Lon,

Wow, we are texting here. I edited my first response adding a question about 6N1P's and came back to find you had gotten back.  I am inclined to check out the cryo'd  mullards repos. How do recall them sounding in comparison with the Winged C's?

Thanks Lon,

Will

I tried the 6N1P's for while this evening and like them, but find them just a little soft after getting used to the cryo'd 6N23P-EV's (extremely articulate, extended and detailed) and my current favorite, the Haltron 6922's that seem somewhere between...warm but articulate with a tight, but musical bass.

It would be hard to beat the Winged C's, but the Mullards sound worth checking out. So far, though the Integrated and MkIII sound different, they carry so much of the family resemblance and design/build, I have found tubes to move between them pretty well. But it does all come down to the details the amp's signature brings out and there will be no way to know about the Mullards without a try.

It is tube changes in part, but my amp just reached another level. Smoother and more liquid!!! What a pleasure.

I really do look forward to the Styx! Waiting for more cable to come in. Thanks for your thoughts.

Good points Lon. There is the taste thing, and our different physical makeups, but I suspect my problems are mainly room/system synergy and not the amp. When I think of the complexity of what makes up a room/system it makes me feel a little sick though.

So I hear you on the dilemma of to tube roll or not. Veering too far from the tubes Steve used for development could be somewhat futile. It is fun though. And I did not have any problems with the Integrated except that I wanted a little more power. But then that is the very thing that I'm dealing with now...on top of the additional bass extension from the Torii, the power and how it drives the MG944's is clearly part of it. Everything is just that much closer to the edge. At the same time, power, speed and extension are big parts of what makes the amp sound so good! If only Steve had devised a little bass cut pot like the treble pots, my tastes would likely be satisfied.

His meticulous design and development work, and good ears open the door to that truly satisfying sound, and those of us who love his sound trust that he will put us way close, making struggling with the last few percent worth it. Why else would you have put so much energy into the ZCD tweaking? I really hope this amp is not for me like the ZCD was for you, but it is possible dammit. Thanks for your thoughts. They are definitely helpful! And....like you suggested, the Styx may just do it.

I need to talk with Steve about those 26 things...

By the way, on tube roll #1042, I just put in the 6N1P's with a set of cryo'd Sovtek GZ34 Mullard copies and it sounds pretty amazing! I am blown away at how powerfully the rectifiers effect the sound of this amp!

THREE rectifiers huh!!! Do tell. I think your are right about the simple and clean signal path thing, but man, for me anyway, the MkIII brings out the tube differences more than the Integrated did. This amp is amazing.

And yes, I look forward to the Styx and the assurance that I am getting accurate connection with the speakers.

On the room... I found a really good CD for identifying low resonance stuff. Rosa Passos and Ron Carter "Entre Amigos." Demanding Bass tracks, within a very simple matrix of beautiful midrange stuff. I have been messing around with this the whole time, but as I learn more, I am becoming less tolerant of ANY resonance I hear, and this has been having enough positive effect on my low-mid/bass problem to realize that with this amp, in this room, pretty much all the bass resonance has to go....Being all over the room many times, and by solving the broader low end crud, the remaining (and worst) resonance has become really obvious. So, I am much closer and your saying that your room was a bass sucker, and mine having exaggerated bass with the same amp, this was the big pointer.

I was suspicious of the MG944's being sensitive to the deep bass the MkIII produces since my problems were exaggerated by them before I realized the drivers were slightly loose, and also because damping of the driver rings and box did help. After sorting this out, it didn't seem possible that the difference between the MG's and the IT Radials could cause a huge difference in bass response. Also, since the MG's and the MkIII do go low, it is not a surprise that together they bring out room issues that the Integrated and MG's didn't.

Finally, from your pointer, today I have been doing this pretty intense detective work with the stock tubes. So thanks for the dialog Lon.

I'll try Steve today.

This really is a fabulous amplifier.  It's more different than I thought it would be than my Mark II right now.  Sound is very very nice.

I know about being addicted to the Radial sound.  I have two Radial based systems now. . . one in the living-room/dining-room and one in the bedroom.  It's a total gas to have Radials everywhere I listen.

Although you sound as if you're happy with the Jolida, I would be really remiss if I didn't recommend something like the Integrated for that system.  I'm a little biased, I haven't really heard Jolida amps that I like, and I love the Integrated/RL2 combo, really great, especially for a bedroom or office. . . .

Wow. This amplifier is really PLEASING.

Great news Lon.....how much better is the bass control of the MK-III than the MK-II....Steve was pretty stoked about the voice coil cathode bias, and I won't be able to hear it before Decfest  >:(

ZYGI