|
Even the geek who has everything...
....is unlikely to have this toy:
http://www.thinkgeek.com/computing/input/9836/ Only $1589. -- I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. And because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do the something that I can do. What I can do, I should do. And what I should do, by the grace of God, I will do. — Edward Everett Hale (1822-1909) |
Even the geek who has everything...
"hk" wrote in message ... ...is unlikely to have this toy: http://www.thinkgeek.com/computing/input/9836/ Only $1589. This geek much prefers this .... (new release of classic, 1965 twin .... 100% vacuum tube powered) http://www.eisboch.com/65twin.jpg Eisboch |
Even the geek who has everything...
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message ... ...is unlikely to have this toy: http://www.thinkgeek.com/computing/input/9836/ Only $1589. This geek much prefers this .... (new release of classic, 1965 twin .... 100% vacuum tube powered) http://www.eisboch.com/65twin.jpg Eisboch I wondered why this was not done earlier. Do the "experts" say this sounds the same as the 1965 version? |
Even the geek who has everything...
"Earl of Warwich, Duke of Cornwall, Marquies of Anglesea, Sir Reginald P. Smithers III Esq. LLC, STP. " wrote in message . .. Eisboch wrote: "hk" wrote in message ... ...is unlikely to have this toy: http://www.thinkgeek.com/computing/input/9836/ Only $1589. This geek much prefers this .... (new release of classic, 1965 twin .... 100% vacuum tube powered) http://www.eisboch.com/65twin.jpg Eisboch I wondered why this was not done earlier. Do the "experts" say this sounds the same as the 1965 version? I don't know. Sounds the same to me, but I am no expert. It has not been redesigned. Just re-released as a product. Same cabinet design, same Jensen "special" speakers, same tube pre-amps, reverb drivers and 6L6 output stage. I have another, solid state Fender "Stage 1000" that has digital signal processing, etc. Sounds ok, but not like the tube twin. There isn't a chip, processor or digital circuit in it. Eisboch |
Even the geek who has everything...
On Aug 19, 8:48*am, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Earl of Warwich, Duke of Cornwall, Marquies of Anglesea, Sir Reginald P. Smithers III Esq. LLC, STP. " wrote in messagenews:S72dnXHEG803IDfVnZ2dnUVZ_qXinZ2d@comca st.com... Eisboch wrote: "hk" wrote in message ... ...is unlikely to have this toy: http://www.thinkgeek.com/computing/input/9836/ Only $1589. This geek much prefers this .... (new release of classic, 1965 twin .... 100% vacuum tube powered) http://www.eisboch.com/65twin.jpg Eisboch I wondered why this was not done earlier. Do the "experts" say this sounds the same as the 1965 version? I don't know. *Sounds the same to me, but I am no expert. It has not been redesigned. *Just re-released as a product. *Same cabinet design, same Jensen "special" speakers, same tube pre-amps, reverb drivers and 6L6 output stage. I have another, solid state Fender "Stage 1000" that has digital signal processing, etc. * Sounds ok, but not like the tube twin. There isn't a chip, processor or digital circuit in it. Eisboch- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Some of the new tube releases are pretty nice sounding.. |
Even the geek who has everything...
Well, things should get better. I just plonked salty and harry, as
soon as my other bud posts again, he will get the same. Last time i did it wrong and killed entire threads.. Think I got it right this time.;) Agent is quite extensive, a lot to go though, I guess I'll need to be a little more patient.. On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:38:56 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message ... Hey Dick, let me know if you are getting my posts, if you are using Genes server to read and post you won't... -------------------------- I alternate back and forth between Gene's server and my Giganews server, mainly because it's interesting to see how his filter algorithms work. For example .... this whole thread .... originally started by Harry .... does not show up on Gene's at all, at least not so far. So you aren't there, but none of the respondents, including Harry's original post "Even the geek who has everything" is not there at the time of this post. Yet, all of our OT discussion about the Norwegian Utopia is there. I've noticed that most of the time posts on Gene's server show up much later after they appear on Giganews, although occasionally they show up on Gene's faster. Eisboch |
Even the geek who has everything...
