Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
Baby I am "worth it"? :-) .............
I live on the top floor of a seven-story, elevatorless building on a busy street in Greenwich Village. A vertical challenge? No problem! Roberts is resourceful in many things, from speaker design to his former profession, the building of custom homes. Affixing a pair of unguent-saturated straps to the screws on each side of a Rival, we lifted and transported the 106-lb speaker high in the gritty Manhattan sky as if it were child's play. Neither of us emitted a huff or a puff.
Afterward, speaker installation complete, we decamped to my favorite Italian restaurant, on Father Demo Square. Over spaghetti and meatballs, Roberts said, "Your Shindo amplifier sounds great, but you've got to get Gary Dews's BorderPatrol amps in your system. I use them at every show." When a designer as talented as Robertswhose Rival is one of the top five speakers I've ever heardrecommends a component, I listen.
Months passed. Things got interesting. Steve Guttenberg raved about the BorderPatrol DAC on his popular CNET blog, reporting that "the BorderPatrol struck me as the ideal converter for audiophiles who complain about the sound of digital audio, and prefer listening to LPs." And, as if on cue, Stereophile's own Herb Reichertwho knew I had a BorderPatrol P21 EXD stereo amplifier in-housesaid, over Chinese chops in Chelsea, "That's an amplifier I should be reviewing!" If Herb's all in, well . . .
With Roberts acting as middleman, BorderPatrol owner and British ex-pat Gary Dews hand-delivered one of his P21 EXD stereo power amplifiers to my building's pink-and-blue-tiled lobby. As his amp, its external power-supply unit (PSU), and a box of tubes were easily toted, the usual slog up six flights of stairs was painless. After a few hours of listening to LPs and CDs, I invited Dews to accompany me to my habitual red-sauce joint. We ordered, and I quizzed him about the design of the P21 EXD, a most unusual amplifier whose 300B output tubes are configured in push-pull mode offering 20Wpc.
Beyond Borders?
Gary Dews builds three levels of the P21, which is the two-channel version of his P20 monoblock power amplifier: the P21, with aluminum chassis and stock power supply ($9325, 300B tubes extra); the P21 EXD, with better internal components, cryogenically treated copper chassis, and cryogenically treated interstage and output transformers, with stock external PSU ($13,150, 300B tubes extra); and the P21 EXS, which has the same specs as the EXD but comes with a special twin-power-transformer EXS PSU, in heavy gauge copper casework and full cryogenic treatment ($18,775, 300B tubes extra). My review sample of the P21 EXD had two pairs of EML 300B tubes ($650/pair), bringing its total cost to $14,450.
The P21 EXD is 17" wide by 13.5" high by 13.5" deep, weighs 35.2 lb, and is hardwired point-to-point throughout. Its internal shell comprises a copper chassis and base plate surrounded by an outer wooden plinth. My review sample's plinth was finished in rustic mahogany (ash, cherry, and maple are available). The P21 EXD's features are plentiful and good: fixed-bias output stage; multi-section, split-bobbin output transformers; carbon-film resistors; and DC filament supplies for the 300B tubes, rectified by Schottky diodes. Among its other novel design distinctions, the P21 EXD uses interstage transformers to couple the driver tube to the 300Bs, and does not employ global negative feedback.
BorderPatrol's website describes the P20 and P21 as "Single-ended all the way up to the inter-stage transformer"; both amps "[take] advantage of this supposedly antiquated technology to split the phase in a more accurate and time consistent way than the much more common active phase splitters. . . ."
"The P21 doesn't use coupling capacitors between the small 6C45pi input/driver tube and the 300B output tubes," Dews told me. "It's transformer-coupled using an interstage phase splitter/driver transformer to couple the driver tube to the 300Bs. This is rare but has several advantages. A transformer provides a very high-impedance load to the driver tube, linearizing its operation and maximizing its voltage output. It provides perfectly matched phase-split output voltages to the 300B pairs."
Why design a 300B amplifier in push-pull rather than single-ended-triode (SET) mode?
"A push-pull 300B design will typically have 20Wpc, which allows it to work with a wider range of loudspeakers," Dews said. "Push-pull amps typically have tighter, punchier bass than SETs, can drive much more difficult speaker loads, and play a wider selection of music. A stiff power supply, like the ones used with BorderPatrol SETs, addresses the SET dynamic and bass issues significantly, but a similarly executed push-pull like the P21 will still be superior in those areas."
Note Dews's description of the typical sound of 300B SET amplifiers: "[They] are often charming and beguiling but have low power, are limited dynamically, and have poor bass performance. They need to be partnered with loudspeakers that have very high sensitivity, and a high and uniform impedance characteristic. Complex music with heavy bass is best avoided. SETs predominantly generate even-order harmonic distortion, which gives them the characteristic open, airy, romantic sound. It's not accurate, but it can be nice. Push-pull amplifiers predominantly generate odd[-order] harmonic distortion, which leads to a sharper, less romantic sound, but one that is still engaging."
