Improve the sound of your system with a Yaqin Tube Buffer.

Status
Not open for further replies.
cableguy said:
Wow..I can't believe that this still going so strong...Listen to one..that is the simple solution and should be the end all argument. If you do not like what it does so be it...You will at least have first hand experience to share at that point.....As I said before, I have yet to hear a measurement or spec ever....they do not make ant sound. Measurements and specs are tools only. The final judgment should really come from your ears....To me at least, that is the acid test.
Click to expand...

Why would I entertain buying one, if there is no reason to buy one? If there is a reason, what is it?

Is it quieter than running without one? No
Can it improve frequency response? No
Does distortion become reduced? No
Is the output impedance lower than a solid state output? No
Why again am I not as much of an audio lover or understander of audio as you? What problem is getting corrected by this thing? How does it know?
Adding things adds distortion and noise. This thing has no gain and no frequency shaping. Why is sliced bread not better than this?
So, I object to language such as "This will improve your system, just listen". "will improve" is a little strong for the level of evidence here. We're not going to get into a subjective listening test discussion, are we?
 
Jon_Logan said:
Why would I entertain buying one, if there is no reason to buy one? If there is a reason, what is it?

Is it quieter than running without one? No
Can it improve frequency response? No
Does distortion become reduced? No
Is the output impedance lower than a solid state output? No
Why again am I not as much of an audio lover or understander of audio as you? What problem is getting corrected by this thing? How does it know?
Adding things adds distortion and noise. This thing has no gain and no frequency shaping. Why is sliced bread not better than this?
So, I object to language such as "This will improve your system, just listen". "will improve" is a little strong for the level of evidence here. We're not going to get into a subjective listening test discussion, are we?
Click to expand...

So don't get one...Nobody is making you do anything here...it appears you have already made up your mind about this...you already know that it does not improve the sound of said systems...after all you read somewhere that it wont and therefore it must be so...
IMO...since you have no true experience with this unit what exactly do you have to truly contribute the this discussion?
:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
I didn't "read somewhere" that this thing doesn't have a useful function, it's in it's description. I'm saying layering stages upon stages un-necessarily only adds murk, it doesn't give you a more authentic reproduction. I also said, if it doesn't have problems to correct for, any addition would be considered signal processing.

If you try it and like it, how much of that "improvement" will be caused by your expectation of the product? How much will be real? Your test method won't reveal this.
 
Jon_Logan said:
I didn't "read somewhere" that this thing doesn't have a useful function, it's in it's description. I'm saying layering stages upon stages un-necessarily only adds murk, it doesn't give you a more authentic reproduction. I also said, if it doesn't have problems to correct for, any addition would be considered signal processing.

If you try it and like it, how much of that "improvement" will be caused by your expectation of the product? How much will be real? Your test method won't reveal this.
Click to expand...

OK...we disagree on this..OK?...
Furthermore Jon, according to you all of us whom have written about how much we like this unit are all wrong & do not hear correctly. Does that about sum up your contribution to this discussion....
I will now based upon your summation quit listening to my gear...why did I not think of this years ago?
Sheesh...
Jon, enjoy your gear to the fullest, I hope it brings you endless hours of listening enjoyment.....:thmbsp:
 
The way i see it it wont do much good for your systems specs. Is very simple, all specs in your system will go down using this. This doesnt have to be a bad thing. When i read the reviews in this topic no one is noticing any symptoms of these distortions, or the atleast dont experience it as something that downgrades the sound quality. The only thing i read is that everybody loves it for what it does to the sound. Thats all that realy matters right?

Anyway.. still waiting for my one. I want it now!!!! :D

I do have some questions about burning in the tubes. Im new to tubes so i dont know anything about this. How should this be done. Does it matter what kind of signal (music) is used when burning in? Also does it need a load connected to it, i would i just use only the input? that way i could just let it burn in on my tape loop for a while without listening to it.
 
People with first hand knowledge of this unit=:thmbsp: opinions.

Meter reading stat guy=:thumbsdn: opinion.

Put me in group one.

