audiodon
Addicted Member
The Fisher's low end was pleasantly lumpy before. To a certain extent, it's a very listenable and forgiving of input source frequency curve, such as one would select with an equalizer.
With the work Dave's done on the X-101-C, I've discovered that, with the tone controls out, it very much sounds like:
1. The Fisher X-1000 Dave had worked on before and did some similar, but not the same, work to (different type of tone amp)
2. The Harman Kardon 260A Chorale (HK hot rod) that I restored that has a factory selectable tone control defeat switch.
I believe that in the HK, they made an effort at the design level to have the different stages be closer to flat, rather than to have one stage compensate for the lack of flatness on another stage, as in the X-101-C.
The overall end result? Smooth and non-fatiguing linearity. Very listenable, not tubey, not bumpy, not with any exaggerations, but it also puts out low low bass where it exists and is often obscured by mid-bass (which starts surprisingly low).
With the work Dave's done on the X-101-C, I've discovered that, with the tone controls out, it very much sounds like:
1. The Fisher X-1000 Dave had worked on before and did some similar, but not the same, work to (different type of tone amp)
2. The Harman Kardon 260A Chorale (HK hot rod) that I restored that has a factory selectable tone control defeat switch.
I believe that in the HK, they made an effort at the design level to have the different stages be closer to flat, rather than to have one stage compensate for the lack of flatness on another stage, as in the X-101-C.
The overall end result? Smooth and non-fatiguing linearity. Very listenable, not tubey, not bumpy, not with any exaggerations, but it also puts out low low bass where it exists and is often obscured by mid-bass (which starts surprisingly low).