether different rating systems.


WTF is "RMS" power?
Just because it is calculated from RMS voltage and RMS current,
doesn't mean the *power* is RMS!
Or is music power = sqrt2 * RMS power?

LOL, indeed.

Damn, they teach this in electronics 101!

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[Sander deWaal]

"Bret Ludwig" > said:


> I think triode connecting the KT88 is a Bad Idea, especially because
>real triodes are no more expensive.


Of course you would, if Mc didn't do it, it's useless junk, to be
parted out for guitar amp refurbishing.

Is Arthur C. Ludwig a relative of yours?

If so, I wish him strength and wisdom.


> I agree that toroids are not the best configuration for output
>transformers.


You obviously never built anything with Plitron/Amplimo transformers,
or even heard an amp using them.
In fact, you obviously never built anything worth listening to.

Google on, dude!


> I think you support Menno Van Der Veen for nationalistic/language
>reasons.


You don't know anything, Bratwig.
Menno and I know each other, but we're anything but friends.


Go back to your cave killing off some more ST70s.

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[dizzy]

Powell wrote:

>"Arny Krueger" wrote
>
>>>I am seeking to replace an ailing Marantz 2325 receiver with an integrated
>>>amp.
>>
>> This is a legacy 125 wpc SS receiver.
>>
>Actually what you are referencing to is a 125
>watts of Music Power. RMS power per channel
>is 70 watts. I assume you know the difference.

LOL "Music power". I assume you know you just made a fool of
yourself.

[Powell]

"Arny Krueger" wrote

>>>>>> I am seeking to replace an ailing Marantz 2325
>>>>>> receiver with an integrated amp.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a legacy 125 wpc SS receiver.
>>>>>
>>>> Actually what you are referencing to is a 125
>>>> watts of Music Power. RMS power per channel
>>>> is 70 watts. I assume you know the difference.
>>>

<snip quacking>

Geee-Arny, after all these years don't you think I looked it up
before posting.

Reference: Stereo/Hi-Fi Equipment directory, January 1975.
"Recognized music power is also known a dynamic power,
IHF dynamic power and probably a few other names." In the
mid 70's (subject receiver) "there were two rating systems
for Power Bandwidth. The original rating system by Institute
of Hi Fidelity and the new formed FTC rules. IHF defined it
(Power Bandwidth) as the low and high frequency extremes
at which an amplifier could produce half its rated power.
FTC defined Power Bandwidth as the range of frequencies
over which the amp can produce its stated power. But does
not specify what the Power Bandwidth must be, but only that
this term must be given along with the power rating. If we
have two 50 watt amps one with a power bandwidth of 100
Hz-10,000 Hz, and the other 20 Hz- 20,000 Hz the consumer
will realize that the latter amp has the better , broader power
response."

[Powell]

"dizzy" wrote

>>>>I am seeking to replace an ailing Marantz 2325 receiver with an
>>>>integrated
>>>>amp.
>>>
>>> This is a legacy 125 wpc SS receiver.
>>>
>>Actually what you are referencing to is a 125
>>watts of Music Power. RMS power per channel
>>is 70 watts. I assume you know the difference.
>
> LOL "Music power". I assume you know you just
> made a fool of yourself.
>
Hehehe... no, but you just did, squirt.

Reference: Stereo/Hi-Fi Equipment directory, January 1975.
Glossary of Terms. "Music Power: The maximum power
available over a short peroid of time from a power amplifier.
Also called "dynamic-power" and IHF Music Power."

