What audio system do you have, or plan on getting?

[hopefullytrusting]

Had to find a gif that was a perfect metaphor for this thread:

[AnotherSpin]

Had to find a gif that was a perfect metaphor for this thread:

I don't believe this GIF would be appropriate. Personally, I have no objection if someone reads on some objectivist site that a certain cheap Chinese DAC has excellent measurements and then decides to buy it, only to find themselves puzzled as to why the music doesn't quite move them. I couldn't care less, and I won't offer any explanations. As for why objectivists feel obliged to attack anyone who enjoys fine audio, that too is of no concern to me. In short, I have no intention of engaging in any quarrels, let alone fights .

[ritter]

This thread is millimetres away from being locked.

Once again, I am surprised that members think that expressing diverging opinions is only done to derail a thread.

[AnotherSpin]

This thread is millimetres away from being locked.

Once again, I am surprised that members think that expressing diverging opinions is only done to derail a thread.

Be calm, no one is surprised by your surprise.

[steve ridgway]

I'd find researching, evaluating and upgrading hi fi equipment a fascinating hobby, but am now more mindful of the cost and able to resist the temptation.

[AnotherSpin]

I'd find researching, evaluating and upgrading hi fi equipment a fascinating hobby, but am now more mindful of the cost and able to resist the temptation.

And this is a perfectly reasonable approach. Not all good audio solutions are necessarily expensive, and sometimes optimization can even lead to cost reduction. I have experienced this more than once.

[Fëanor]

I decided a couple of days ago to revert to using of my tube preamplifier, at least for a time. For several months I'd been driving my solid-state power amp directly from my solid-state DAC.

Some will know that a joy of tube equipment is the ability to change the tubes one is using in a particular component.  In the vernacular this is referred to as "tube rolling", which can modify the resulting sound to a greater or lesser extent.

My own tube preamp is the venerable Sonic Frontiers Line 1, (in my case upgraded to "SE+" condition).  See this picture of the innards of my SF Line 1, post-upgrade ...



One will note there are six vacuum tubes.  For those with any knowledge of the subject the top, (as pictured), left+right pair are part of the input section, the middle pair serve to provide "gain", i.e. voltage increase hence volume, the bottom pair are "cathode followers" which regulate the output impedance.

In case of the SF Line 1 the greatest effect on the sound is produced by the gain stage, the middle L+R pair.

When I first reverted to my tube preamp, I decided to use a pair of vintage USA-made Amperex white label 'PQ' 6290 tubes, these manufactured no more recently than the early 1970s.  (Unused vintage tubes are referred to as "NOS", new old stock;  I got mine used, not new, for much less money.)

However I soon realized the sound of the Amperex tubes is really too "full" and "warm" sounding, or as I put in, like listening to someone with a head cold.  So I "rolled" the Amperex for a pair of recent manufacture, Russian-made Reflector 6H23p-EB/6922 tubes.

The sound is hugely improved over the vintage tubes, albeit lot more solid state-like.

[AnotherSpin]

I decided a couple of days ago to revert to using of my tube preamplifier, at least for a time. For several months I'd been driving my solid-state power amp directly from my solid-state DAC.

Some will know that a joy of tube equipment is the ability to change the tubes one is using in a particular component.  In the vernacular this is referred to as "tube rolling", which can modify the resulting sound to a greater or lesser extent.

My own tube preamp is the venerable Sonic Frontiers Line 1, (in my case upgraded to "SE+" condition).  See this picture of the innards of my SF Line 1, post-upgrade ...



One will note there are six vacuum tubes.  For those with any knowledge of the subject the top, (as pictured), left+right pair are part of the input section, the middle pair serve to provide "gain", i.e. voltage increase hence volume, the bottom pair are "cathode followers" which regulate the output impedance.

In case of the SF Line 1 the greatest effect on the sound is produced by the gain stage, the middle L+R pair.

When I first reverted to my tube preamp, I decided to use a pair of vintage USA-made Amperex white label 'PQ' 6290 tubes, these manufactured no more recently than the early 1970s.  (Unused vintage tubes are referred to as "NOS", new old stock;  I got mine used, not new, for much less money.)

However I soon realized the sound of the Amperex tubes is really too "full" and "warm" sounding, or as I put in, like listening to someone with a head cold.  So I "rolled" the Amperex for a pair of recent manufacture, Russian-made Reflector 6H23p-EB/6922 tubes.

The sound is hugely improved over the vintage tubes, albeit lot more solid state-like.

In those years, when I was experimenting with tube gear, I was curious to try as many tubes from different manufacturers as possible. The results can be summed up in two general conclusions:

1. NOS tubes were the most interesting;
2. Russian tubes generally sounded bad — flat and unnatural, with a kind of metallic aftertaste.

The Yugoslav ones were definitely better than the Russian. I never tried Chinese tubes.