Built into a separate aluminum enclosure is the P21 EXD's stock PSU. At 35 lb, it's beefy, and chock-full of technology.
"The PSU contains three independent tube-rectified, choke input filter, high-voltage supplies to independently feed the 300Bs, the input/driver tubes, and the negative bias supply," Dews wrote in an e-mail. "It also supplies filament voltages for the 300Bs and small signal tubes. A pair of 6AU4-GTA high-voltage rectifier diodes are used in the 300B supply, and EZ80 full-wave rectifiers are used in the input/driver and negative-voltage bias supplies. The use of choke input filtering is a critical difference, and is unique to BorderPatrol power amplifiers. . . . A choke-input-filter design has far superior voltage regulation (stiffness) and noise rejection."
Setup
Though a vintage Thorens TD 124 Mk.I turntable has recently taken up residence in domum Micallef (thanks to Art Dudley and Sound & Vision's Michael Trei for setup assistance), I relied on my Kuzma Stabi turntable and Stogi tonearm with Hana EL moving-coil cartridge for analog duties, wired through my Auditorium 23 step-up transformer to my Shindo Allegro dual-mono preamplifier. An LG Blu-ray player and PS Audio NuWave DAC fed the Shindo digital signals via Triode Wire Labs American interconnects. With my Follow-Up on Klipsch's Heresy III loudspeaker still dripping digital ink, those horn-loaded squat-boys remained in the system for the first part of my listening, followed by DeVore Fidelity's Orangutan O/93 floorstanders. Auditorium 23 and Triode Wire Labs American speaker cables were used for both.
Baby I am "worth it"? :-) .............
I appreciate your kind words. And double thanks for mentioning my youtube channel. I'm no Steve Guttenberg (who made me do it!) but I give it my all.
... better performing or lower cost amps are available from ARC or P-L.
Building on that remark, why would someone choose this amp instead of one of the tubed amps from McIntosh or Luxman, or even the latest remake of the ST-70 by Hafler/Dynaco?
Quad VA-One is a superb tube amplifier and costs much less than the one reviewed in this article.
I think your being very diplomatic there JA, those measurements are shockers.
Cheers George
Even so you've got to hand it to them, the distortion over frequency does resemble a nice smile.
A Denon DM41 micro hifi will perform better than this amp, with leftover change to build a really nice CD collection of over 500 albums.
This review was peculiar. It's one of those situations where the subjective and qualitative review was as far from the objective and quantitative review as it can be. Sometimes when that happens the measurement section will veer off into discussion around design trade-offs. Not so in this case.
Is there a worse time in the History of Civilization to have "BORDER PATROL" as the name of a Company?
This is the only Audio Name worse that Schiit ! I didn't think anyone could outdo those shit people but........
Seeing Border Patrol and I think crying infants and horrors!
Too bad for Gary Dews, bet he never saw this coming.
Tony in Michigan
ps. I hear that he makes nice gear.
I used to listen to KPFK Pacifica, who would rant on and on daily about "Undocumented Immigrants", and so I would call them occasionally to remind them that my friends and I were serving on the border as "Undocumented Border Patrol". So you see, everyone can play that game.
I was working with Bo Gritz people some, and others and I can't name. But the only reason I brought this up was to illustrate the pitfalls of doublespeak.
I have a copy of 1984. People encourage me to reread it now and then. I pity today's students, being under such heavy student loan debt that they don't have the time to do their own research, to make sure they're making the right choices about who to trust.
May be "border wall" would be more appropriate? .............
There are always walls - always were, but to listen around you'd think we reinvented walls. Now we *really* shouldn't talk politics or religion here (shhhhhhh!!), however, (said in the voice of Dan Akroyd in The Twilight Zone film) "You wanna hear something really scary?" [Word got out early today that Gov. Cuomo doesn't know where the 700 border children are who were sent to New York recently, and the reason he doesn't know is because the information is being withheld by someone, some agency etc. etc.]
for some truly criminal, inhumane, unlawful and downright cruel, punitive policies being enforced by the current (and arguably) illegitimate administration. This world, human beings in general, this country does not have an unblemished record of humanity and kindness towards each other but I think I can safely say that I stand with most informed people that what is currently being put forth as policy by the "leaders" of this country is embarrassing unAmerican and ultimately disastrous in both the long and short term. Back to audio, yes Border Patrol is a terrible name for and audio company. And I am not surprised that an amp of this type measures poorly and sounds amazing (if you like tubes and I do.)