[Arny Krueger]

"Powell" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" wrote
>
>>>>>>> I am seeking to replace an ailing Marantz 2325
>>>>>>> receiver with an integrated amp.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a legacy 125 wpc SS receiver.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Actually what you are referencing to is a 125
>>>>> watts of Music Power. RMS power per channel
>>>>> is 70 watts. I assume you know the difference.
>>>>
>
> <snip quacking>
>
> Geee-Arny, after all these years don't you think I looked
> it up before posting.
>
> Reference: Stereo/Hi-Fi Equipment directory, January 1975.
> "Recognized music power is also known a dynamic power,
> IHF dynamic power and probably a few other names." In the
> mid 70's (subject receiver) "there were two rating systems
> for Power Bandwidth. The original rating system by
> Institute of Hi Fidelity and the new formed FTC rules.
> IHF defined it (Power Bandwidth) as the low and high
> frequency extremes at which an amplifier could produce half its rated
> power.
> FTC defined Power Bandwidth as the range of frequencies
> over which the amp can produce its stated power. But does
> not specify what the Power Bandwidth must be, but only
> that this term must be given along with the power rating.
> If we have two 50 watt amps one with a power bandwidth of
> 100 Hz-10,000 Hz, and the other 20 Hz- 20,000 Hz the
> consumer will realize that the latter amp has the better , broader
> power response."

Irrelevant to the discussion. Powell introduced "Music Power" when the
equipment specs and review said nothing about it.

[Powell]

"Arny Krueger" wrote

>>>>>>>> I am seeking to replace an ailing Marantz 2325
>>>>>>>> receiver with an integrated amp.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is a legacy 125 wpc SS receiver.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually what you are referencing to is a 125
>>>>>> watts of Music Power. RMS power per channel
>>>>>> is 70 watts. I assume you know the difference.
>>>>>
>>
>> <snip quacking>
>>
>> Geee-Arny, after all these years don't you think I looked
>> it up before posting.
>>
>> Reference: Stereo/Hi-Fi Equipment directory, January 1975.
>> "Recognized music power is also known a dynamic power,
>> IHF dynamic power and probably a few other names." In the
>> mid 70's (subject receiver) "there were two rating systems
>> for Power Bandwidth. The original rating system by
>> Institute of Hi Fidelity and the new formed FTC rules.
>> IHF defined it (Power Bandwidth) as the low and high
>> frequency extremes at which an amplifier could produce half its rated
>> power.
>> FTC defined Power Bandwidth as the range of frequencies
>> over which the amp can produce its stated power. But does
>> not specify what the Power Bandwidth must be, but only
>> that this term must be given along with the power rating.
>> If we have two 50 watt amps one with a power bandwidth of
>> 100 Hz-10,000 Hz, and the other 20 Hz- 20,000 Hz the
>> consumer will realize that the latter amp has the better , broader
>> power response."
>
> Irrelevant to the discussion. Powell introduced "Music Power"
> when the equipment specs and review said nothing about it.
>
Not my problem. The equipment directory lists dozens
of pages of equipment manufacturers and products lines
by line item. The column headings for power in receivers,
integrated amps, pre-amp and power amps are: "Music
Power Total Watts" "RMS per channel watts" Also
included are Power Band W Hz-kHz, Rated Harm Dist.
% and Rated IM Dist. %.

[Arny Krueger]

"Powell" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" wrote
>
>>>>>>>>> I am seeking to replace an ailing Marantz 2325
>>>>>>>>> receiver with an integrated amp.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is a legacy 125 wpc SS receiver.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actually what you are referencing to is a 125
>>>>>>> watts of Music Power. RMS power per channel
>>>>>>> is 70 watts. I assume you know the difference.
>>>>>>
>>>
>>> <snip quacking>
>>>
>>> Geee-Arny, after all these years don't you think I
>>> looked it up before posting.
>>>
>>> Reference: Stereo/Hi-Fi Equipment directory, January
>>> 1975. "Recognized music power is also known a dynamic
>>> power, IHF dynamic power and probably a few other names." In
>>> the mid 70's (subject receiver) "there were two rating
>>> systems for Power Bandwidth. The original rating system by
>>> Institute of Hi Fidelity and the new formed FTC rules.
>>> IHF defined it (Power Bandwidth) as the low and high
>>> frequency extremes at which an amplifier could produce
>>> half its rated power.
>>> FTC defined Power Bandwidth as the range of frequencies
>>> over which the amp can produce its stated power. But
>>> does not specify what the Power Bandwidth must be, but only
>>> that this term must be given along with the power
>>> rating. If we have two 50 watt amps one with a power bandwidth
>>> of 100 Hz-10,000 Hz, and the other 20 Hz- 20,000 Hz the
>>> consumer will realize that the latter amp has the
>>> better , broader power response."
>>
>> Irrelevant to the discussion. Powell introduced "Music
>> Power" when the equipment specs and review said nothing
>> about it.
> Not my problem. The equipment directory lists dozens
> of pages of equipment manufacturers and products lines
> by line item. The column headings for power in receivers,
> integrated amps, pre-amp and power amps are: "Music
> Power Total Watts" "RMS per channel watts" Also
> included are Power Band W Hz-kHz, Rated Harm Dist.
> % and Rated IM Dist. %.