Kris, I'd just plug it in and let'er play, that way you'll gain some understanding about the changes that happen to the sound of tubes as they burn in, a much more useful bit of info than anything you'll find listening to a stat sheet...:yes:
 
Kegger said:
Not to mention what a buffer does in the first place, be it tube or solid state.
Click to expand...
The buffer (SS) already exists. If low source impedance and high input impedance is your goal, which it should be at audio frequencies with less than a mile of cable, the SS buffer without addition is superior.

Kegger said:
Different types of distortion are only but one piece that make tubes and ss dif.
Click to expand...
Not different from what I said, signal processing. But essentially, any addition to the original signal might be pleasant, but it is distortion. I really feel you all disagree with that. Do you really want to make that argument? My objection is with the authority you show regarding the differences. "It is x", "It will do x", etc. Do you all agree with what "x" is? If the assertions were a little less forceful like "I thought it did x". Without any specification of it's intended purpose, how can it ever be asked to meet it's application. ...It just makes the music magical... ...okay:thmbsp:
 
Seems like about time to close the thread or toss the thread crapper.

The OP states that he likes the sound and asserts that you may be able to improve the sound of your system with the Yaqin tube buffer. Tube buffers aren't new and they have been recommended by folks with more audio experience than all of us. As Bill says, try one and if you like it great and if not just as great. If you don't want to try it then move on and find some other subject to ruminate on...good grief.
 
Jon_Logan said:
The buffer (SS) already exists. If low source impedance and high input impedance is your goal, which it should be at audio frequencies with less than a mile of cable, the SS buffer without addition is superior.

That is your oppinion, not fact!

Not different from what I said, signal processing. But essentially, any addition to the original signal might be pleasant, but it is distortion. I really feel you all disagree with that. Do you really want to make that argument? My objection is with the authority you show regarding the differences. "It is x", "It will do x", etc. Do you all agree with what "x" is? If the assertions were a little less forceful like "I thought it did x". Without any specification of it's intended purpose, how can it ever be asked to meet it's application. ...It just makes the music magical... ...okay:thmbsp:
Click to expand...


(not denying that a lot of specs are worse with tubes)
If all you look at is the published specs then YOU have no need to audition ANYTHING then,
just get the piece with the best published specs you can afford, it sounds like you are all set,
should make it quite easy for you to setup a great system, even any cheap cd-player would do.

I am not saying nor even going anywhere near that someone should prefer tubes or solid state, I am
just objecting to closed possibilty by some that if a piece is inserted into there chain and if that same
piece does not meet there technical demands that it can't possibly improve there system/sound better.

No one should buy into ad claims, and certainly there are some wacky ones, but once you try something
and it works for you it is pretty hard to right it off, no I do not think a piece like this is a "cure all" and it
may not make everyones system sound better to them, but for many it just may. Try one out and see..
 
Kegger said:
(not denying that a lot of specs are worse with tubes)
If all you look at is the published specs then YOU have no need to audition ANYTHING then,
just get the piece with the best published specs you can afford, it sounds like you are all set,
should make it quite easy for you to setup a great system, even any cheap cd-player would do.

I am not saying nor even going anywhere near that someone should prefer tubes or solid state, I am
just objecting to closed possibilty by some that if a piece is inserted into there chain and if that same
piece does not meet there technical demands that it can't possibly improve there system/sound better.

No one should buy into ad claims, and certainly there are some wacky ones, but once you try something
and it works for you it is pretty hard to right it off, no I do not think a piece like this is a "cure all" and it
may not make everyones system sound better to them, but for many it just may. Try one out and see..
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
Well, I just ordered the one from the Canadian guy. I like the aluminum bezel better that the Chinese clear plastic bezel. Like others have said, if I like it then great. If not, paper weight or resell it on ebay. I'll try other tubes too after burning in the stock tubes. The science behind it? I'll pee on a spark plug if I thought I can make my harsh sounding CDs sound better. Why is that? Some CDs sound great, others sound like garbage. I have a bunch of those mobile fidelity half speeds records that kick any CD's butt. I can't afford a tube CD player, maybe this will get me closer to that type of sound.
 
