While waiting for my ufo2.1 ( I even ordered a 2nd amp to run in monoblock fashion as I was really afraid I wouldnt have enough headroom on hand). I had just liquidated my lifelong collection of speakers (vintage and newer) of about 60 pair or more. I was in reset mode for my SE flea watt journey. I searched hard for any review of compatibility with the newer lower priced Klipsch line and saw plenty of people questioning if rp-8000f would be a good match but the few answers I found seemed to lean to 'not so much' a good pairing.
Reichert gave a thumbs up with the rp-600m and seems like people even doubted that.The Audiophiliac thumbed up the Cornwall IV combo but that's a much more efficient speaker then rp-8000f.
I bought the rp-8000f's anyway as a stand in speaker until I found  what I really wanted to settle down with and I am glad I did ( sort of ) . My only issue with the rp-8000f's is that they made me lazy in search of finding a better speaker. I was truly surprised of the volume and headroom I got with the UFO2.1 / Klipsch rp-8000f combo. They are on the boomy side due to my small room but it's still a amazing listening experience.

source components were very much budget bangers and nothing high end, an older Rotel CD changer with a Audio Alchemy Dac in a Box using older cables with no name on them, probably Vampire wire cables and my speaker cables were some budget Straight Wire Rythm quad wired cables I bought for $1 a foot in the 90's .
Ill upgrade cables when I feel the mood.

I did notice a slight volume drop compared to cd's when I hooked my turntable up with a schiit phono preamp but I removed it to check my preamp gain switch settings on bottom of schiit and I havent followed up on the issue as of yet.

For me, I can tell my UFO 2 has less power behind the bass, compared to my 300B and other 20 watt amp.  Even with my 95 sensitivity Tekton speakers.  However, the UFO 2 does produce satisfactory bass, provided you do not listen at high listening volumes.  

" I can tell my UFO 2 has less power behind the bass, compared to my 300B and other 20 watt amp"


Yes, and those were the fairly common statements that had me worried about the 2.3 watts being enough. Reading that people felt the amp would get thin upon increased volume before hitting satisfactory volume and the Zrock unit being needed for punch or slam etc.......

Along with the forementioned gear I used with the UFO2.1 , I have alot of gear pass through my hands ( its my hobby ) and I trust my ears enough to understand the different levels of  bass impact and quality. I was currently also listening to NHT 3.3's being driven by a pair of B&K ex442 amps that produced ball punching bass. I also listen to a friends system utilizing a trio of JL Audio Fathom subs along with their own crossover unit. 2 F113's and 1 F110 . So i get 'bass' and what it can sound like.
I attest the UFO2.1 in my small room with very modest gear and the maybe not so ideal rp8000f's deliver bass that is maybe the best Ive heard so far to this point.
I was really surprised.

FWIW the bass from my UFOs (configured as balanced monoblocs) is better, and not by a small margin, with my Omega SAMs then it was with my Pass Aleph 2 100 watt SEM (single ended mosfet) monos.

[highlightFWIW the bass from my UFOs (configured as balanced monoblocs) is better, and not by a small margin, with my Omega SAMs then it was with my Pass Aleph 2 100 watt SEM (single ended mosfet) monos.
][/highlight]

Awesome , I've yet to invest real time into running both of my amps as monoblocks. I cant wait.

"Coming from the solid state world where volume/tone is linear"


Never heard that one before.

From another thread:

Quote:

@Kamran

I also picked up a second hand Racheal after receiving my ufo2.1's . I hooked it up to make sure it was working but didnt want to distract from my study of the ufo2.1's so I put it on the 'soon to explore' shelf . I didnt listen to it long enough to comment on what I heard other then my ears were pleased with what I did briefly hear.

The Klipsch rp line sure does bring out alot of various opinions but all I know is i love listening to mine and will be keepers even when I do find something more room cooperative.

Ill drop some listening observations when I spend some time with the Racheal and the 8000f's .

“ i have found some recordings that dont sound so great on this system ( mainly older rock recordings )”

This is because those recordings don’t sound great.
The material is great but the mastered mixes not-so-much. Giles Martin and Steven Wilson have shown us that the multitracks can sound wonderful and robust making me believe a different kind of volume war reduced the overall fidelity.