[drogulus]

     My problem is that all my AV stuff works just fine, so I'm not highly motivated to buy anything. I like virtual window shopping and that's enough for now.

[Fëanor]

In those years, when I was experimenting with tube gear, I was curious to try as many tubes from different manufacturers as possible. The results can be summed up in two general conclusions:

1. NOS tubes were the most interesting;
2. Russian tubes generally sounded bad — flat and unnatural, with a kind of metallic aftertaste.

The Yugoslav ones were definitely better than the Russian. I never tried Chinese tubes.

Perhaps you might try the Reflectors.  I like mine and their reputation is better than Sovtek and Svetlanas. However I grant that they aren't as "romantic" as some vintage tubes.

[AnotherSpin]

Since many people here listen to music on their computers by playing audio files, I believe it might be interesting to discuss which software-based audio players are commonly used. I'll share my own experience here.

Like many others, I began long ago with Winamp, a simple, almost iconic player of its day. In time I moved on to Foobar2000, which proved more engaging thanks to its remarkable customisation options and wide format support.

As my curiosity about high-end audio equipment deepened, I naturally began searching for more ambitious software players. The first to make a genuine impression on me was Amarra, in several of its incarnations. For the first time, digital files on a computer began to sound at least comparable to compact discs played through a good standalone player. Amarra was very much a premium product, designed for audiophiles, and even offered features such as room treatment filters for tailoring playback to the peculiarities of one's listening space. Sadly, the company ceased active development, and the player gradually slipped into obscurity.

My next mainstay, for several years, was Audirvāna, a French programme, initially free, much admired for its bit-perfect playback, and support of high-resolution formats. It was an excellent player in many ways, but over time the direction of its development no longer appealed to me, and the price rose considerably.

The player I kept the longest, however, was HQPlayer, created by the Finnish engineer Jussi Laako. It is nothing short of extraordinary. HQPlayer is not merely a player but a full digital signal processor, designed to stretch the limits of audio fidelity. Its strengths include:

- Real-time upsampling of PCM to high-rate DSD or very high-resolution PCM, using sophisticated algorithms such as poly-sinc and closed-form filters.
- Room correction, convolution processing, and headroom management for highly precise playback.
- A wealth of filters, noise shapers, dithering options, and more besides.
- Support for NAA (Network Audio Adapter), allowing a secondary computer or device to serve as the output and thus reduce interference.

The results were nothing short of remarkable. HQPlayer is really for those who wish not only to hear their music but to shape its digital contours according to personal taste. This was the best software player I ever used.

I've mentioned only the principal players I used in earnest, but in fact I tried almost everything available. whether widely known or entirely obscure.

In time, though, the rapid rise of streaming services brought this chapter to a close. These days I rarely play files, though I still keep extensive archives. When I do, I turn to Pine Player, a free Japanese programme, simple yet quite useful.

HQPlayer itself offers integration with Qobuz, but I no longer feel inclined to maintain a complex and costly system with NAA.

I should perhaps add a word about Roon, which can also be considered a player. I did try it, and liked the sound, yet for one reason or another I never purchased it, perhaps owing to the costly subscription model, or the architecture of the system.

My main computers were Macs.

[AnotherSpin]

Perhaps you might try the Reflectors.  I like mine and their reputation is better than Sovtek and Svetlanas. However I grant that they aren't as "romantic" as some vintage tubes.

Thank you for the recommendation, but I no longer use tube equipment. In any case, I have little desire to touch anything Russian.

[Spotted Horses]

I decided a couple of days ago to revert to using of my tube preamplifier, at least for a time. For several months I'd been driving my solid-state power amp directly from my solid-state DAC.

Some will know that a joy of tube equipment is the ability to change the tubes one is using in a particular component.  In the vernacular this is referred to as "tube rolling", which can modify the resulting sound to a greater or lesser extent.

My own tube preamp is the venerable Sonic Frontiers Line 1, (in my case upgraded to "SE+" condition).  See this picture of the innards of my SF Line 1, post-upgrade ...



One will note there are six vacuum tubes.  For those with any knowledge of the subject the top, (as pictured), left+right pair are part of the input section, the middle pair serve to provide "gain", i.e. voltage increase hence volume, the bottom pair are "cathode followers" which regulate the output impedance.

In case of the SF Line 1 the greatest effect on the sound is produced by the gain stage, the middle L+R pair.

When I first reverted to my tube preamp, I decided to use a pair of vintage USA-made Amperex white label 'PQ' 6290 tubes, these manufactured no more recently than the early 1970s.  (Unused vintage tubes are referred to as "NOS", new old stock;  I got mine used, not new, for much less money.)

However I soon realized the sound of the Amperex tubes is really too "full" and "warm" sounding, or as I put in, like listening to someone with a head cold.  So I "rolled" the Amperex for a pair of recent manufacture, Russian-made Reflector 6H23p-EB/6922 tubes.