False claim entirely. I don't apologize because my motives are pure. I observe all of the "sides", including those driven by propaganda and secret agendas (i.e. nearly all of those you've read about). I know them all, and I've been on the inside of many, from extreme Left to extreme Right. If you actually wanted to know something rather than add to the noise, I'm the person to ask.
I could care less about the conversation, but I always like to point out what I think are misunderstandings about commonly misunderstood words. An apologist is a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial. It comes from the Greek defense of doctrine by engaging in discourse. Like many words, it has undergone "semantic shift" through time, whereby a word begins to take on more and more negative connotation. I.e., it started as a rigorous method of discourse and now means "... an argument in defense... controversial".
It's good you brought that up. We have the global Catholic church currently engaged in restoring the reputation of the Crusades to bring it into their mainstream apologetics. But critics would tend to regard that as historical revisionism. I think these things, along with misunderstandings about the differences between immigrants and refugees, and the rights of sovereign states to discriminate accordingly - are essential to study from the historical perspective before getting carried away with trailer-park politics.
..border patrol proved to be one of my most cherished experiences – provided no one tried to trespass.
Gary Dews has been showing his BP amps for years at shows with great results. Very highly regarded, and well received (here, and elsewhere). If folks want to complain about a brand name, which was conceived long ago, or test results, I suggest they warm up around the camp fire of audio asylum where the measurements nerds play. Ears matter first and foremost. Tally ho!
and measurements are just for nerds, then how do you produce anything? Or, how do you perform outgoing quality control on items which you have produced?
Suppose you are the CEO of Ken-Mac high-end amplifier company.
Your amplifier has Class A subjective sound quality, but whatever parameters might be responsible for that level of sound quality can't be measured. How, then, do you ensure that every amp that you ship to customers exhibits that magic sound quality? Do you listen to every single one? If so, how much time does that take and how many can you listen to per day? What happens if you get an ear infection? Do you stop shipping temporarily? Can you still pay your bills if you do that? If you hire someone else for that function, how do you know that they hear the same thing you do?
Also, do you listen to every part that comes into your factory, or do you wait until the amps are completely assembled only to discover that maybe one of your suppliers has made some unannounced changes to a part that causes the magic sound quality to disappear?
Thank you Ortofan .......... I was thinking the same thing ........ You made one of the best analysis and comments I have read in a long time ........ You are 1,000% correct ........ What kind of standard that particular company can follow? ......... It will be total "chaos" ......... It will become the proverbial "snake oil" selling company ......... How can the customers be sure that they are getting the same "snake oil" the reviewer(s) got? ........ How reliable the product is gonna be in the long run? ........ If something breaks down and if it gets repaired, will the repaired product sounds the same as before? ........... What if the company goes out of business and who will repair/support that product? .............. Way too many things to worry about .......... To add to that, the product is not inexpensive ...............
To add to the above compare this amp to the Prima Luna power amp, which was reviewed and measured recently ........... the PL amp costs way less than the BP amp ...........
I wish someone at Stereophile reviews ST-70 Haffler/Dynaco (re-make) which was mentioned by one of the readers ........... How about that KM or HR? ...............
Can it still be an Audiophile "Standard" ?
I'd love to know how it stacks up in HR's World ( and Steve G's too, for gods sake ) ! Maybe we could include Mr.Dudley for good measure.
Dear Stereophile Staff, can we have the ST-70 Reviewed, yet again? I'll buy another years Print Subscription just to read the Journalism created by the above trifecta of audio journalists.
tony in michigan
ps. thank you for the idea Mr.Bogolu Haranath, please, keep em coming, bet you have plenty of good ones .
None of what you say is actually happening.
I agree with the technical claim that a standard set of measurements have to be performed for quality control purposes, to ensure consistency between samples. But it's disingenuous to suggest that that consistency makes measurements more important than listening.
May be true ........ May be the amp was"intentionally" designed to measure and sound that way ..........
Also, it would be interesting to see the manufacturer's comments about the listening and measurements ..........
Caution ......... Don't use this amp to drive Wilson WAMM speakers :-) ...........
In the print edition, in the next issue.
Thanks ..... I just read that response ...... The response was "short and sweet" .......... If memory serves me well, I think I have read this type of response many times before for various audio products ........ Like they say "have we seen this movie before"? :-) ..............
..are mostly being used in R&D, not in quality control. Manufacturers that perform a full set of measurements to each and every one of their final products are extremely rare – brief listening tests are in fact more common a practice just because they‘re cheap. However If I were to choose an audio product based either on someone’s auditioning or on specifications and third party measurements alone –the way I evaluate them myself– I would go for the second simply because I don’t trust another man’s ears for my listening pleasure – nothing personal whatsoever.