He was not evicted by Donnie, and was not breaking that rule.

He may have accidentally done this, I once deleted my account and everything disappeared, all posts, not even showing me as an ex-member.

Hope all is well Lin.

@Kahuna Jack: Will look forward to your observations. Btw, which year of manufacture Rachael did you get (if you remember offhand)? Any mods on it?

My Dennis Had KT-88 SEP ships tomorrow.  Already pulled the trigger on the Pope 6V6GT’s, so I can test the amp on a lower power tube.  Although Dennis told me start breaking it in with the KT-88’s that ship with the amp.

Back on track reference 2.3 watts and if they provide enough power,?  I am using my Zen25th to power 1976 KlipschHorns. My gut reaction was to purchase a pair and run them as mono-blocks but I already owned amps that push 3 wpc, 12wpc, 25wpc, 35wpc and more via solid state pieces too. I decided to keep it as clean and simple as possible and stuck to just purchasing a single unit. Not only do my K-horns sound excellent my Ωmega XRS6 Alnico speakers also play just fine on 2.3 wpc. As I go down the line to less sensitive speakers volume output lowers and clipping will become an issue so I play the amp to its strengths not it’s deficiencies. Keep your speakers over 96db sensitivity and you should get proper output. Over 100db sensitivity and you will never feel underpowered or lacking in volume ability. My .02 opinion and experience worth nothing to anyone who can’t visit and experience it for themselves in my room. Thank you Mr. Deckert for the wonderful products. Love them.

@Kamran

Dennis Had amps look like fun. I love looking at all of the independent builders tube amps on the glow in the dark site.

My Racheal is a .4 version from 2014 . It has ufo outputs , square block jupiter caps , blue rca sub jacks and 2 stepped volume controls and 1 set of inputs. Ill have to look closer to see what/if any mods/upgrades are on it.

@ EdwardT

yup lol , my Rainbow ( blackmore/dio) On Stage lp has been my "go to" to see how crappy I can get my stereo to sound forever but I yet to hear the remaster . Im not getting my hopes up to high but hey who knows ?

Looking forward to hearing as well. Like Brad, I purchased an mkv because my friend has the mkiii and it’s so nice. Now he got the 25th anniversary, with the csp3-25. Can’t wait to hear the differences. This is going to be a fun journey!

kahuna,

i have the exact same size room as you. i sit at the apex of a 7x7x7 triangle. single driver speakers. with the taboo, too many recordings were a tad lean, some more than others, and that’s with zrock2 bass eq and a single subwoofer.

i can only say the overall presentation and rendering by Steve’s 2.3w UFO2 has to be quite superior to the 3.2w Taboo. Like I mentioned earlier, the Taboo MK 4 was developed for headphones first in mind, and speakers are secondary. I tried to make the Taboo work for me, but I’m the end no dice. For headphones, that amp is insanely great…..for speakers not so much, at least to my ears and my goals. I lived and I learned.

Sean,

I have been enjoying my 2.1 since mid-Oct. 21 and love it. Ordered the CSP3 end of Nov 21. I also had some concerns about 2.3 watts, mainly no reference as never listened to a tube amp before. But my speakers are 98db,
and all I read indicated I was good, and I was. My room is pretty much 15 x 15 x 9, so not best configuration, but lots of natural diffusion, with some open walls that I think helps with reflections.

The first thing I noticed was the excellent sound, deep, fast, luscious. And volume for me has been great. According to my iPhone app I enjoy listening in the 75-85 decibel range up to low 90's if I want to push it, but don't very much. It is so wonderful sounding at moderate levels there is no desire.

I do have the XLR connections and enjoy that bit of gain, but it is also fine without, as experiments have shown.

Adjusting base spikes to full height ( ports are on bottom and sitting on medium grade carpet) on Zu's brought a more realistic bass response I thought I would get. The Klipsch still filled the room with more bottom end now it's just a matter of study with further listening of different recordings to determine if the Zu's just have better accurate bass vs the Klipsch 'hulk smash' bass. I have tried stuffing the rear ports on the 8000f's with mixed results.
F15's still in background poking me.