This just showed up on Gene's server, along with some of the thread started
by Harry, although his original post isn't here ... yet. "RMR" wrote in message ... Well, things should get better. I just plonked salty and harry, as soon as my other bud posts again, he will get the same. Last time i did it wrong and killed entire threads.. Think I got it right this time.;) Agent is quite extensive, a lot to go though, I guess I'll need to be a little more patient.. On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:38:56 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message ... Hey Dick, let me know if you are getting my posts, if you are using Genes server to read and post you won't... -------------------------- I alternate back and forth between Gene's server and my Giganews server, mainly because it's interesting to see how his filter algorithms work. For example .... this whole thread .... originally started by Harry .... does not show up on Gene's at all, at least not so far. So you aren't there, but none of the respondents, including Harry's original post "Even the geek who has everything" is not there at the time of this post. Yet, all of our OT discussion about the Norwegian Utopia is there. I've noticed that most of the time posts on Gene's server show up much later after they appear on Giganews, although occasionally they show up on Gene's faster. Eisboch The above post by you just showed up on Gene's server, along with some of the thread started by Harry, although his original post isn't here ... yet Eisboch |
Even the geek who has everything...
Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message ... On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:45:33 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: Does it have the original tube rectifier, or the later replacement? Hold on .... I'll check .... Must be a solid state (brick) rectifier. It has 10 tubes total .... (4) 6L6's, (2) 12AT7's, (4) 12AX7's. Eisboch Purists would find that horrifying! I have an old Super Reverb black face from around that era. Less power than a twin, and four 10" speakers. Personally, I think it was the best sounding guitar amp Fender ever produced. Something about the acoustic coupling of the 4-10" speakers just works really well for guitar. Amp-wise, it's basically just a Tremolux with reverb added. Like the other amps of that era, including the twin, it lacks channel switching, which makes it less than ideal for playing out. At 35 watts, it really isn't loud enough anyway, unless mic'ed through a PA. Last night I was pleasantly surprised. Over the past year I've redeveloped an interest in guitars and have collected a few, including amps. I enjoy the different sound and play "feel" of the guitar types and amp combinations. Two of the guitars are Taylor acoustic/electrics, a 6 string and a 12 string. When played through my old Marshall Valvestat, the solid sate Fender or the Vox amps, these guitars sounded horrible. So, I visited my local music shop and bought a Kustom acoustic guitar amp and the Taylors sound nice through it. Last night I tried the Taylors plugged into the "Normal" channel of the Fender Twin. Absolutely beautiful sound ... nice, rich, full and clean. I was really surprised. I haven't tried the EC "Blackie" yet. I suspect it will sound good. Eisboch Which one are you? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4OXrmxDp44 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6gDeGdQ3rM :) |
Even the geek who has everything...
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 10:19:00 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
wrote in message .. . On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:45:33 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: Does it have the original tube rectifier, or the later replacement? Hold on .... I'll check .... Must be a solid state (brick) rectifier. It has 10 tubes total .... (4) 6L6's, (2) 12AT7's, (4) 12AX7's. Eisboch Purists would find that horrifying! I have an old Super Reverb black face from around that era. Less power than a twin, and four 10" speakers. Personally, I think it was the best sounding guitar amp Fender ever produced. Something about the acoustic coupling of the 4-10" speakers just works really well for guitar. Amp-wise, it's basically just a Tremolux with reverb added. Like the other amps of that era, including the twin, it lacks channel switching, which makes it less than ideal for playing out. At 35 watts, it really isn't loud enough anyway, unless mic'ed through a PA. Last night I was pleasantly surprised. Over the past year I've redeveloped an interest in guitars and have collected a few, including amps. I enjoy the different sound and play "feel" of the guitar types and amp combinations. Two of the guitars are Taylor acoustic/electrics, a 6 string and a 12 string. When played through my old Marshall Valvestat, the solid sate Fender or the Vox amps, these guitars sounded horrible. So, I visited my local music shop and bought a Kustom acoustic guitar amp and the Taylors sound nice through it. Last night I tried the Taylors plugged into the "Normal" channel of the Fender Twin. Absolutely beautiful sound ... nice, rich, full and clean. I was really surprised. I haven't tried the EC "Blackie" yet. I suspect it will sound good. Eisboch Strat+Twin is one of the classic combinations. |
Even the geek who has everything...
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:48:42 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
I have another, solid state Fender "Stage 1000" that has digital signal processing, etc. Sounds ok, but not like the tube twin. There isn't a chip, processor or digital circuit in it. Ain't nuttin' like transformers and vacuum tubes. Analog baby - analog. :) |
Even the geek who has everything...