Jon_Logan said:
....double blind test and A-B switch. Any takers?
Click to expand...

OK Jon, you buy one. Gather a panel and put this together. We will be waiting to read your findings. Sounds fair & reasonable enough to me....
But in all fairness as an owner I already know the answer/findings....having firsthand exposure is a priceless asset and gives any of us who fall into that category an unfair advantage over a "meter reading stat guy"...:D

(reaches for ignore feature...sigh)
 
ClaudeM said:
Well, I just ordered the one from the Canadian guy. I like the aluminum bezel better that the Chinese clear plastic bezel. Like others have said, if I like it then great. If not, paper weight or resell it on ebay. I'll try other tubes too after burning in the stock tubes. The science behind it? I'll pee on a spark plug if I thought I can make my harsh sounding CDs sound better. Why is that? Some CDs sound great, others sound like garbage. I have a bunch of those mobile fidelity half speeds records that kick any CD's butt. I can't afford a tube CD player, maybe this will get me closer to that type of sound.
Click to expand...

I hope it works out for you Claude...That is exactly why I bought one...in my case so far so good...:thmbsp:
 
I got mine yesterday. I was impressed with the packaging from the Canadian supplier. Smaller than I expected, but nice build quality. Plugged in the tubes and ran it inline with my HD Tuner for the time being so i could start the burn in process. Can't see a whole lot of difference yet, but i really haven't given it a chance. I plan on running it through the pre-out main-in jacks on my NAD and continue the burn in. I will also swap some speakers around and also bring in my over 100 watts RMS Sansui old school integrated and try it with that as well.

I'll keep everyone posted.
 
It sounds like you don't go by numbers at all. That's cool, but with good test gear you can correlate what you're hearing to measurements.
I use careful measurements to back up what I hear.

If your only test is a listing test, (which is fine), take out the errors as much as possible.
I find that a test methodology of turning things off, reconnecting and listening for awhile is error prone. Sonic memory is not as good as you might believe. That will be a fact, by the way

But, if that is your only test criteria, make it a good test and allow instantaneous switching of the cathode follower output and the "naked" SS output (Level matched, of course). Then, if the tubed output can be reliably ID'd and is deemed better than the naked output, then I don't have any problem with statements such as "Improve the sound of your system with a Yaqin Tube Buffer". Your encouraging others to drop 2 hun on something with no/poor science behind it. ...and seem to cringe when I call it signal processing. I'm not saying you're wrong for wanting signal processing, but own it. It is what it is.
 
Jon_Logan said:
It sounds like you don't go by numbers at all. That's cool, but with good test gear you can correlate what you're hearing to measurements.
I use careful measurements to back up what I hear.

If your only test is a listing test, (which is fine), take out the errors as much as possible.
I find that a test methodology of turning things off, reconnecting and listening for awhile is error prone. Sonic memory is not as good as you might believe. That will be a fact, by the way

But, if that is your only test criteria, make it a good test and allow instantaneous switching of the cathode follower output and the "naked" SS output (Level matched, of course). Then, if the tubed output can be reliably ID'd and is deemed better than the naked output, then I don't have any problem with statements such as "Improve the sound of your system with a Yaqin Tube Buffer". Your encouraging others to drop 2 hun on something with no/poor science behind it. ...and seem to cringe when I call it signal processing. I'm not saying you're wrong for wanting signal processing, but own it. It is what it is.
Click to expand...

boring-presentation.gif
 
Jon_Logan said:
It sounds like you don't go by numbers at all. That's cool, but with good test gear you can correlate what you're hearing to measurements.
Click to expand...

I'm a tech, so I do go by the numbers, but I don't let the numbers only sway me.
 
Not sure of the relevence, but the effect that this tube buffer has on my current SS gear will be a huge factor in whether I buy a tube amp or not.
 
I use careful measurements to back up what I hear.
Click to expand...
But you have never heard one of these...we have established that...:scratch2:
I have to agree with Art on here...this has simply become a case of "Thread Crapping".....:thumbsdn:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom