New Toy!

[ron-c]

If it is a lot worse I think we will all know the answer if it is better then? This is a free experiment but I think the 275 just may not be enough power for these speakers at the volume he likes to listen.
Other posters are saying as much with their ML systems. Bi-amping may be the cure.

thanks,
Ron-C

 

[wrat]

If it is a lot worse I think we will all know the answer if it is better then? This is a free experiment but I think the 275 just may not be enough power for these speakers at the volume he likes to listen.
Other posters are saying as much with their ML systems. Bi-amping may be the cure.

thanks,
Ron-C

I am not talking ear shattering volume I am talking about 75-85 db.
The dealer was well aware of my 'Logans and I specifically asked if 1 ohm would be a problem and was told no. Not a huge deal If I decide I cant live with the slight roll off up top I will just return it. I was hoping it would work as my 50 year old Dynaco's can drive them albeit with the slight softening on the top end. I figured the Mc should be able to handle them without breaking a sweat

 

[PHC1]

Exactly what I would expect; but not for the reasons you suggest. Those inefficient SL3 woofers were sucking up all the voltage those particular amps could produce and nothing was left for the panels. Now if you'd had your Bryston 10B and biamped the SL3's (admittedly a pain) and stuck a moderately decent ss amp on the woofers, your sonic experience would have been quite a bit different, I guarantee. Unfortunately, most ML hybrid owners never took things that far, and like you, just bought a ss amp to run the whole speaker and hoped for the best. PS: My CLSIIz + MC275 'sparkles' like you wouldn't believe!

I remember running test tones of between 15Khz-20Khz and while I don't remember how many dBs down they were but they were. Bi-amping would not have helped. The tube amps simply didn't like those low impedance dips as there were no bass notes present, only the pure high frequency test tones.

 

[wrat]

Solution = MC2102 x 2 in mono. This will work for 1,2,4,8, & 16 ohm loads.

No room for Mono blocks so that's not a viable solution

 

[PHC1]

Well i bit the bullet and picked up an MC275 MKV 2 days ago.
And while it seems to have enough power to drive my 'Logans
It also seems a bit soft on the top end.
Now this I expect from my modded Dynaco MK III,s BUT not the Mc any ideas. I am using the stock tubes as I am not about to spend $$ on tubes if this is just a Characteristic of the 275.

You mentioned you don't want to tube roll but I suggest you try the Svetlana Winged "C"s with your 275. I found them to be much more dynamic and extended over the stock tubes and the Valve Art tubes I had in my 275 at the time. It may not get you all the way there but it will be better. :yes:
Try to get a matched and burned in set for best results. You can get that here www.upscaleaudio.com

 

[wrat]

You mentioned you don't want to tube roll but I suggest you try the Svetlana Winged "C"s with your 275. I found them to be much more dynamic and extended over the stock tubes and the Valve Art tubes I had in my 275 at the time. It may not get you all the way there but it will be better. :yes:
Try to get a matched and burned in set for best results. You can get that here www.upscaleaudio.com

just power not driver? thats a stretch as I only have this weekend to decide if I am going to live with it or not. svet wings huh

 

[PHC1]

just power not driver? thats a stretch as I only have this weekend to decide if I am going to live with it or not. svet wings huh

Based on my limited tube rolling experience with the 275, I heard the most difference with the power tubes not the small signal tubes... The Winged Cs are a pretty punchy, dynamic tubes with a very nice midrange. Get them matched, screened for excess curent and burned in. You will like the results. :yes:

 

[nsgarch]

I remember running test tones of between 15Khz-20Khz and while I don't remember how many dBs down they were but they were. Bi-amping would not have helped. The tube amps simply didn't like those low impedance dips as there were no bass notes present, only the pure high frequency test tones.

Well . . . your results could have been due to a number of factors. My point is that reduced high end-response/sparkle is not the result of any general or inherent deficiency of tube amps, which is what your story seemed to suggest. And anyway, watt-for-watt, tube amps are much better at driving current hungry electostats than solid state amps, which run out of current very fast compared to tube amps (expecially Macs) when impedance starts to drop -- and even though ss watts go up as impedance goes down, those "ss watts" as I like to call them, are comprised of BIG voltage and SMALL current. That's great for dynamic speakers, but not for stats.