The sound is hugely improved over the vintage tubes, albeit lot more solid state-like.

I find this fascinatingly weird. Wasn't the amp designed to use specific model tubes? Do these other tubes you are "rolling" have different specs than the design tubes? If so, doesn't that mean that you are purposefully putting in components that are incompatible with the design, ruining the performance of the amp? Or are these other tubes supposed to have identical specifications, meaning that the design is so unstable that it is sensitive to expected variation in component parameters?

I interpret "solid state-like" as meaning the amp is regrettably performing as designed.

I can't imagine playing similar games with a proper amp. "Let's see what happens if we replace the JFET output stage with these MOSFETs. Keep the fire extinguisher handy."

[71 dB]

This thread is millimetres away from being locked.

This time I won't take any responsibility for this thread getting locked. I have been practicing pretty strong self-censorship in order to help keep this thread unlocked.

[AnotherSpin]

I find this fascinatingly weird. Wasn't the amp designed to use specific model tubes? Do these other tubes you are "rolling" have different specs than the design tubes? If so, doesn't that mean that you are purposefully putting in components that are incompatible with the design, ruining the performance of the amp? Or are these other tubes supposed to have identical specifications, meaning that the design is so unstable that it is sensitive to expected variation in component parameters?

I interpret "solid state-like" as meaning the amp is regrettably performing as designed.

I can't imagine playing similar games with a proper amp. "Let's see what happens if we replace the JFET output stage with these MOSFETs. Keep the fire extinguisher handy."

From internet:

Tube rolling (swapping vacuum tubes in audio equipment) is possible because most tube amplifiers are designed with interchangeable tube sockets that accept standard tube types (like 12AX7, EL34, 6L6, etc.). These tubes follow shared electrical specifications, allowing users to experiment with different brands or models without modifying the circuitry.

Even when tubes share the same type designation, their internal construction, materials, and tolerances can vary significantly between manufacturers. Here's what makes the difference:

- Plate structure and geometry: The shape and spacing of internal components affect electron flow, influencing tone and dynamics.
- Cathode coatings and grid design: These impact gain, noise levels, and harmonic content.
- Glass envelope and vacuum quality: Can affect microphonics (sensitivity to vibration) and long-term stability.
- Manufacturing era and origin: Vintage tubes (e.g., Mullard from the UK, Telefunken from Germany) often have distinct sonic signatures compared to modern Chinese or Russian tubes.
- Circuit interaction: A tube might sound lush in one amp and brittle in another due to how it interacts with bias voltage, feedback loops, and load impedance.

Some differences are measurable, like gain, distortion, or noise floor. Others are more subjective: warmth, clarity, "air," or "punch." That's why tube rolling is as much art as science, and why audiophiles chase the elusive "perfect match" for their gear and taste.

[drogulus]

    I have a fantasy where I get a Standel combo amp to put my JBL D123 in.

    If there was ever an "audiophile" guitar amp it was the Standel, which was first produced in the early '50s.

     The model I would choose has the 7591 power tubes

[Fëanor]

I find this fascinatingly weird. Wasn't the amp designed to use specific model tubes? Do these other tubes you are "rolling" have different specs than the design tubes? If so, doesn't that mean that you are purposefully putting in components that are incompatible with the design, ruining the performance of the amp? Or are these other tubes supposed to have identical specifications, meaning that the design is so unstable that it is sensitive to expected variation in component parameters?

I interpret "solid state-like" as meaning the amp is regrettably performing as designed.

I can't imagine playing similar games with a proper amp. "Let's see what happens if we replace the JFET output stage with these MOSFETs. Keep the fire extinguisher handy."

I'd guess it fairly rare that an amp designer would design for single tube maker, (though there a few examples), because most tube amp builders don't make their own tubes and need that ability to change suppliers.  As AnotherSpin explained, each variety of tubes is supposed to meet specific parameters hence interchangeability is generally presumed.

As for solid-state amps, many provide some scope for swapping components, specifically "op-amps", (operational amplifiers);  These come in the form of integrated chips in standard form-factors that are largely interchangeable.

So for example in the case of my VTV Purifi 1ET400A-base power amplifier which uses VTV's I/O buffer, I was able to swap, ("roll"), op-amps.  I tried about half a dozen different varieties and settled on Sparkos SS3602's.

However it's probably fair to say that the sound differences between op-amps are much less than between tubes.

[AnotherSpin]

I'd guess it fairly rare that an amp designer would design for single tube maker, (though there a few examples), because most tube amp builders don't make their own tubes and need that ability to change suppliers.  As AnotherSpin explained, each variety of tubes is supposed to meet specific parameters hence interchangeability is generally presumed.