That equipment directory is your irrelevant addition to this discussion,
Powell. Do try to stick to the topic and not trash the discussion with
spurious references that suit your personal agenda of confusion.

[Powell]

"Arny Krueger" wrote

>>>>>>>>>> I am seeking to replace an ailing Marantz 2325
>>>>>>>>>> receiver with an integrated amp.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is a legacy 125 wpc SS receiver.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Actually what you are referencing to is a 125
>>>>>>>> watts of Music Power. RMS power per channel
>>>>>>>> is 70 watts. I assume you know the difference.
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <snip quacking>
>>>>
>>>> Geee-Arny, after all these years don't you think I
>>>> looked it up before posting.
>>>>
>>>> Reference: Stereo/Hi-Fi Equipment directory, January
>>>> 1975. "Recognized music power is also known a dynamic
>>>> power, IHF dynamic power and probably a few other names." In
>>>> the mid 70's (subject receiver) "there were two rating
>>>> systems for Power Bandwidth. The original rating system by
>>>> Institute of Hi Fidelity and the new formed FTC rules.
>>>> IHF defined it (Power Bandwidth) as the low and high
>>>> frequency extremes at which an amplifier could produce
>>>> half its rated power.
>>>> FTC defined Power Bandwidth as the range of frequencies
>>>> over which the amp can produce its stated power. But
>>>> does not specify what the Power Bandwidth must be, but only
>>>> that this term must be given along with the power
>>>> rating. If we have two 50 watt amps one with a power bandwidth
>>>> of 100 Hz-10,000 Hz, and the other 20 Hz- 20,000 Hz the
>>>> consumer will realize that the latter amp has the
>>>> better , broader power response."
>>>
>>> Irrelevant to the discussion. Powell introduced "Music
>>> Power" when the equipment specs and review said nothing
>>> about it.
>> Not my problem. The equipment directory lists dozens
>> of pages of equipment manufacturers and products lines
>> by line item. The column headings for power in receivers,
>> integrated amps, pre-amp and power amps are: "Music
>> Power Total Watts" "RMS per channel watts" Also
>> included are Power Band W Hz-kHz, Rated Harm Dist.
>> % and Rated IM Dist. %.
>
> That equipment directory is your irrelevant addition to this discussion,
> Powell. Do try to stick to the topic and not trash the discussion with
> spurious references that suit your personal agenda of confusion.
>
May I quote you then "even though you want to deny
it, you've been improved by conversing with me on just
this one day." You're welcome Arny. :)

[dizzy]

Powell wrote:

>"dizzy" wrote
>
>>>>>I am seeking to replace an ailing Marantz 2325 receiver with an
>>>>>integrated
>>>>>amp.
>>>>
>>>> This is a legacy 125 wpc SS receiver.
>>>>
>>>Actually what you are referencing to is a 125
>>>watts of Music Power. RMS power per channel
>>>is 70 watts. I assume you know the difference.
>>
>> LOL "Music power". I assume you know you just
>> made a fool of yourself.
>>
>Hehehe... no, but you just did, squirt.
>
>Reference: Stereo/Hi-Fi Equipment directory, January 1975.
>Glossary of Terms. "Music Power: The maximum power
>available over a short peroid of time from a power amplifier.
>Also called "dynamic-power" and IHF Music Power."