@Bottlehead ,

Was thinking the same thing. Custom platform ideas floating in my head.
Glass? Marble ? Wood ? Im sure different reflective surfaces will produce different results.

And on side note a pair of Jamo s803's ?? cheap popular bookshelf speakers everyone reviewed came thru my hands for the evening only so of course I had to introduce them to 2.3 watts of Decware. I think they are on lower side of efficiency but they produced loud and clean volume and with plenty of bass too for such a small front ported speaker. I was not expecting that so I also had a pair of the cheap Sony css-s5 ?? for the night and the results werent as positive. The Sony's struggled a bit to breathe and open up to get a decent listen in. I think they were close in efficiency to the Jamo's as well.

So even though my goal is for a end game higher end speaker to mate with UFO2.1 it is nice to know someone can most certainly snag a great sounding system with the 2.1 and some affordable speakers.

@CrayzeeDJ,

I have two OC9's, one on the Dual and one on the Mofi, so it was just a TT change, no other changes were made. Could be the alignment, arm height, tonearm wiring, etc...

" you’ll never really know until you try things out for yourself in your own system "

pure truth , and hopefully you've heard enough of a variety of components/recordings that you can draw your own satisfactory conclusions then factor in changes of taste ..... then finally get to enjoy the music itself and not worry so much about the system.

I can see playing vinyl 'may' take a little more effort then cd and stream play in getting happy full volume and dynamics with the 2.1. I reset the gain switches on schiit mani to give me 48db of gain ( mani's medium setting) with my 'polite' sounding shure m91ed ( sl1200mk3) and I got closer to what I was hearing with cd/dac combo. I still had to set the volume knob a tad higher but with the few lp's I tried I got the bass pop and overall volume to a happy place.

I do own more expensive( better?) cartridges and tables and also picked up a zp3 but Im sticking with what I fisrt started with ( klipsch 8000f back in ) to finish this round of evaluation. 2.3 watts still rocking my world.

Kahuna,

Before my dip into MC’s, I was a Shure guy. 91, 95 and V15. I had SAS stylus on them all. The 95 was my favorite with the 91 2nd.  The V15 was a bit too sharp and I sold it.

Couple months ago, before using the Decware amp, I sat down with one record I knew well (Alice in Chains Unplugged) and all my tubes and wires. Played that one side ALL weekend long. My wife was thrilled! The JD9 has 3 gain settings and I think 9 loading settings. I changed things one by one according to a chart I made. In the end, I knew much better how each changed the sound. I’ve got to do it again with the Decware amp now. I found tubes and settings on the JD9 to be the most influential on sound changes. Interconnects had an effect, but not as much as the tubes and settings.

I’m currently on vacation in a swamp and can’t wait to get back to my system.

Forgot all about the op amps. I tried bunches of them, a local friend has one as well and I went through his leftovers and ordered others. I believe I settled on LT1028’s in two slots and BB637’s in the other. Been awhile since I opened it up. I went with Audyn True Copper caps and Raytheon windmill getter 5751 tubes. My issue with the jd9 is the SHHHHHHH HISS. With no music playing it becomes audible when my amp goes past half way on the volume. I rarely listen that loud so it’s livable.

The JD9 is perfect for modding and tinkering, not many other phono pre’s offer that at its price point.

Sean,

I found that the hiss definitely varied with the tubes, and I was able to eliminate it completely with the Sovtek 12AX7LPS. If you haven't tried them it's worth acquiring a pair to test.

David

Been back home a few days and wanted to update about my turntable issue. I'm back on the Mofi table, there are are couple issues with the Dual I wanted to sort out and they're going to take longer than I expected. That said, I hooked the Mofi up again. Same "not great" performance, low bass notes distort and complex passages jumble up. Rechecked the setup yet again, all within spec. So experiment time set in. Played around with arm height and not much difference. Then I started rolling the downforce off. The OC9 'sweet spot' is at 2gr. I haven't checked with a gauge where I am now, just trusting my ears. I'd guess it's in the high 1.8's now and things sound MUCH better. So good in fact, my sleep is taking a hit from staying up late, "just one more side!". For my room, I can push the amp to about 60% volume before the wheels start wobbling. My wife tells me that's plenty loud enough. Funny how that TT setup was "perfectly fine" with a different amp, or should I say that amp HID the poor setup. The decware really brings out any issues upstream.