Here's a video that is a fantastic example of post production testing that would suggest changes to topology and design. There's also a follow-up video of the mods and some cool measurement and removal of some transformer noise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6P4C9at5rV8
This BP amp is overpriced and underperforming on the test bench ............ No wonder, at least some of the manufacturers seem to prefer to submit their products for review at "other" audiophile magazines and websites because they don't perform any measurements .......... Stereophile is a great exception .......... Thank you JA ........ You are a "Jedi" fighting for truth and justice ......... "May the Force be with you" :-) ............
If you're making amps and you're that confident of your consistency, then bless your heart. But with some components (transducers, tube amps, etc.) the sample differences can be fairly large. My opinion from experience and looking around is that most audiophiles trust these pricy amps to be essentially perfect - the putative "straight wire with gain". They buy them, use them unless and until they get a negative feeling about them, and if that's the case sell them or trade them in. How do reviews figure into that? Guessing again, that potential buyers rely on the feature descriptions more than the sound.
argument is so tired, the subject so dullwitted and brain-boring it's giving me an ear infection. No, make that a brain infection, the infection of the ABX testers, the measurements apostles, the Julian Hirsch fanclub. Will it never end? Will people refuse to drive cars without reading the bench report? Will we only purchase spatulas and forks and fishing rods after a complete test of metallurgy, fish to wind distance and fork to back of brain impalement? !!! I give up. Roll me over and stick a fork in ME. Light a candle up in kingdom come/Light the way for the savior's son/A candle burning bright enough to tear the city down
Ok, so measurements don't matter .......... What about price/ performance ratio? ............ Does it sound any better than the Prima Luna tube power amp which costs a whole lot less than the BP amp? It was called a class A amp by HR ............. Although PL amp is not listed under class A recommended components, there are several other class A tube amps listed, which cost lot less than the BP amp, like for example the Music Reference amp ..............
Someone once said that extremism in pursuit of some truth or other is no vice. However, extremism (arguing about throwing out measurements on the one hand versus worshiping them on the other hand) in pursuit of winning at the cost of truth IS a vice.
For the last few decades it has been the subjective people saying this and that arguing that measurements have no meaning. On Audio Asylum there was so much love for crazy things until a few years back when even manufacturers like Charles Hansen (RIP) called out the nonsense.
Thankfully it is starting to change and BS products are starting to be called out as BS again even on AA!
There is no need to be insulting like calling anyone "dullwitted" or "brain-boring". Plainly seen on the measurements, clearly this product is not able to resolve beyond CD resoultion and not everyone will like the sound.
Without measurements all we are gonna know about the product is "sounds great (to me) and looks pretty (to me)" ......... All we have to rely on is, specs provide by the manufacturers, which may not always be accurate ..........
there are no need for measurements. But in the final evaluation, I gauge, review and make conclusions based on my ears, how the piece sounds. And this is exactly why we never see the measurements JA has taken until the review is published. SP reviewers stand on our conclusions, created by our ears. Kapish? Oh, I know you're not finished. Lemme make same more room at the bar...
..there’s plenty of room for everyone at the bar, math nerds and street wise types alike.
That's why I wrote, "making more room at the bar..." Make mine Lowenbrau...
..pilsner urquell is the real way to go :-)
"Take it Easy" ......... Don't let the sound of your own wheels drive you crazy ..........
Henry Weinhard. Similar to Sam Adams light, but not as fattening.
Make mine "Raging B****" ............
"Broad Smile" would be a more appropriate name.To illustrate the nice smile seen in the distortion over frequency.
The Chinese may "steal the intellectual property" and make a cheaper one, and name it "Chinese great border wall" .............
Ronald Reagan, a.k.a. "Ronald Raygun", organized and led the infamous "China Deal" trip with Bush and associates right out of Beverly Hills and Washington DC in 1985. I was there, I know exactly what happened. Those who worship Reagan are blind to what happened, on behalf of Free Trade. What a joke, what a scam. But, sad to say, everyone has an ignorant opinion to offer, with little or no facts. To paraphrase the editor of the Beverly Hills Courier, "You're going to make just a s___load of money."
... because, with a frequency response that is down by -6dB to -7dB at about 30kHz and with 3% THD (that corresponds to only 6-bit resolution), listening to hi-res recordings would be pointless.
Even the lowest indicated THD level of 0.04% at 600-700Hz corresponds to only 12-bit resolution - not even a red book level of performance.
So, the BP amp is working like a $15,000 EQ device ........... No wonder, we can see that big smile on THD+N measurements ....... Also, look at that warranty, 18 months and tubes 3 months ............
It is written in the ancient documents that audiophiles were not meant to live on transistors alone, but on the warmth of the vacuum tube.
Warm and romantic like "rolling in the deep" ...............
"What we do is secret." - Darby Crash of The Germs.
... The Absolute Sound included the Harman-Kardon Citation Eleven preamp and the Phase Linear 700 power amp.
Not much vacuum tube warmth present there 45 years ago.
Speaking of Carver, Stereophile had an article some time ago telling how Carver would come around for various tests with his tweaked amplifiers, and he could make them sound like any other amplifier on the market. I'm forgetting some of this, but Carver was a true wizard of electronics who understood intimately what made amps sound certain ways, and he was able to replicate those sounds in his tests. I need to find that article(s) and save it.
If I remember correctly, Carver was going up against C-J all tube amplifier(s) .......... Carver did such a great job, even some of the best and experienced Stereophile reviewers (at that time) including JGH could not reliably tell the difference between the sound of the amplifier(s) ..........
Adding to the above ......... (I looked it up) Carver also challenged the Audio Critic magazine and duplicated the sound of an all transistor Mark Levinson amplifier ........
Yes! That's the best one!
If I remember correctly, Carver was going up against C-J all tube amplifier(s) .......... Carver did such a great job, even some of the best and experienced Stereophile reviewers (at that time) including JGH could not reliably tell the difference between the sound of the amplifier(s) ....
The testing was flawed in that the Carver and C-J amplifiers were used only to drive the midrange and treble drivers of the Infinity speakers. See www.stereophile.com/content/carver-challenge.
Carver claimed to be able to match the amplifiers to within a 70dB null, implying a difference of just 0.03%. However, in a repeat of the test in 1987, not yet published on our website, using Celestion SL600 speakers driven full-range, the best null was just 36dB (0.6%)and then only in the midrange. Gordon Holt could indeed distinguish the Carver amplifier from the C-J by ear.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
... is there any particular reason you don't include this measurement in your test reports?
When Stereophile evaluated the Hafler XL-280, David Hafler (as well as Peter Walker before him) advocated the use of null testing (between the input and output of a given amplifier) as a means of assessing the degree to which a signal was impaired by having passed through an amplifier. The deeper the null, the more accurate or perfect was the amplifier. (Whether the resultant sound quality was subjectively "pleasant" was a separate matter.) Subsequently, no one seems to have ever challenged Hafler's claim that his amp exhibited the deepest null.
One might imagine that an amp such as the Benchmark AHB-2 would perform even better on a null test. It would be interesting to determine if this is so, and by what factor.
Also, the distortion levels are 3% at 20Hz and 1% at 40Hz ......... Also, those distortion levels are different for the left and right channels ..............
Ouch! If this forum were run by the FBI, we could redact that information.
Audio and music production and reproduction are both art and science .......... We can't ignore one in favor of the other ............
We need to be wary of throwing art and science around. Reproduction of sound needs to be as accurate as science permits for our budgets. There is a certain element of art in the design of esoteric components, but when designers' egos aren't checked and they put themselves above science, bad usually happens.
..vintage transistors, primitive digital – yesteryear’s problem considered by some as today’s solution. As for me – nothing inherently wrong with recurring things past; nothing special either.
From Gary Dews: The name was first used in 1993. I had a prototype amp that was due to go to a London show in two days time and I had no name for it. A friend and I were kicking names around. We had the usual 'this or that' type audio names when suddenly he said: 'why not call it something ridiculous, like........ BorderPatrol? It won't matter, you're not planning to make any anyway. All you need is something to stick on a bit of paper to stop the press asking questions.'
It seemed innocuous enough. I wasn't planning to make any and Britain doesn't have a border patrol, so I printed up a few leaflets and took them to the show. The press seized on it and it appeared in several show reports. Then the phone started ringing and people were asking when it would be available. So I went with it and it became very well known throughout Europe and the rest of the World. I sold amps and power supply units into most of the European countries, Russia, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, South Africa and others. I even had a North American distributor who sold a few pieces during the late nineties.
All this was a long time before I emigrated to the the USA in 2005.
From Gary Dews: The name was first used in 1993. I had a prototype amp that was due to go to a London show in two days time and I had no name for it. A friend and I were kicking names around. We had the usual 'this or that' type audio names when suddenly he said: 'why not call it something ridiculous, like........ BorderPatrol? It won't matter, you're not planning to make any anyway. All you need is something to stick on a bit of paper to stop the press asking questions.'
It seemed innocuous enough. I wasn't planning to make any and Britain doesn't have a border patrol, so I printed up a few leaflets and took them to the show. The press seized on it and it appeared in several show reports. Then the phone started ringing and people were asking when it would be available. So I went with it and it became very well known throughout Europe and the rest of the World. I sold amps and power supply units into most of the European countries, Russia, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, South Africa and others. I even had a North American distributor who sold a few pieces during the late nineties.
All this was a long time before I emigrated to the the USA in 2005.
Welcome to America ......... Land of the free and home of the Stereophile ............
It's "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave." And then there's that American Pythagorean Theorem....
Pythagorean comma, Pythagorean limma, Pythagorean apotome, Pythagorean tuning ...........
Ok .......... Welcome to America ........... Don't drink the "Kool-Aid" from a "Pythagorean Cup" :-) ...........
Pythagorean refers to the famous theorem of the right triangle. Google it in the version referencing squaws and braves.
I know, I know ......... There are other things the word "Pythagorean" was used ...... like "Pythagorean" alignment of planets, "Pythagorean" cup, "Pythagorean" tuning for musical instruments etc. etc. etc. ........
Or ......Welcome to America ......... Land of the free and home of the brave, including Stereophile (American) reviewers and readers ...........
"... The question is: Did KM like the sound of the P21 EXD because of its measured performance or despite it? I don't know the answer to that question.—John Atkinson"
Perhaps a third option - to also reveal the preconception of Mr. Atkinson here - would be that Ken Micallef liked the sound of the P21 EXD irrespective of its measured performance..
... the function of an amplifier. Should it be to simply amplify the incoming signal while adding as little noise and distortion as possible or should it be to also modify the incoming signal by introducing certain artifacts that may cause the resultant sound quality to be perceived as in some manner more likable?
I'll offer a simple perspective. The former is (or should be) obviously more desirable than the latter, as a matter of principle.
But this is where we encounter the differences between matters of principle and matters of fact. For example, a top-quality tube amp (all other things being equal even though they're not exactly equal) will "soften" the sound slightly compared to a top-quality solid state amp, assuming for sake of argument that both amps were made by the same company for the same purpose.
But in the range of audiophile experience, is it ever as simple as softening the sound? When I listen with a tube amp for example, if I hear shimmering harmonics well above 10 khz that tell me I'm getting that kind of detail, and I hear/feel enough tightness and weight in plucked bass strings to convince me I'm being equally well served on that end, do I need to question what I'm missing? If I compare that to the sound of a solid state amp and the difference seems to be merely a more razor-sharpness to the details, should I feel obligated to acknowledge the superiority of the latter because I "know" it's better fidelity due to lower distortion?
to “perfectly measuring” amplifiers etc is another form of placebo; just like a fussy patient who feels terribly sick till the doctor says the lab tests are "perfectly fine", even if sometimes this isn’t exactly the actual case..
"Razor-sharpness" could cause "death by 1,000 cuts" .......... Just kidding :-) ..........
I think you've just stumbled on the core secret of music criticism.
... softening the sound. Or, to put it another way, do you prefer to hear the truth plain or sugar-coated?
https://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/p/plain_truth.asp
If you do like the sugar-coated version, then try this tube buffer device which, according to the manufacturer "will insert some “warmth and colour” making your hi fi system more pleasant to listen to."
http://www.iconaudio.com/main-products/ba3-buffer-amplifier/
http://www.iconaudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/29-BA3-2016.pdf
It's even available from MF's buddies at musicdirect.com, who state that it will "add sought-after tube warmth, musicality, and tonality to your solid-state system without changing your existing components". Plus it's "100% Guaranteed."
https://www.musicdirect.com/preamp/icon-audio-ba3-buffer-amplifier
It only costs $1K, an amount that could easily be wasted on various tweaks that may (or may not) change the sound of your system, without necessarily improving it.
I know what sugar coated means, so no. Which makes the extensive text you provided a waste of time. Real audiophiles look underneath simplistic analogies like "sugar coating" to the things that drive sophisticated sensual pleasure. Perhaps you'd like to interview a few such audiophile tube users to get a deeper insight into what they hear (or don't hear) with tubes.
EDIT: I do have to admit, the "tube buffer" gizmo looks really sexy, and no doubt the $1000 cost is reasonable given that it has to be as transparent as possible.
... cartoon illustrating a vending machine that dispensed "second-harmonic sauce", to use JA's analogy, so I went with "sugar-coated", instead. It's not as though tube sound has never been characterized as "sweet": https://www.stereophile.com/tubepoweramps/689/index.html
That article is a good backdrop for tube discussion, which could take off in a lot of different directions. I imagine many tube-loving audiophiles gnashing their teeth over the solid state components in their tube amps, and what sort of "corruption" they would bring to the pure tube sound. (Yeah, I know...)
... the function of an amplifier. Should it be to simply amplify the incoming signal while adding as little noise and distortion as possible or should it be to also modify the incoming signal by introducing certain artifacts that may cause the resultant sound quality to be perceived as in some manner more likable?