As for solid-state amps, many provide some scope for swapping components, specifically "op-amps", (operational amplifiers);  These come in the form of integrated chips in standard form-factors that are largely interchangeable.

So for example in the case of my VTV Purifi 1ET400A-base power amplifier which uses VTV's I/O buffer, I was able to swap, ("roll"), op-amps.  I tried about half a dozen different varieties and settled on Sparkos SS3602's.

However it's probably fair to say that the sound differences between op-amps are much less than between tubes.

You are absolutely right. In solid-state equipment, changing op-amps can refine noise, detail, and dynamics. Low-noise types give you a cleaner background and tighter bass, while more musical options bring out a richer midrange and smoother highs. High-speed designs take things further by sharpening transient response and adding resolution.

In DACs and network streamers, the converter chip and clock circuitry largely determine resolution and coloration. Companies like Schiit, offer swappable plug-in cards such as the Unison USB module for their DACs. This kind of upgrade improves USB input isolation, reclocking, and overall sonic performance. You can either install the card yourself or have the manufacturer do it for you.

Capacitors and resistors in the signal path also make a noticeable difference. Film-type coupling capacitors open up the highs and tighten the bass, while tantalum or electrolytic capacitors add body to the midrange and give a warmer overall signature. Metal-foil resistors lower noise and clean up transient response.

Even the supporting parts of the power supply matter. Better-quality power-supply capacitors can bring firmer bass and more nuance. The type of fuse, whether slow-blow or fast-acting, can subtly affect transient attack and decay. And upgraded voltage regulators give you cleaner rails, which translates into better clarity and a lower noise floor.

[Fëanor]

You are absolutely right. In solid-state equipment, changing op-amps can refine noise, detail, and dynamics. Low-noise types give you a cleaner background and tighter bass, while more musical options bring out a richer midrange and smoother highs. High-speed designs take things further by sharpening transient response and adding resolution.

In DACs and network streamers, the converter chip and clock circuitry largely determine resolution and coloration. Companies like Schiit, offer swappable plug-in cards such as the Unison USB module for their DACs. This kind of upgrade improves USB input isolation, reclocking, and overall sonic performance. You can either install the card yourself or have the manufacturer do it for you.

Capacitors and resistors in the signal path also make a noticeable difference. Film-type coupling capacitors open up the highs and tighten the bass, while tantalum or electrolytic capacitors add body to the midrange and give a warmer overall signature. Metal-foil resistors lower noise and clean up transient response.

Even the supporting parts of the power supply matter. Better-quality power-supply capacitors can bring firmer bass and more nuance. The type of fuse, whether slow-blow or fast-acting, can subtly affect transient attack and decay. And upgraded voltage regulators give you cleaner rails, which translates into better clarity and a lower noise floor.

So indeed when Parts ConneXion restored & upgraded my Sonic Frontiers Line 1 preamplifier, (mentioned above), they extensively replace components with more contemporary and (presumably) better components.  Notably numerous power supply capacitors were replaced and, very notably, the signal output capacitors.

My impression is that the sound was slightly improved although, of course, I couldn't make a direct before/after comparison.

[Spotted Horses]

I'd guess it fairly rare that an amp designer would design for single tube maker, (though there a few examples), because most tube amp builders don't make their own tubes and need that ability to change suppliers.  As AnotherSpin explained, each variety of tubes is supposed to meet specific parameters hence interchangeability is generally presumed.

As for solid-state amps, many provide some scope for swapping components, specifically "op-amps", (operational amplifiers);  These come in the form of integrated chips in standard form-factors that are largely interchangeable.

So for example in the case of my VTV Purifi 1ET400A-base power amplifier which uses VTV's I/O buffer, I was able to swap, ("roll"), op-amps.  I tried about half a dozen different varieties and settled on Sparkos SS3602's.

However it's probably fair to say that the sound differences between op-amps are much less than between tubes.

The contrast is interesting. Vacuum tubes are well before my time and I have never designed a vacuum tube amp. But I've worked on a fair bit of analog circuitry using Op Amps and discrete components. It is clear from your description that a single vacuum tube is essenitially the amplifier, with supporting circuitry there to power it, bias it properly, condition the signal, etc. The vacuum tube's behavior would determine the performance.

In a solid state circuit your Op Amp is thought of as an infinity gain component and a feedback network more or less completely determines its behavior. The classic LM741 Op Amp had about two dozen transistors and other components inside producing an open loop gain of about 20,000 (if memory serves) and you would add a feedback network to produce an amp with a gain of 5, maybe. The Op Amp spec mainly matters when noise is considered. You would choose a chip with a bipolar input stage if voltage noise was more important, and FET input stage if current noise was more important, and output stage depending on the load and the required output impedance. You would also worry about slewing limitations. But in a competently designed circuit an Op Amp would never "color" the sound.