BS

[Rockinghorse Winner]

Sander deWaal said:

> Wrong.
> It is specified for a minimum of 25 watts (I can scan in the spec
> sheet, still have it here).
>
>
> I lived for years with this speaker, and used it with a variety of
> amplifiers, tubed, solid state and hybrid, ranging from 15 to 50
> watts.
>
> Never had any loudness problem (besides, the speaker will start
> compressing when driven above ca. 50 watts).
>

Sander DeWaal, do you suppose a Jolida 302B would make a good match for
the Epos ES11?


--
god bless

Rockinghorse Winner



http://www.Hello-Radio.Com

http://home.xandros.com/products/home/home_edition.html

http://www.drudgereport.com/irak.jpg
















(nosey!)

[Rockinghorse Winner]

Well, thanks to all for the helpful info, I'm in process of saying a
long goodbye to my Marantz. Don't have room to keep both, so it has to
go. In fact the long goodbye is turning into a final romance, and I
can't bear to bring home a new amp just yet! Just listening with new
found appreciation to some favorite cd's. It never ceases to amaze how
that level of real world performance was built into the receiver 30
years ago, and how that engineering holds up today. Anyway I figured I
would spruce up first, and get some new speaker cables and
interconnects. This will at least delay the inevitable, and start me
on an upgrade path.

Kind of deciding right now between several good choices in SS amps
(Rotel RB-1080, Musical Fidelity A 3.5) and the Jolida tube amp. I am
tilting to a good set of SS separates. I think a powerful SS amp will
do better justice to the harder rock I usually listen to. I'm sure in
the future I will have to try tube amplification if just to assuage my
curiosity.


--
god bless

Rockinghorse Winner



http://www.Hello-Radio.Com

http://home.xandros.com/products/home/home_edition.html

http://www.drudgereport.com/irak.jpg
















(nosey!)

[Sander deWaal]

Rockinghorse Winner > said:


>Kind of deciding right now between several good choices in SS amps
>(Rotel RB-1080, Musical Fidelity A 3.5) and the Jolida tube amp. I am
>tilting to a good set of SS separates. I think a powerful SS amp will
>do better justice to the harder rock I usually listen to. I'm sure in
>the future I will have to try tube amplification if just to assuage my
>curiosity.


You don't seem to be in a hurry, and that's a good thing.

Elsewhere, you asked me about the Jolida 302 amp.

As I've no experience with this type, I can only make a generalization
for most EL34 PP amps in UL and pentode mode: not recommended.

Jute will be on my tail forever, but I don't like EL34s, unless in
guitar amps, or, in some instances, in triode mode.

Just take your time, try out different amps if you have the
possibility, and listen.

Or choose one of the better small solid state amps, Creek was already
mentioned; Arcam, Rotel, Marantz and a lot of others make decent amps
that won't break the bank.

I'd be very careful about MF.
Andrew Michaelson is an ass, he knows everything about marketing, but
not much about building reliable, durable stuff (IMO).
Avoid any "NuVista"model, it uses rare Nuvistor tubes, only available
from MF themselves, for premium prices.
(Yes, I know, there might be the occasional NOS offer on E-bay).

The only Michaelson product I like is the A1, A10, David, or whatever
names they gave that little class A amplifier with the cooking heat
sink on top.
Makes sense actually, since it was designed by Tim de Paravicini IIRC,
and not by AM.

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[Arny Krueger]

"Here in Ohio" > wrote in message

> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 07:50:26 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>>> -- > You might want to look at separates - a preamp and
>>> a power amp.
>>
>>> I have an appointment at the neighborhood audio dealer
>>> to hear a B&K separate combo. BTW, what do you think
>>> of B&K?
>>
>> Pricey but good.

> Are they still stealing their designs from other
> companies? :-)

Never saw any schematics to determine that from.