This is making things too simple in not accounting for a context of several factors. One is to acknowledge the views of the reviewer on the sonic merits of the Border Patrol amp in question, if nothing else out of respect for Mr. Micallef. You may not agree (as an assumption, I'm guessing) with his review and positive findings on the sound here, but based on what? Have you heard the same amp via his setup? Or, via your own setup with all that implies, not to mention your particular preference and biases?
It's OK to differ in opinion, that's not my gripe, but you need a valid reference to form your counterpoint, and for this there's one indisputable necessity to attain: that of listening experience of said item, or all else is moot. And yet, there's a persistent stance from many posts above (and below), not least spurred on by Mr. Atkinson's findings, that maintain a conflict between the measured performance of the B.P. amp, and what the reviewer claims to be hearing from it (in itself a fallacy of observation); that is, measurements seem to dictate that the "artifacts" here found point to a colored sonic signature of sorts that deviates from an imagined place of sonic neutrality, which is to say the reviewer's enthusiasm and sought objectivity must be called into question because he endorses a sound (at a high price point) that is deemed.. an acquired taste.
It seems most, if not all naysayers to have issue with Mr. Micallef's review share a common predicament: none of them have heard the amp he's reviewing, or if they have I'd wager their preconceived ideas of tube amps in general, not to mention their square-eyed reliance on measurements, have infused a filtering process to their hearing that tells them what reductive data could have stated with cool certainty prior to any listening session: namely that they're treated, or rather would be treated to a colored/distorted presentation devoid a true transparency to the signal.
Ask yourself: what's the main issue with the posts of this thread to question the reviewer's positive findings on the Border Patrol amp, and what's their (common) reference to have this issue? And then ask yourself again; "listening" with your head detracts from any musical truth, quite literally when you refrain from using your ears. Measurements only brings you so much, and when they go in the way of a perceived sound experience let the latter have the benefit of the doubt, not the former.
The article makes the point that the push-pull design results in a "sharper, less romantic sound" than the typical tube amp. What's your opinion on that?
The article makes the point that the push-pull design results in a "sharper, less romantic sound" than the typical tube amp. What's your opinion on that?
Dalethorn --
You're referring to this segment from the review:
Why design a 300B amplifier in push-pull rather than single-ended-triode (SET) mode?
"A push-pull 300B design will typically have 20Wpc, which allows it to work with a wider range of loudspeakers," Dews said. "Push-pull amps typically have tighter, punchier bass than SETs, can drive much more difficult speaker loads, and play a wider selection of music. A stiff power supply, like the ones used with BorderPatrol SETs, addresses the SET dynamic and bass issues significantly, but a similarly executed push-pull like the P21 will still be superior in those areas."
Note Dews's description of the typical sound of 300B SET amplifiers: "[They] are often charming and beguiling but have low power, are limited dynamically, and have poor bass performance. They need to be partnered with loudspeakers that have very high sensitivity, and a high and uniform impedance characteristic. Complex music with heavy bass is best avoided. SETs predominantly generate even-order harmonic distortion, which gives them the characteristic open, airy, romantic sound. It's not accurate, but it can be nice. Push-pull amplifiers predominantly generate odd[-order] harmonic distortion, which leads to a sharper, less romantic sound, but one that is still engaging."
The views of the "article" you point to more specifically are those of Gary Dews, the man behind Border Patrol, and goes to show he has a case to make for his specific push-pull implementation of 300B's. I'm not saying I believe he's way off comparing to an SET configuration, but that context is important, and moreover Mr. Dews is hardly the last word on this subject (though I'm fully aware he's very experienced and a gifted developer). The P21 no doubt suits a wider range of speakers compared to SET's, and as such has a bigger appeal - or certainly one Mr. Dews is likely interested in making more visible. By that I mean no discredit or to put into question his views, but rather to point out there're dependent on the context of speakers, which he rightly makes clear himself, though with the emphasis on combinations that are more obvious with the P21 - i.e.: speakers that aren't very highly efficient. With the right, very sensitive speakers SET's don't take a backseat dynamically, on the contrary, and the low damping factor of SET's more often than not mate extremely well with all-horn speakers where the bass horn section is typically very highly damped in itself (typically pro style, relatively stiffly suspended drivers oftentimes in sealed enclosures). I don't hear any rosy tinted, "romantic" or euphonic inclinations here, but rather an aliveness and sense of "ignition" that far exceeds most SS amps coupled to lesser (indeed low to moderate) efficient speakers. Add to that a very natural tonality, and a wonderfully uninhibited presence.