Now that that is sorted, I borrowed a Schiit BiFrost to experiment with.

I was moving some gear around this week and thought Id give some what I feel are some semi hard to drive speakers a whirl with the ufo2.1 . I dont have specs on these speakers and online info is minimal on Audio Concepts speakers from  a small independent company in Wisconsin. Built in the back of a church are claims I scraped up online.
My scratch n sniff test thinks maybe 85-87db efficient ??? Only other amp I tried with them when I acquired them was a maybe 65 watt chnl Yamaha integrated amp from 90's. Sounded like the Audio Concepts wanted more power/current to bring them to life. These are oddly designed speakers as in they are a sub / satellite system but the crossovers are house in their own boxes about the size of a 20 watt receiver. High quality drivers and parts all around and even cabs are built from 1 in thick mdf with real oak veneer ( the grain is thick/deep is how i know its real wood veneer.)
Satellites have a 4 in mid and maybe 1 in tweeter both kevlar it looks like. The passive sub boxes have a single 10in driver in each. Id post pics if I could figure it out. The crossover boxes have binding posts for each driver with no jumpers so thats alot of wire to pass juice through.
I was thinking no way this is going to sound good but the results ? I ended up listening to them all night with various cd's ( dac in the box still) I got great volume/texture , detailed bass and dynamics with the ufo2.1 . I did have to turn volume knob up about 2-4 notches more then with klipsch8000f's but over all results were pleasing.
I think source material got a bit more picky with the harder to drive Audio Concepts but even the worst(less dynamic recording) was still an enjoyable listen.
My 2.3 watts muscled up for sure.

<sigh>

Did it again. Read the whole 17 pages of the development thread for the 2.3 watt UFO25. My occasional activity to substitute for not actually having one, yet.

I just wonder, what are people thinking buying DW PP amps? It's like a category error. LOTS of other companies offer PP tube amplification, and used is very affordable. Maybe DW is even better. But who's the SET specialist?

I mean, Steve has to design new PP amps because he has to find out. But I have NEVER seen anything like the UFO25 development thread elsewhere on this site, for any amp, or any DW product. Steve can be hyperbolic, so you have to sift a bit. If I subtract all the non-SET hyperbole, what I've left with is smoking with hyperbole. Somebody got pretty excited over the birth of this amp. I don't think it was the beer.

Reading this and going, "Yeah but I need those extra 15 watts per channel to really fill my room" is like flying across the ocean to Ogami Itto, who makes one of a kind samurai swords, and saying, "Cool, but what I really want is your top carving knife. Way more practical back in Oklahoma." Why ja bother to go then? And wait two years? CARVE THE DAMN TURKEY WITH A SAMURAI SWORD

That's absolutely right. The PP is too HIFI for me. The Zen more natural, "real" sounding. We're all different.

A bad VR tube had me shaking up my tube complement and I now have an RCA 0B2 for the input tubes (my monoblocks use these 0C series as they only have to power one tube) and Chatham 0D3W for the output tubes. This has given me a tight low end and a wide open midrange, a truly clear and dynamic presentation.

In time we'll see if the Sarah unseats the Monoblocks as my time and teleportation machine, I'm looking forward to that comparison. SET for me either way.

We're all different, have different rooms and musical tastes and preferences.