 

[PHC1]

Well . . . your results could have been due to a number of factors. My point is that reduced high end-response/sparkle is not the result of any general or inherent deficiency of tube amps, which is what your story seemed to suggest. And anyway, watt-for-watt, tube amps are much better at driving current hungry electostats than solid state amps, which run out of current very fast compared to tube amps (expecially Macs) when impedance starts to drop -- and even though ss watts go up as impedance goes down, those "ss watts" as I like to call them, are comprised of BIG voltage and SMALL current. That's great for dynamic speakers, but not for stats.

Big voltage and small current? So the 200 amps peak available from say MC1.2KWs is somehow inferior to the 275? Hmm, seems to me in your passion for tubes, you are trying to bend the Ohm's law once again... As the impedance drops, it opens up the "flood gates" of current in any amp, that is something the SS amp is much more prepared to do over tubes. Not sure what your beef is with McIntosh SS amps but the 501s for example, will put out 1000w into a 2 ohm load from its 4 ohm tap. Try that with a tube amp.

It's all good though, I know you love tubes, I have nothing against them, if you find them to your satisfaction with the MLs, then that's all that matters.

 

[PHC1]

I don't know about ML's but I do know about the larger sized Quad's and tubes are definitely the way to go for the best sound in my opinion. Fortunately, MAC makes excellent tube amplifiers for those power hungry demons. :yes: MAC & Quad work very well together.

Unlike ML, the Quad is actually a fairly easy load to drive for a tube amp having an impedance above 6 ohms for the most part and even having an electrical phase angle of 0 during the time the impedance does dip.

Compare that to the ML CLS which does have a rather low impedance from 4KHz on and even 1.6 ohms at 20KHz.

"Wide-band synthesizers played at high level will not do the amplifier-speaker combination much good, while this load non-uniformity will cause more treble balance variations than usual with different cables and different amplifiers. In fact, one or two power amps may not be too stable with this load under heavy transient drive."

 

[nsgarch]

ohmmmmmmmmmm

Big voltage and small current? So the 200 amps peak available from say MC1.2KWs is somehow inferior to the 275? Hmm, seems to me in your passion for tubes, you are trying to bend the Ohm's law once again... As the impedance drops, it opens up the "flood gates" of current in any amp, that is something the SS amp is much more prepared to do over tubes. Not sure what your beef is with McIntosh SS amps but the 501s for example, will put out 1000w into a 2 ohm load from its 4 ohm tap. Try that with a tube amp.

It's all good though, I know you love tubes, I have nothing against them, if you find them to your satisfaction with the MLs, then that's all that matters.

Sometimes, I can't understand why all kinds of positions/attitudes are ascribed to me which I never expressed?

First of all. what I said was "watt-for-watt". Maybe it wasn't clear that what I meant was two amps of the same rated output. Comparing a MC1.2KW's to MC275's is hardly watt-for-watt. However, I am indeed saying that for each watt in two equally powerful amps, the tube amp has a greater amount of current in each watt and the ss amp has more voltage, because . . .

Second, according to ohms law (and this is for DC but the principle is similar for AC audio signals) in electric circuits, power is a function of both voltage and current. However, power (P) is exactly equal to current (I) multiplied by voltage (E), rather than merely being proportional to IE. When using this formula, the unit of measurement for power is the watt, abbreviated with the letter "W."

It must be understood that neither voltage nor current by themselves constitute power. Rather, power is the combination of both voltage and current in a circuit. Remember that voltage is the specific work (or potential energy) per unit charge, while current is the rate at which electric charges move through a conductor. Voltage (specific work) is analogous to the work done in lifting a weight against the pull of gravity. Current (rate) is analogous to the speed at which that weight is lifted. Together as a product (multiplication), voltage (work) and current (rate) constitute power. So when your 501 is pumping 1000W into 2 ohms, very little of that 1000W is made of current. It's mostly voltage. And that's terrific for driving speakers with lots of voltage hungry dynamic drivers.