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:45:33 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
wrote in message .. . On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:48:42 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "Earl of Warwich, Duke of Cornwall, Marquies of Anglesea, Sir Reginald P. Smithers III Esq. LLC, STP. " wrote in message om... Eisboch wrote: "hk" wrote in message ... ...is unlikely to have this toy: http://www.thinkgeek.com/computing/input/9836/ Only $1589. This geek much prefers this .... (new release of classic, 1965 twin .... 100% vacuum tube powered) http://www.eisboch.com/65twin.jpg Eisboch I wondered why this was not done earlier. Do the "experts" say this sounds the same as the 1965 version? I don't know. Sounds the same to me, but I am no expert. It has not been redesigned. Just re-released as a product. Same cabinet design, same Jensen "special" speakers, same tube pre-amps, reverb drivers and 6L6 output stage. I have another, solid state Fender "Stage 1000" that has digital signal processing, etc. Sounds ok, but not like the tube twin. There isn't a chip, processor or digital circuit in it. Eisboch Does it have the original tube rectifier, or the later replacement? Hold on .... I'll check .... Must be a solid state (brick) rectifier. It has 10 tubes total .... (4) 6L6's, (2) 12AT7's, (4) 12AX7's. Ah - now you ruined it. Solid state - bleeeech.... :) |
Even the geek who has everything...
|
Even the geek who has everything...
On Aug 19, 11:03*am, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 10:41:57 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 10:19:00 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:45:33 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: Does it have the original tube rectifier, or the later replacement? Hold on .... I'll check .... Must be a solid state (brick) rectifier. * It has 10 tubes total ..... (4) 6L6's, *(2) 12AT7's, *(4) 12AX7's. Eisboch Purists would find that horrifying! I have an old Super Reverb black face from around that era. Less power than a twin, and four 10" speakers. Personally, I think it was the best sounding guitar amp Fender ever produced. Something about the acoustic coupling of the 4-10" speakers just works really well for guitar. Amp-wise, it's basically just a Tremolux with reverb added. Like the other amps of that era, including the twin, it lacks channel switching, which makes it less than ideal for playing out. At 35 watts, it really isn't loud enough anyway, unless mic'ed through a PA.. Last night I was pleasantly surprised. * Over the past year I've redeveloped an interest in guitars and have collected a few, including amps. * I enjoy the different sound and play "feel" of the guitar types and amp combinations. Two of the guitars are Taylor acoustic/electrics, a 6 string and a 12 string. * When played through my old Marshall Valvestat, the solid sate Fender or the Vox amps, these guitars sounded horrible. * So, I visited my local music shop and bought a Kustom acoustic guitar amp and the Taylors sound nice through it. Last night I tried the Taylors plugged into the "Normal" channel of the Fender Twin. * Absolutely beautiful sound ... nice, rich, full and clean. *I was really surprised. I haven't tried the EC "Blackie" yet. *I suspect it will sound good. Strat+Twin is one of the classic combinations. Strat and anything is a classic combination. *:) I have an orignial Bandmaster - I wish I played more than I do.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Bring it over here, I will play it for a while for you, and if you have an old tube amp, bring it too... Bad enough I can't play, but to put it though my peavey wouldn't do it justice, even at 210 watts... ;) |
Even the geek who has everything...
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 10:19:00 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
wrote in message .. . On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:45:33 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: Does it have the original tube rectifier, or the later replacement? Hold on .... I'll check .... Must be a solid state (brick) rectifier. It has 10 tubes total .... (4) 6L6's, (2) 12AT7's, (4) 12AX7's. Eisboch Purists would find that horrifying! I have an old Super Reverb black face from around that era. Less power than a twin, and four 10" speakers. Personally, I think it was the best sounding guitar amp Fender ever produced. Something about the acoustic coupling of the 4-10" speakers just works really well for guitar. Amp-wise, it's basically just a Tremolux with reverb added. Like the other amps of that era, including the twin, it lacks channel switching, which makes it less than ideal for playing out. At 35 watts, it really isn't loud enough anyway, unless mic'ed through a PA. Last night I was pleasantly surprised. Over the past year I've redeveloped an interest in guitars and have collected a few, including amps. I enjoy the different sound and play "feel" of the guitar types and amp combinations. Two of the guitars are Taylor acoustic/electrics, a 6 string and a 12 string. When played through my old Marshall Valvestat, the solid sate Fender or the Vox amps, these guitars sounded horrible. So, I visited my local music shop and bought a Kustom acoustic guitar amp and the Taylors sound nice through it. Last night I tried the Taylors plugged into the "Normal" channel of the Fender Twin. Absolutely beautiful sound ... nice, rich, full and clean. I was really surprised. I haven't tried the EC "Blackie" yet. I suspect it will sound good. About 1975 I bought tube pre and power amps, 75 a channel, to go with the Klipschorns. They were the best you could get at the time. They have since improved the solid state ones. Casady |
Even the geek who has everything...
|
Even the geek who has everything...
|
Even the geek who has everything...