Finally had a chance to hook up the Rachael amplifier, a .4 version from 2014 with ufo outputs , the tubes it came with as I bought it , wing C el34's , mitsubishi 7dj8's and a coke bottle rca 5u4g and still listening to the Klipsch rp8000f's ( cant seem to quit them) .
I did change a few things that may or may not matter. I swapped speaker wires to something I found in my cable bin, I always thought they were Audioquest wires for some reason (idk why) but after cleaning them up all I could find on them was 'Isola Breitenbach mlas hf 10c Swiss made' . I also swapped out my 'dac in a box' for a recent hand me down Emotiva first generation dac . The previous owner wasnt thrilled with it so I had no idea  what to expect but it had a remote for volume control so........
I havent thought 100 watts was twice as loud as 50 watts since I was in high school but Ive also never played around in 'low watt land' like 2 watts vs 6 watts . I didnt notice much of a volume/headroom difference between the Rachael and UFO2.1 at all , at least not with the cd's I was listening to. I did however keep thinking to myself all night while listening to the Rachael , " how can it get any better then this? "  even knowing the upgrade road is miles long but also thinking " do I care? this sounds so good"
I tossed the UFO2.1 back in to see if I felt the same way and I absolutely did . They are so similar Ill have to spend more time back and forth with the 2 amps to comment on the difference's I am hearing. Im stoked to have both amplifiers.
I was running the dac straight in, no preamp. The Emotiva dac I think is trying to pretend to sound better than the audio alchemy dac in a box? but not so sure it does. My experience with dac's is these 2 outdated entry level dacs only but the Emotiva does have a remote : )

@tempest62
"Fear of 2.3w?

Yup, guilty.

Same fear as I have for 3.2, 5, 6, or 8w"

understood and these statements from audiophiles are what had me question the low watt world to the point I almost didnt bother pursuing a UFO2.1.........

50-60 feet out of my listening room window my neighbor sits on her porch to smoke. Last night 8-9 o clock she asked me to please turn it down ( i was listening to some laid back music, Earl Klugh soundtrack covers to be exact) and she didnt care so much when I tried explaining to her about the whole 2.3 watts per channel thing. I normally dont have that window open and this is first time she has complained about my music volume

Decware Flea Watts Annoying Neighbors All Night Long

20w isn’t overamplification. What it provides is some headroom.

I got shit for headroom with the 3.2w amp I had, which was the primary limiting factor in my setup.

Just my opinion.

Sean, btw your remote is awesome. I think Donnie had something like that at one time.

I had a 300w Bryston 4B-SST at one time. Sounded like a Mac truck slamming into a brick building. LoL

Sean, I really like your remote!!

I still have my dad's old "living room amp" from the mid '60s.
It's not the beautiful tweed version shown in your schematic.
But I'm pretty sure this version had not had the guts messed with much by that time.

It is a Fender Vibro Champ, "blackface" I think it's called. It's all original, except for the tubes. I know Dad replaced the 6V6 at least twice. You could buy tubes at the grocery store back then or any hardware store.

It was made post-tweed, but before the all silver grille cloth and control panel came out.  WAY before they added the second 6V6, powering it up some.

I have tried to get my daughter to play it, but she is afraid she'll  "mess it up."  She knows it means a lot to me, so she went out and bought a current run Roland with distortion built in. OK, What ever.

The face has a Design and Circuits Patented '64 notice, so, I have to assume there is an update to the original schematic.

Here's a pic:

Same Old DD Blackface and Silverface Champs and Vibro-Champs were produced from 1964 to 1982. All these amp circuits are virtually identical, they are all Class A amplifiers but there is a slight difference in the build quality of the cabinets in the later silver face years. I.e. type of wood/mdf and use of fasteners.These later Champs sound different from the 5F1 and other Tweeds. They all have the addition of Treble and Bass controls. These controls cause quite a bit of signal loss and scoop out mids. The filtering in these amp models is increased giving the amp a slightly stiffer response. For these reasons these Champs have less overdrive but they do have more cleans. These amp have a different cab with a "fixed baffle" rather than the "floating" kind found in Tweed Champs which sounds different. The Vibro-Champ version add a bias varying tremolo (via a second 12AX7) that's really nice. It's smooth, musical, and has a wide range of sounds. That's a really nice blackface Vibro Champ you have.


Now here is the secret if you want to save a lot of money and are interested in a Vibro champ. The Fender Bronco was a guitar amplifier made by Fender. It was the first Silverface amplifier introduced in 1967 to sport the modern-looking "tailless" Fender amp decal, which became a standard feature on other Fender amplifiers in the early 1970s. The Bronco was a student amp to go with the matching Bronco guitar. Bronco amplifiers were shipped as a part of the Bronco "student" package offered during that time, which also included the matching Bronco guitar, introduced that same year.