Perhaps we're many to be right on this, again, depending on the context. Maybe the sonic descriptions often aimed at SET's on their "romantic" and "charming" imprinting, at least as something that departs from a more authentic feel, holds merit insofar they're paired with direct radiating speakers no more than 90dB's or so sensitive, added to challenging impedance/phase behavior - generally speaking. Depending on the output tubes SET's span from a couple of watts to some 20 of them (typically in the lower end), and to make best use of their qualities and low, even-order distortion characteristics are said to be run no more than some 10-15% of their max. output power, above which they start distorting more heavily. I guess more power hungry speakers that are oftentimes no more than ~85dB sensitive (sensitivity accuracy sometimes is way off as an indicator in light of difficult speaker load) would make us hear largely what sits outside of SET's comfort zone, so to speak; hence the romantic, euphonic impressions. And so on - sorry I'm rambling (if I am).
... my earlier post.
Yes, it is indeed that simple.
This is no more than the "pleasant" versus "accurate" debate that David Hafler introduced over thirty years ago:
https://www.stereophile.com/content/manufacturers-comment-0
Hafler's case is compelling. So jumping ahead to the logical conclusion, it seems much of the reproduction chain - even back to DACs and preamps - could be replaced with a generic device having options for various plugin modules and DSP's etc. Knowing that the "big" markets don't care about audiophile quality, who does that leave overseeing the audiophile community with these generic boxes? The endgame would seem to be a consolidation of manufacturers. Would that be a good thing? Consolidation of any industry that prides itself on a "higher set of principles" seems to always result in a loss of those higher principles.
BTW, I'm not arguing against the Straight Wire with Gain idea, just wondering if anyone has thought this through.
"... my earlier post.
Yes, it is indeed that simple.
This is no more than the "pleasant" versus "accurate" debate that David Hafler introduced over thirty years ago:
https://www.stereophile.com/content/manufacturers-comment-0"
Ortofan --
What if an SET sounded "accurate" with the right (or a selection of) speakers as opposed to with no speakers at all? Which I believe SET's certainly can.
Or, maybe we need to look into the terminology and frame of reference applied here, and put into question whether "accuracy" is a reference to a live, acoustic sound - i.e.: whether our reference to accuracy/neutrality/whatever is really based similarly? My contention tends to be "accuracy" is less of a telling term musically than "natural," "organic" or "authentic," being a potential giveaway on the reference used here. Sometimes what is described "romantic" is more telling of the addressor than the sound; much if not most of the current hifi-mantra, I feel, is assessing sound in a fragmented in-the-head kind of way rather than one of synthesis or wholeness, the latter of which may have a more emotionel constituent at its core. This way what is deemed "romantic," "charming" or "beguiling" could also, to some people, be in conflict with an analytical approach, and as such fall outside what to their head/ears is "accurate"/true-ish, while in reality it may be more in line with an actual, live acoustic musical event. Provocative stance or just pure B.S.?
P.S. I'll give the Hafler article a read..
These ideas I've seen elsewhere, and hopefully they can be addressed in some newer topics here, not just this one.
..this whole “beautiful vs. faithful” (;-} matter can actually be reduced to whether one only likes women when by any means "beautiful" – or just because they are essentially "women" regardless of, well, whatever.
Speaking of women, an interesting thing happened in favor of young women in music recording circa 1990. Affordable home digital followed by the Internet not only allowed girl bands to be heard that were previously accessible only locally, but it allowed them control of the recordings, so that in many cases they could be heard unfiltered by people who had different ideas of how they should sound. Which relates to your comment in certain ways.
The fight between the cruel, in-humane, venomous solid-state and digital devotees Vs polite, gentle, peace-loving and tree-hugging tube and analog devotees, goes on :-) ............
It's not just the people who advocate one side over the other, it's those sneaky types who infiltrate both sides. For example, from the article: "....and DC filament supplies for the 300B tubes, rectified by Schottky diodes"
Last time I checked, diodes were solid state...
You mean the "hybrid" types ........ neither this or that ......... may be they enjoy the benefits of both and none (or very little) of the downsides ............
Are you saying this device was listed as a hybrid?
Some components use both SS and tubes .......... Some people use different types of components like tube pre-amp and SS power-amp for example ............ Which device you are asking about? ........
I looked it up ........ A diode could also be a vacuum tube with two electrodes - an anode and a cathode .......... 300B is a (vacuum tube) triode with a four pin base ...........
Schottky diodes are semiconductors.
Ok ...... I understand now ...... I was talking about diodes and 300B in general ..........
I once bought a Bravo Ocean tube headphone amp from massdrop for around $100 USD. I was astonished by the sound compared to the solid state Lehmann amp I was using. I did give it away after a few weeks of occasional use, but that awesome liquid-like sound I heard made a huge impression on me. Now replace that with a $1000-$5000 tube amp and you'd get the awesomeness with better specs - better dynamics, lower distortion, better shielding and heat-sinking etc. In the final analysis, I don't think there's a way to argue against that sound - the arguments would converge on cost and convenience only, to get the best amp for the money.