So, not all watts are made the same way. Some have more volts and less current (ss amps into low impedance) while other watts have less volts and more current, and still others have pretty much equal amounts of both; like tube amps with output transformers and (McIntosh) ss amps with autoformers.

You're right, I do love tubes in their place! (and the same goes for ss:yes: ) If a transducer/driver thrives on lots of voltage being available, I go SS. If it thrives on lots of current being available, then amp for amp (same wattage output!) I go for a toobie. That's all. It's nothing arbitrary or subjective. Both can sound terrific properly applied. My point is that due to the nature of electrostatic transducers, a tube amp will naturally be the best choice from a current delivery standpoint. Oh sure, you can buy a monster 1000W ss amp and there will be enough current, but really, does that make a lot of sense? Especially when electostats are naturally bright to begin with? Tube amps (good ones like the MC275) are famous for the sweetest midrange; and as Steve Hoffman says in his "Breath of Life" diatribe :yes: if ya ain't got great mid-range, ya ain't got nuthin'!

Gotta go now, hope I didn't upset anyone :thmbsp:

 

[PHC1]

Thanks Serge, that's good to know. :yes: So many speakers, so little time. Anyway, Quad captured my attention back in 1983. They need a fairly large room(probably living room) in order to get the full benefit. If one has the Reference ESL-2905,for example, then might as well get the MC2301's to power them- they are a little bass shy and that extra punch at the low end. :yes:

The Quads don't like to play loud, 98dB is about it for them. After that they will shut down. I'm also not sure about the 2905 but some Quads are limited to 100w so the MC2301s may not be the best choice. :scratch2:

 

[PHC1]

Sometimes, I can't understand why all kinds of positions/attitudes are ascribed to me which I never expressed?

First of all. what I said was "watt-for-watt". Maybe it wasn't clear that what I meant was two amps of the same rated output. Comparing a MC1.2KW's to MC275's is hardly watt-for-watt. However, I am indeed saying that for each watt in two equally powerful amps, the tube amp has a greater amount of current in each watt and the ss amp has more voltage, because . . .

Second, according to ohms law (and this is for DC but the principle is similar for AC audio signals) in electric circuits, power is a function of both voltage and current. However, power (P) is exactly equal to current (I) multiplied by voltage (E), rather than merely being proportional to IE. When using this formula, the unit of measurement for power is the watt, abbreviated with the letter "W."

It must be understood that neither voltage nor current by themselves constitute power. Rather, power is the combination of both voltage and current in a circuit. Remember that voltage is the specific work (or potential energy) per unit charge, while current is the rate at which electric charges move through a conductor. Voltage (specific work) is analogous to the work done in lifting a weight against the pull of gravity. Current (rate) is analogous to the speed at which that weight is lifted. Together as a product (multiplication), voltage (work) and current (rate) constitute power. So when your 501 is pumping 1000W into 2 ohms, very little of that 1000W is made of current. It's mostly voltage. And that's terrific for driving speakers with lots of voltage hungry dynamic drivers.

So, not all watts are made the same way. Some have more volts and less current (ss amps into low impedance) while other watts have less volts and more current, and still others have pretty much equal amounts of both; like tube amps with output transformers and (McIntosh) ss amps with autoformers.

You're right, I do love tubes in their place! (and the same goes for ss:yes: ) If a transducer/driver thrives on lots of voltage being available, I go SS. If it thrives on lots of current being available, then amp for amp (same wattage output!) I go for a toobie. That's all. It's nothing arbitrary or subjective. Both can sound terrific properly applied. My point is that due to the nature of electrostatic transducers, a tube amp will naturally be the best choice from a current delivery standpoint. Oh sure, you can buy a monster 1000W ss amp and there will be enough current, but really, does that make a lot of sense? Especially when electostats are naturally bright to begin with? Tube amps (good ones like the MC275) are famous for the sweetest midrange; and as Steve Hoffman says in his "Breath of Life" diatribe :yes: if ya ain't got great mid-range, ya ain't got nuthin'!

Gotta go now, hope I didn't upset anyone :thmbsp:

Nsgarch,

1. Thanks for the review of the Ohm's law, not necessary for me as I have an electronics degree but maybe others will appreciate it.