[[email protected]]

Sander deWaal wrote:
> Rockinghorse Winner > said:
>
>
> >Kind of deciding right now between several good choices in SS amps
> >(Rotel RB-1080, Musical Fidelity A 3.5) and the Jolida tube amp. I am
> >tilting to a good set of SS separates. I think a powerful SS amp will
> >do better justice to the harder rock I usually listen to. I'm sure in
> >the future I will have to try tube amplification if just to assuage my
> >curiosity.
>
>
> You don't seem to be in a hurry, and that's a good thing.
>
> Elsewhere, you asked me about the Jolida 302 amp.
>
> As I've no experience with this type, I can only make a generalization
> for most EL34 PP amps in UL and pentode mode: not recommended.
>
> Jute will be on my tail forever, but I don't like EL34s, unless in
> guitar amps, or, in some instances, in triode mode.
>
> Just take your time, try out different amps if you have the
> possibility, and listen.
>
> Or choose one of the better small solid state amps, Creek was already
> mentioned; Arcam, Rotel, Marantz and a lot of others make decent amps
> that won't break the bank.
>
> I'd be very careful about MF.
> Andrew Michaelson is an ass, he knows everything about marketing, but
> not much about building reliable, durable stuff (IMO).
> Avoid any "NuVista"model, it uses rare Nuvistor tubes, only available
> from MF themselves, for premium prices.
> (Yes, I know, there might be the occasional NOS offer on E-bay).
>
> The only Michaelson product I like is the A1, A10, David, or whatever
> names they gave that little class A amplifier with the cooking heat
> sink on top.
> Makes sense actually, since it was designed by Tim de Paravicini IIRC,
> and not by AM.

Unfortunately, I owned an A1 once, and it was very unreliable. I
traded it in on a Naim NAIT 2 as soon as I could.

Boon

[Sander deWaal]

said:


>Unfortunately, I owned an A1 once, and it was very unreliable. I
>traded it in on a Naim NAIT 2 as soon as I could.


But you must agree that, when working, it sounds very sweet.

And a little DIY is all that is needed to make it a reliable product.

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[Powell]

"Sander deWaal" wrote

> But you must agree that, when working, it sounds very sweet.
>
> And a little DIY is all that is needed to make it a reliable product.
>
Cleaning up the basement I came across a Marantz 1060
which I fired up... hideous sounding. I sure hated tossing
that nice walnut cabinet in the dumpster with it. It's
unfortunate that the marketing advent of black faced
equipment in the late 70's killed-off furniture as a design
element.

[paul packer]

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 10:18:52 -0500, "Powell" >
wrote:

>
>"Sander deWaal" wrote
>
>> But you must agree that, when working, it sounds very sweet.
>>
>> And a little DIY is all that is needed to make it a reliable product.
>>
>Cleaning up the basement I came across a Marantz 1060
>which I fired up... hideous sounding. I sure hated tossing
>that nice walnut cabinet in the dumpster with it.

Never heard of Ebay?

[Sander deWaal]

(paul packer) said:

>On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 10:18:52 -0500, "Powell" >
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"Sander deWaal" wrote
>>
>>> But you must agree that, when working, it sounds very sweet.
>>>
>>> And a little DIY is all that is needed to make it a reliable product.
>>>
>>Cleaning up the basement I came across a Marantz 1060
>>which I fired up... hideous sounding. I sure hated tossing
>>that nice walnut cabinet in the dumpster with it.
>
>Never heard of Ebay?


What I don't understand is that I was talking about a MF A1, and along
comes Powell with a totally unrelated story about some hideous
sounding Marantz receiver.


--
- Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -

[Powell]

"Sander deWaal" wrote

>>>> But you must agree that, when working, it sounds
>>>> very sweet.
>>>>
>>>> And a little DIY is all that is needed to make it a reliable
>>>> product.
>>>>
>>>Cleaning up the basement I came across a Marantz 1060
>>>which I fired up... hideous sounding. I sure hated tossing
>>>that nice walnut cabinet in the dumpster with it.
>>
> What I don't understand is that I was talking about a MF A1,
> and along comes Powell with a totally unrelated story about
> some hideous sounding Marantz receiver.
>
Sorry, I see your quandary. It was three metaphors
on "sweet" sounding (OP's, yours and mine) I was
referring to. Now I would need a at least paragraph
or two to explain it. :)

BTW, a Marantz 1060 is an intergrated amp.