Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
Feminine curves with great analog performance at the price point. Wish, wish, wish... Perhaps I'll be able to hear it AXPONA this April.
Nice review as well. "Bacchanalia of lascivious intent..." Wonderful!
Feminine curves with great analog performance at the price point. Wish, wish, wish... Perhaps I'll be able to hear it AXPONA this April.
Nice review as well. "Bacchanalia of lascivious intent..." Wonderful!
What other intent would there be for a Bacchanalia?
Feminine curves with great analog performance at the price point. Wish, wish, wish... Perhaps I'll be able to hear it AXPONA this April.
Nice review as well. "Bacchanalia of lascivious intent..." Wonderful!
What other intent would there be for a Bacchanalia?
Feminine curves with great analog performance at the price point. Wish, wish, wish... Perhaps I'll be able to hear it AXPONA this April.
Nice review as well. "Bacchanalia of lascivious intent..." Wonderful!
What other intent would there be for a Bacchanalia?
Very close to listening to good pure Class-A solid state amp.
Cheers George
Very nice article Alex , Molodza
... for $13K, a McIntosh C22 Mk V preamplifier plus a McIntosh MC275 Mk VI power amplifier?
https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/mcintosh-mc275-vi-power-amplifier-and-c22-preamplifier/
This BAT integrated amp for $12K
... requires a tube replacement before it will function properly.
the aesthetics of Mcintosh components (many don't and they are massive.) Also more cords more interconnects more upgraded power cables etc. It's not a good comparison. Pick another integrated.
I've noticed since I joined not long ago that Ortofan habitually diverts away from the reviewed component. Is this a service the magazine offers that I'm unaware of? Or do editors find this second-guessing as odd as I do?
Good to see the low impedance 6C33C in such a great-looking amp, and from a reputable brand. From the writer's report it sounds like BAT got a nicely linear behavior from a tube not often seen in commercial products.
a semi annoying form of second guessing the magazine. I think he feels he is doing people a service by be being a contrarian as he NEVER has anything positive to say about the product that is being reviewed. It wears thin after a while.
What is even more troubling is he doesn't offer the WHY he is consistently offering alternatives. The suggestions always seem half-baked, without reference to reviewed products as a proper comparison- with experienced notes or comments.
Not insulting, just a very real observation.
... Klipsch La Scala, the Luxman LX-380.
https://luxmanamerica.com/product/lx-380/
https://www.soundstagehifi.com/index.php/equipment-reviews/1402-luxman-lx-380-integrated-amplifier
I have not heard the BAT, but I own the McIntosh combo. This review did not give me FOMO (thank goodness! haha), but it would have been nice to do this obvious comparison. My read is that the BAT is more neutral, though comes up second to McIntosh in terms of fun, presence, and ravishingness. A reasonable trade-off either way
Fascinating historical backstory, and another example of the writing in Stereophile being a cut above most everything save the New Yorker.
... an explanation by Victor Khomenko as to how and why a 6C33C output tube can "create some serious watts without requiring a heroically large or complex output transformer."
of others without the simple grace of applying a compliment to a suggestion? Are your take aways always sins of omissions and negative ?
Actually, there is a good editorial reason why the author didn’t further go into the technical details of that vacuum tube (which I’m sure can be found with a google search).
I thought the length of the historical lead-in was perfect, tying in an interesting and true story without digressing too far from the main point, which was the product review.
Only someone pedantic would demand all the details about the tube, not realizing that adding all that would actually detract from the overall quality of the piece itself in terms of interest and readability. And cohesiveness.
... a google search found, as to why the author didn’t go further into the technical details of that vacuum tube is that the author majored in poetry at a liberal-arts college.
Dude, you really are a jerk.
A quick google search on “khomenko” and “6c33c” pulls up links to so much more information out there, it could make a separate article. This has nothing to do with the author’s credentials and everything to do with your own malingering laziness.
This is a well written, entertaining article.
It may be time to ask Ortofan that eternal question, what is it you actually do around here?
Most audio tube people are already well aware of the 6c33c's unique properties as a pass element. It's not always a first choice where plate curves go, but its a very robust, attractive triode and expertly set up it obviously works well, as the review and decades of prior 6c33c art show.
To automatically divert the article over into a conventional beam tetrode feedback amp also evokes a kind of malingering laziness.
... partly to point out that the author of this piece is also the author of two books reviewed well in the New York Times. One of them is a memoir, so if you want to know more about the author, buy it and read it.
One thing you'll see immediately is that in contrast to many online critics, Alex puts his work out there under his own byline, staking his reputation on every word. I've been an editor for 20+ years, and Alex is on the short list of the finest writers I've worked with. (He also has a much deeper knowledge of hi-fi and its history than you do, very likely, though it's impossible to be sure when you hide behind a monicker.
Ortofan, I'm not going to ban you from participation in these threads, but I will tell you that, with some exceptions, you are in my opinion a mostly malign influence. I welcome you to take your commentary elsewhere.
Jim Austin, Editor
Stereophile
Stereophile has been a audio journal juggernaut for decades.
Their scientific method is sound.
I believe BAT charges $250 per output tube for this Amplifier and all others. $1000. To replace tubes on average every 2 years will scare most away from owning tube equipment that requires expensive maintenance!
but anyone purchasing a tube amplifier for the past 30+ years knows this already. And it is not every two years - if you listen 24-7 maybe. You may disagree but not everyone in this hobby feels that way. Will it scare away "most"? No. If you want a tube amp you will "roll" with it.
hiendmmoe: "To replace tubes on average every 2 years will scare most away from owning tube equipment that requires expensive maintenance!"
Correct if you listen every day like I did with them for a couple of hours, add 1/2hr more for warm up, these 6C33C's tubes run very very hot and eat themselves up. (originally they were a Russian designed tube, used for their early MIG fighter jets) They kinda look Russian with the spikes on top.
Cheers George
These tubes are no longer made. Tell me why they cost over 4 times as much as they did 5 years ago?
To say most will not care about the cost is foolish. BAT charges $250 per tube today. $500 per tube in 5 years isn’t unrealistic thinking!
If it’s body and quiet background you want the SPU Royal, N or G, would make an interesting comparison to the Cadenza Bronze, if a suitable arm is available to cope with the weight and compliance of 8. Play some solo piano with it and you’ll know.
I can't help but wonder who all these reviews of astronomically priced gadgets are for?? How many amplifiers will be sold? I'm pretty sure there won't be more than 100 sold, probably less.
Is the review for the lucky 100 who can afford the amp? Same thing with eg 'Bowers & Wilkins 801 D4 Signature' ($50,000). How many speakers will be sold? There are countless other examples.
If it's Stereophile's policy to almost exclusively test stuff in the astronomical price range, then of course I can't be against it. You do what you want.
However, it would be immensely more interesting if you tested gadgets that ordinary mortals can afford - much more often than is the case now.
Thanks.
Designing your amps around Russian tubes is clearly not such a clever idea.