2. Simply put, an amplifer takes an input signal and amplifies it in such a way as to preserve the frequency of the signal but increasing the amplitude of it. Period. This results in a higher voltage at the output and across the speaker terminals. The current will depend on the impedance seen by the amplifier as presented by the speaker. Without getting into capacitive, inductive or reactive loads, simply put, the lower the impedance seen by the amp, the more current will flow. This is Ohm's law.

3. Watts are watts you can't get around that. The main reason people even bring up the "tube watts" as if they are somehow different, is because of the difference in clipping between tubes and SS. Tubes being mostly of even order harmonics when clipping and SS being odd order which are tougher on the ears.

4. Everyone knows that tubes are high voltage, low current devices by comparison to SS transistors, thus tube amps require output transformers that step down the high voltage and step up the current.

5. Your example of 1000w of SS power being of very little current makes absolutely no sense as that would imply that there is a tremendous amount of voltage and very little current present across the speaker terminals and this would violate the whole principal of amplification and their associated gain factor not to mention the poor confused speaker that would have to decide if it is being driven by a tube amp or ss amp since there are supposedly different types of watts??? Not to mention that your theory would not allow for those 200 peak amps of current from the MC1.2KW.

6. There is no denying the fact that tube amps do not have the same control over woofers and sometimes highs due to the lack of current they can produce, the transformer core saturation, much lower damping factors of tube amps, etc... Yet you claim that tube watts are somehow different... :scratch2:

 

[masterlu]

Watts it to ya anyway???

 

[PHC1]

Watts it to ya anyway???

I'm waiting for nsgarch to come back and start talking about current source amplifers (Power Transconductance Amplifier) now that we have just about exhausted the traditional "voltage source amplification" issue.

 

[wrat]

Well aside from the SLIGHT roll off on the top end. The Mc is sounding awful good. It just maybe a keeper I am going to talk to a local tube guy tomorrow about some wings

 

[jdandy]

wrat.......Lookin' good.

 

[mjquinn]

Plus 1 to the hundredth power.

Serge, you be the man! I mean with your EE degree which is a beech to get!:thmbsp:

Nsgarch,

1. Thanks for the review of the Ohm's law, not necessary for me as I have an electronics degree but maybe others will appreciate it.

2. Simply put, an amplifer takes an input signal and amplifies it in such a way as to preserve the frequency of the signal but increasing the amplitude of it. Period. This results in a higher voltage at the output and across the speaker terminals. The current will depend on the impedance seen by the amplifier as presented by the speaker. Without getting into capacitive, inductive or reactive loads, simply put, the lower the impedance seen by the amp, the more current will flow. This is Ohm's law.

3. Watts are watts you can't get around that. The main reason people even bring up the "tube watts" as if they are somehow different, is because of the difference in clipping between tubes and SS. Tubes being mostly of even order harmonics when clipping and SS being odd order which are tougher on the ears.

4. Everyone knows that tubes are high voltage, low current devices by comparison to SS transistors, thus tube amps require output transformers that step down the high voltage and step up the current.

5. Your example of 1000w of SS power being of very little current makes absolutely no sense as that would imply that there is a tremendous amount of voltage and very little current present across the speaker terminals and this would violate the whole principal of amplification and their associated gain factor not to mention the poor confused speaker that would have to decide if it is being driven by a tube amp or ss amp since there are supposedly different types of watts??? Not to mention that your theory would not allow for those 200 peak amps of current from the MC1.2KW.

6. There is no denying the fact that tube amps do not have the same control over woofers and sometimes highs due to the lack of current they can produce, the transformer core saturation, much lower damping factors of tube amps, etc... Yet you claim that tube watts are somehow different... :scratch2:

 

[PHC1]

Plus 1 to the hundredth power.

Serge, you be the man! I mean with your EE degree which is a beech to get!:thmbsp:

I only have an associate degree and even that was a looong time ago.

 

[McTwins]

Wrat.... try using balanced wire instead of the RCA i saw in the picture.
I mean, that was a huge different in my setup when I change the cables.

Thanks.