On Aug 19, 11:53*am, wrote:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:20:02 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Aug 19, 11:03*am, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 10:41:57 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 10:19:00 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:45:33 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: Does it have the original tube rectifier, or the later replacement? Hold on .... I'll check .... Must be a solid state (brick) rectifier. * It has 10 tubes total .... (4) 6L6's, *(2) 12AT7's, *(4) 12AX7's. Eisboch Purists would find that horrifying! I have an old Super Reverb black face from around that era. Less power than a twin, and four 10" speakers. Personally, I think it was the best sounding guitar amp Fender ever produced. Something about the acoustic coupling of the 4-10" speakers just works really well for guitar. Amp-wise, it's basically just a Tremolux with reverb added.. Like the other amps of that era, including the twin, it lacks channel switching, which makes it less than ideal for playing out. At 35 watts, it really isn't loud enough anyway, unless mic'ed through a PA. Last night I was pleasantly surprised. * Over the past year I've redeveloped an interest in guitars and have collected a few, including amps. * I enjoy the different sound and play "feel" of the guitar types and amp combinations. Two of the guitars are Taylor acoustic/electrics, a 6 string and a 12 string. * When played through my old Marshall Valvestat, the solid sate Fender or the Vox amps, these guitars sounded horrible. * So, I visited my local music shop and bought a Kustom acoustic guitar amp and the Taylors sound nice through it. Last night I tried the Taylors plugged into the "Normal" channel of the Fender Twin. * Absolutely beautiful sound ... nice, rich, full and clean. *I was really surprised. I haven't tried the EC "Blackie" yet. *I suspect it will sound good. Strat+Twin is one of the classic combinations. Strat and anything is a classic combination. *:) I have an orignial Bandmaster - I wish I played more than I do.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Bring it over here, I will play it for a while for you, and if you have an old tube amp, bring it too... Bad enough I can't play, but to put it though my peavey wouldn't do it justice, even at 210 watts... ;) Um... Bandmaster is an amp, not a guitar, stairflopper.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Yup, realized I snipped the wrong post,, you caught me, you must be proud.. Man, get a life.. |
Even the geek who has everything...
|
Even the geek who has everything...
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:45:33 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:48:42 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "Earl of Warwich, Duke of Cornwall, Marquies of Anglesea, Sir Reginald P. Smithers III Esq. LLC, STP. " wrote in message news:S72dnXHEG803IDfVnZ2dnUVZ_qXinZ2d@comcast. com... Eisboch wrote: "hk" wrote in message ... ...is unlikely to have this toy: http://www.thinkgeek.com/computing/input/9836/ Only $1589. This geek much prefers this .... (new release of classic, 1965 twin .... 100% vacuum tube powered) http://www.eisboch.com/65twin.jpg Eisboch I wondered why this was not done earlier. Do the "experts" say this sounds the same as the 1965 version? I don't know. Sounds the same to me, but I am no expert. It has not been redesigned. Just re-released as a product. Same cabinet design, same Jensen "special" speakers, same tube pre-amps, reverb drivers and 6L6 output stage. I have another, solid state Fender "Stage 1000" that has digital signal processing, etc. Sounds ok, but not like the tube twin. There isn't a chip, processor or digital circuit in it. Eisboch Does it have the original tube rectifier, or the later replacement? Hold on .... I'll check .... Must be a solid state (brick) rectifier. It has 10 tubes total .... (4) 6L6's, (2) 12AT7's, (4) 12AX7's. Ah - now you ruined it. Solid state - bleeeech.... :) What does a full wave, solid state bridge recifier have to do with the sound of the preamps and power amps? All it does is supply clean B+ and bias voltages to the grids? I'll bet the solids are cleaner, DC wise, than the tubes. Eisboch |
Even the geek who has everything...
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:29:56 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:45:33 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message ... On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:48:42 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "Earl of Warwich, Duke of Cornwall, Marquies of Anglesea, Sir Reginald P. Smithers III Esq. LLC, STP. " wrote in message news:S72dnXHEG803IDfVnZ2dnUVZ_qXinZ2d@comcast .com... Eisboch wrote: "hk" wrote in message ... ...is unlikely to have this toy: http://www.thinkgeek.com/computing/input/9836/ Only $1589. This geek much prefers this .... (new release of classic, 1965 twin .... 100% vacuum tube powered) http://www.eisboch.com/65twin.jpg Eisboch I wondered why this was not done earlier. Do the "experts" say this sounds the same as the 1965 version? I don't know. Sounds the same to me, but I am no expert. It has not been redesigned. Just re-released as a product. Same cabinet design, same Jensen "special" speakers, same tube pre-amps, reverb drivers and 6L6 output stage. I have another, solid state Fender "Stage 1000" that has digital signal processing, etc. Sounds ok, but not like the tube twin. There isn't a chip, processor or digital circuit in it. Eisboch Does it have the original tube rectifier, or the later replacement? Hold on .... I'll check .... Must be a solid state (brick) rectifier. It has 10 tubes total .... (4) 6L6's, (2) 12AT7's, (4) 12AX7's. Ah - now you ruined it. Solid state - bleeeech.... :) What does a full wave, solid state bridge recifier have to do with the sound of the preamps and power amps? All it does is supply clean B+ and bias voltages to the grids? I'll bet the solids are cleaner, DC wise, than the tubes. Eisboch Yes, and solid state pre amps and power amps are cleaner than tube amps, as well. Clean and accurate reproduction is not necessarily the objective with tube amplifiers for musical instrument amplification. How the power is delivered to tubes can measurably affect things such as rise time and decay. I'm not promising that you can actually hear the difference, but purists will swear they can even if it is a physiological impossibility. |
Even the geek who has everything...
wrote in message ... Yes, and solid state pre amps and power amps are cleaner than tube amps, as well. Clean and accurate reproduction is not necessarily the objective with tube amplifiers for musical instrument amplification. How the power is delivered to tubes can measurably affect things such as rise time and decay. I'm not promising that you can actually hear the difference, but purists will swear they can even if it is a physiological impossibility. If you think about it though, the "power" is really being delivered by one or more big filter capacitors. I never asked one if it cared how the power got there. At that point, DC is DC. Eisboch |
Even the geek who has everything...
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:50:49 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote: wrote in message .. . Yes, and solid state pre amps and power amps are cleaner than tube amps, as well. Clean and accurate reproduction is not necessarily the objective with tube amplifiers for musical instrument amplification. How the power is delivered to tubes can measurably affect things such as rise time and decay. I'm not promising that you can actually hear the difference, but purists will swear they can even if it is a physiological impossibility. If you think about it though, the "power" is really being delivered by one or more big filter capacitors. I never asked one if it cared how the power got there. At that point, DC is DC. Eisboch You would think so, wouldn't you! Bear in mind that a vacuum tube is a mechanical structure and not all of the power is part of the signal path. You have to account for uneven heat, vibration and other anomalies that all go into what come out. The vagaries of a wimpy, tube rectified power supply, with hand rolled paper caps should not be underestimated. Purists will also insist that point to point wiring sounds different than circuit board construction. They may be right about that in some cases. Sounds crazy, though... |
Even the geek who has everything...
wrote in message ... On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:50:49 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message . .. Yes, and solid state pre amps and power amps are cleaner than tube amps, as well. Clean and accurate reproduction is not necessarily the objective with tube amplifiers for musical instrument amplification. How the power is delivered to tubes can measurably affect things such as rise time and decay. I'm not promising that you can actually hear the difference, but purists will swear they can even if it is a physiological impossibility. If you think about it though, the "power" is really being delivered by one or more big filter capacitors. I never asked one if it cared how the power got there. At that point, DC is DC. Eisboch You would think so, wouldn't you! Bear in mind that a vacuum tube is a mechanical structure and not all of the power is part of the signal path. You have to account for uneven heat, vibration and other anomalies that all go into what come out. The vagaries of a wimpy, tube rectified power supply, with hand rolled paper caps should not be underestimated. Purists will also insist that point to point wiring sounds different than circuit board construction. They may be right about that in some cases. Sounds crazy, though... I'll buy into the point to point wiring. An important critera used in high quality tube amps was to design the chassis so the signal wiring was as far away as possible from the power wiring. And, if you noted any funny noises or distortion, you could always re-route the wires. As for the power supply, I am still not convinced a tube rectifier is going to sound (or display on an O'scope) any different than solid state, if measured at the filter stage or any B+ test point. The audio amplifiers certainly are different between solid state and tubes and that is readily noticeable, even by people with tin ears. But 300 volts DC? Eisboch |
Even the geek who has everything...
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:29:56 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:45:33 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message ... On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:48:42 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "Earl of Warwich, Duke of Cornwall, Marquies of Anglesea, Sir Reginald P. Smithers III Esq. LLC, STP. " wrote in message news:S72dnXHEG803IDfVnZ2dnUVZ_qXinZ2d@comcast .com... Eisboch wrote: "hk" wrote in message ... ...is unlikely to have this toy: http://www.thinkgeek.com/computing/input/9836/ Only $1589. This geek much prefers this .... (new release of classic, 1965 twin .... 100% vacuum tube powered) http://www.eisboch.com/65twin.jpg Eisboch I wondered why this was not done earlier. Do the "experts" say this sounds the same as the 1965 version? I don't know. Sounds the same to me, but I am no expert. It has not been redesigned. Just re-released as a product. Same cabinet design, same Jensen "special" speakers, same tube pre-amps, reverb drivers and 6L6 output stage. I have another, solid state Fender "Stage 1000" that has digital signal processing, etc. Sounds ok, but not like the tube twin. There isn't a chip, processor or digital circuit in it. Eisboch Does it have the original tube rectifier, or the later replacement? Hold on .... I'll check .... Must be a solid state (brick) rectifier. It has 10 tubes total .... (4) 6L6's, (2) 12AT7's, (4) 12AX7's. Ah - now you ruined it. Solid state - bleeeech.... :) What does a full wave, solid state bridge recifier have to do with the sound of the preamps and power amps? All it does is supply clean B+ and bias voltages to the grids? I'll bet the solids are cleaner, DC wise, than the tubes. Never mind - obviously, you wouldn't understand. Short "Analog Forever" Wave... :) |
Even the geek who has everything...
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:48:01 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:29:56 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message . .. On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:45:33 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message m... On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:48:42 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "Earl of Warwich, Duke of Cornwall, Marquies of Anglesea, Sir Reginald P. Smithers III Esq. LLC, STP. " wrote in message news:S72dnXHEG803IDfVnZ2dnUVZ_qXinZ2d@comcas t.com... Eisboch wrote: "hk" wrote in message ... ...is unlikely to have this toy: http://www.thinkgeek.com/computing/input/9836/ Only $1589. This geek much prefers this .... (new release of classic, 1965 twin .... 100% vacuum tube powered) http://www.eisboch.com/65twin.jpg Eisboch I wondered why this was not done earlier. Do the "experts" say this sounds the same as the 1965 version? I don't know. Sounds the same to me, but I am no expert. It has not been redesigned. Just re-released as a product. Same cabinet design, same Jensen "special" speakers, same tube pre-amps, reverb drivers and 6L6 output stage. I have another, solid state Fender "Stage 1000" that has digital signal processing, etc. Sounds ok, but not like the tube twin. There isn't a chip, processor or digital circuit in it. Eisboch Does it have the original tube rectifier, or the later replacement? Hold on .... I'll check .... Must be a solid state (brick) rectifier. It has 10 tubes total .... (4) 6L6's, (2) 12AT7's, (4) 12AX7's. Ah - now you ruined it. Solid state - bleeeech.... :) What does a full wave, solid state bridge recifier have to do with the sound of the preamps and power amps? All it does is supply clean B+ and bias voltages to the grids? I'll bet the solids are cleaner, DC wise, than the tubes. Eisboch Yes, and solid state pre amps and power amps are cleaner than tube amps, as well. Clean and accurate reproduction is not necessarily the objective with tube amplifiers for musical instrument amplification. How the power is delivered to tubes can measurably affect things such as rise time and decay. I'm not promising that you can actually hear the difference, but purists will swear they can even if it is a physiological impossibility. Yeah - what he said. :) |
Even the geek who has everything...
On Aug 19, 2:07*pm, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:29:56 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:45:33 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message ... On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:48:42 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "Earl of Warwich, Duke of Cornwall, Marquies of Anglesea, Sir Reginald P. Smithers III Esq. LLC, STP. " wrote in message news:S72dnXHEG803IDfVnZ2dnUVZ_qXinZ2d@comcast .com... Eisboch wrote: "hk" wrote in message ... ...is unlikely to have this toy: http://www.thinkgeek.com/computing/input/9836/ Only $1589. This geek much prefers this .... (new release of classic, 1965 twin .... 100% vacuum tube powered) http://www.eisboch.com/65twin.jpg Eisboch I wondered why this was not done earlier. Do the "experts" say this sounds the same as the 1965 version? I don't know. *Sounds the same to me, but I am no expert. It has not been redesigned. *Just re-released as a product. *Same cabinet design, same Jensen "special" speakers, same tube pre-amps, reverb drivers and 6L6 output stage. I have another, solid state Fender "Stage 1000" that has digital signal processing, etc. * Sounds ok, but not like the tube twin. There isn't a chip, processor or digital circuit in it. Eisboch Does it have the original tube rectifier, or the later replacement? Hold on .... I'll check .... Must be a solid state (brick) rectifier. * It has 10 tubes total ..... (4) 6L6's, *(2) 12AT7's, *(4) 12AX7's. Ah - now you ruined it. Solid state - bleeeech.... * :) What does a full wave, solid state bridge recifier have to do with the sound of the preamps and power amps? All it does is supply clean B+ *and bias voltages to the grids? * I'll bet the solids are cleaner, DC wise, than the tubes. Never mind - obviously, you wouldn't understand. Short "Analog Forever" Wave... * :)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Clean is one way to look at it.. Hendrix sounds like ****, digital. And I might not be able to listen to two amps and tell you which one is analog, but I bet almost every one I hear that I "like" is.. |
Even the geek who has everything...
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 13:42:06 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote: wrote in message .. . On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:50:49 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message ... Yes, and solid state pre amps and power amps are cleaner than tube amps, as well. Clean and accurate reproduction is not necessarily the objective with tube amplifiers for musical instrument amplification. How the power is delivered to tubes can measurably affect things such as rise time and decay. I'm not promising that you can actually hear the difference, but purists will swear they can even if it is a physiological impossibility. If you think about it though, the "power" is really being delivered by one or more big filter capacitors. I never asked one if it cared how the power got there. At that point, DC is DC. Eisboch You would think so, wouldn't you! Bear in mind that a vacuum tube is a mechanical structure and not all of the power is part of the signal path. You have to account for uneven heat, vibration and other anomalies that all go into what come out. The vagaries of a wimpy, tube rectified power supply, with hand rolled paper caps should not be underestimated. Purists will also insist that point to point wiring sounds different than circuit board construction. They may be right about that in some cases. Sounds crazy, though... I'll buy into the point to point wiring. An important critera used in high quality tube amps was to design the chassis so the signal wiring was as far away as possible from the power wiring. And, if you noted any funny noises or distortion, you could always re-route the wires. As for the power supply, I am still not convinced a tube rectifier is going to sound (or display on an O'scope) any different than solid state, if measured at the filter stage or any B+ test point. The audio amplifiers certainly are different between solid state and tubes and that is readily noticeable, even by people with tin ears. But 300 volts DC? Well, good points every one. However, I can tell the difference between, say, my Mac 50s and a similar power level solid state monoblock. And I know others who can. So there must be something to it. Maybe it's all in our heads. Mine's certainly empty enough. :) |
Even the geek who has everything...
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:21:40 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: However, I can tell the difference between, say, my Mac 50s and a similar power level solid state monoblock. I think it's safe to say that the old tube amps had more "warmth", just the thing for a cold winter's night in New England. :-) |
Even the geek who has everything...
|
Even the geek who has everything...
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:27:22 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote: On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:21:40 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: However, I can tell the difference between, say, my Mac 50s and a similar power level solid state monoblock. I think it's safe to say that the old tube amps had more "warmth", just the thing for a cold winter's night in New England. :-) As old records sound better than some of the remastered stuff..;) It's a matter of taste. I saw salty's post over at google but that's what I was talking about. I won't see him here along with the other internet hero, unless someone quotes them... |
Even the geek who has everything...
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:27:22 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote: On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:21:40 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: However, I can tell the difference between, say, my Mac 50s and a similar power level solid state monoblock. I think it's safe to say that the old tube amps had more "warmth", just the thing for a cold winter's night in New England. :-) Plus, the extra added advantage of glowing in the dark. Nothing like a dim room and the soft glow of vacuum tubes. :) I should take a picture of my Dad's Collins S-line some evening after dark. Now that's a sight. :) |
Even the geek who has everything...
|
Even the geek who has everything...
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:27:22 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:21:40 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: However, I can tell the difference between, say, my Mac 50s and a similar power level solid state monoblock. I think it's safe to say that the old tube amps had more "warmth", just the thing for a cold winter's night in New England. :-) Plus, the extra added advantage of glowing in the dark. Nothing like a dim room and the soft glow of vacuum tubes. :) I should take a picture of my Dad's Collins S-line some evening after dark. Now that's a sight. :) Don't the 30S-1 and 30L-1 use ceramic output tubes? Now the glass tubes in the rx and tx would glow for sure. |
Even the geek who has everything...
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:35:30 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 11:15:17 -0700 (PDT), wrote: Hendrix sounds like ****, digital. Does anyone honestly have any idea what that means? I'm sure Stairflopper doesn't. I'm just curious if anyone else can parse it and make some sense of it. Maybe he's not a Hendrix fan. :) Our family attorney is a big time audiophile with all kinds of early Marantz, Mac and Sherwood stuff - collects them actually - and once I took over my prized Derek and The Dominos (autographed) album to play on his Mac system. The comparison to what you get off a CD is incredible to say the least. I'm sure glad I don't have *gifted* hearing and all its apparent associated problems. 8). |
Even the geek who has everything...
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 13:42:06 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:50:49 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message m... Yes, and solid state pre amps and power amps are cleaner than tube amps, as well. Clean and accurate reproduction is not necessarily the objective with tube amplifiers for musical instrument amplification. How the power is delivered to tubes can measurably affect things such as rise time and decay. I'm not promising that you can actually hear the difference, but purists will swear they can even if it is a physiological impossibility. If you think about it though, the "power" is really being delivered by one or more big filter capacitors. I never asked one if it cared how the power got there. At that point, DC is DC. Eisboch You would think so, wouldn't you! Bear in mind that a vacuum tube is a mechanical structure and not all of the power is part of the signal path. You have to account for uneven heat, vibration and other anomalies that all go into what come out. The vagaries of a wimpy, tube rectified power supply, with hand rolled paper caps should not be underestimated. Purists will also insist that point to point wiring sounds different than circuit board construction. They may be right about that in some cases. Sounds crazy, though... I'll buy into the point to point wiring. An important critera used in high quality tube amps was to design the chassis so the signal wiring was as far away as possible from the power wiring. And, if you noted any funny noises or distortion, you could always re-route the wires. As for the power supply, I am still not convinced a tube rectifier is going to sound (or display on an O'scope) any different than solid state, if measured at the filter stage or any B+ test point. The audio amplifiers certainly are different between solid state and tubes and that is readily noticeable, even by people with tin ears. But 300 volts DC? Well, good points every one. However, I can tell the difference between, say, my Mac 50s and a similar power level solid state monoblock. And I know others who can. So there must be something to it. Maybe it's all in our heads. Mine's certainly empty enough. :) Time out. I am not debating the sound of a solid state audio amp versus a tube audio amp. The difference is noticeable to many and, IMO the tube amp wins every time. I am questioning if anyone can really discern a difference in an amp with tube audio amplifiers that has a solid state, full wave bridge rectifier versus the same tube type amp that also has a tube rectifier section. In both cases, the rectifier, tube or solid state, is simply producing the plate and grid voltages needed for the audio (signal) tube amps. I just don't think that the resultant, filtered high voltage, regardless of source, makes any difference in sound or coloration. Eisboch |
Even the geek who has everything...
On Aug 19, 3:44*pm, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:35:30 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 11:15:17 -0700 (PDT), wrote: Hendrix sounds like ****, digital. Does anyone honestly have any idea what that means? I'm sure Stairflopper doesn't. I'm just curious if anyone else can parse it and make some sense of it. Maybe he's not a Hendrix fan. *:) Our family attorney is a big time audiophile with all kinds of early Marantz, Mac and Sherwood stuff - collects them actually - and once I took over my prized Derek and The Dominos (autographed) album to play on his Mac system. The comparison to what you get off a CD is incredible to say the least. To say the least indeed.. if he had to ask, he can never understand. |
Even the geek who has everything...
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:41:27 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: Plus, the extra added advantage of glowing in the dark. Nothing like a dim room and the soft glow of vacuum tubes. :) I should take a picture of my Dad's Collins S-line some evening after dark. Now that's a sight. :) Yes, nothing like that dull red glow from the plates of power tetrode that is really pushing out the watts! And if it happens to be just a tad gassy you get that interesting blue flicker, all of which has unfortunately gone missing in the solid state era. Someone with a big old amp should make some YouTube videos for old times sake. |
Even the geek who has everything...
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:09:18 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote: Time out. I am not debating the sound of a solid state audio amp versus a tube audio amp. The difference is noticeable to many and, IMO the tube amp wins every time. I am questioning if anyone can really discern a difference in an amp with tube audio amplifiers that has a solid state, full wave bridge rectifier versus the same tube type amp that also has a tube rectifier section. In both cases, the rectifier, tube or solid state, is simply producing the plate and grid voltages needed for the audio (signal) tube amps. I just don't think that the resultant, filtered high voltage, regardless of source, makes any difference in sound or coloration. All else being equal I'd have to agree. I guess it's possible that a solid state rectifier substituted for a vacuum tube rectifier could result in some subtle voltage differences. |
Even the geek who has everything...
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:09:18 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote: I am questioning if anyone can really discern a difference in an amp with tube audio amplifiers that has a solid state, full wave bridge rectifier versus the same tube type amp that also has a tube rectifier section. In both cases, the rectifier, tube or solid state, is simply producing the plate and grid voltages needed for the audio (signal) tube amps. I just don't think that the resultant, filtered high voltage, regardless of source, makes any difference in sound or coloration I agree and you are correct. It's been one of those days - I'm totally out of synch with life, the universe and everything. Additionally, a certain person of my acquaintance (not to mention any names, but first initial Mrs. last initial Wave) cheerfully informed me that retirement is still a ways off because she has some things she wants to accomplish at a national level with her professional association. I can't freakin' win for losing today. :) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:16 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com