Some early Broncos used the early-mid 1960s "tailed" amp logo. The schematics and manuals listed the Bronco and the Vibro Champ as the same amp, except for the red letters and labels stamped on the control faceplate (Vibro Champs have blue labels and lettering like the rest of the Silverface amplifier models). The controls were also the same. It was discontinued in 1975

It’s all about the speakers. My Hegel runs with the volume at about 6 to hit 90db through planars. My zkit runs 1/10 the power but hits 90 db with the volume at 4 with my Lii’s, and sounds better doing it.

@brad- I hear ya,  I ran a Bryston 4b cubed for a while. What a tank.

This thread is progressively undermining my assumption that I needed monoblocked UFO25s, solely to get 6 watts/ch.

Sounds like one UFO25 would be enough after all. I have 2 on order. The least sensitive speaker I have is 90dB and I don't listen at more than 80dB (more like 70dB at the loudest of times). I'll have a CSP25, a ZBIT and a ZROCK upstream of the amp, so gain galore.

I now open the floor to naysayers. If you persuade me to go with monoblocks, Decware makes $4 grand more. Maybe I can lure Steve in here too.

An idle mind, and 2 years to wait...

Many thanks for that input Steve. I was indeed hoping that monoblocking would have a sound quality advantage, and not be solely about getting more "physical" dBs out of my speakers. I'm definitely OK with choosing speakers to match amplification, if needed. Just makes the speaker choice simpler!

But you have short circuited my tiny comprehension levels technically. If someone says "balanced" I automatically visualize XLR in/out terminals and cables.

My DAC is fully balanced, but what about the rest of the chain of boxes and cables out to the amps? No XLR connections on the Decware amps, preamp or boxes I will be using, except into the ZBIT from the DAC. What is "differential balanced," anyway?

Yes, I see that. But would it not be the case that any RCA to RCA connection upstream from the amp prevents balanced connection to the amp? IOW, if I'm using a CSP325 and/or a ZROCK into a pair of UFO25s, it would seem there is no way to run them in balanced mode. If I want balanced, I have to go straight in from the DAC to the amps.

I can't go full balanced anymore.
When I was using just my Revox for a source, I was balanced all the way to the speakers, using a bunch of pro gear, all balanced. It was what I had been using for ages.

I sometimes used a differential speaker between every pair of speakers on a four track recording. Four main speakers and four more speakers between each pair hooked together so the second four only responded to a difference signal between each pair of mains.
Very early surround sound and it was sometimes very nice, depending upon the recording, of course.
Four track was fun to play with at times.

Using a turntable again, there is no balanced signal available to me. Same with my disc machines.  
Only DAC I have is from the era when computers were first introduced to pro audio, very old item, but it has balanced outs.
I just don't stream enough to even have it hooked up to anything. And honestly, my fancy dancy sound card coming out of my music computer sounds better than the old DAC, just using RCAs when I play a digi file.

I wonder if Steve is contemplating making a balanced run through all his gear as an option for some.
That would be awesome.

same old DD wrote
Quote:


check this out

TEAC TN-5BB MANUAL BELT-DRIVE TURNTABLE
A high-performance belt-drive analog turntable with XLR outputs, the TEAC TN-5BB turntable delivers precision sound for your favorite records.


$1,799.99



Prp-Ject X8 True Balanced Connection  $2499
https://youtu.be/0rjVMVewcM8
We’re launching a whole line of new “True Balanced Connection” components that feature a balanced connection for your phono setup. The X8 is our first turntable to feature this new phono technology.

Turntables look back on a long history. Over time, many things have changed, not only from technical possibilities, but also from the environment. Wireless networks are omni present and countless electronic devices make your home „smarter“. This means there are now a lot of additional electromagnetic fields, which could interfere with your turntable‘s signal. This was simply not the case 30 years ago. To ensure the best connection to your phono preamplifier we designed our „True Balanced Connection“.


Pro-Ject X8 True Balanced TT WHAT'S TRUE BALANCED?

Balanced audio connections are usually known from the professional sector like recording studios or live concerts. It is very important to have a stable & interference free connection, as these signals will be highly amplified. The same applies to the connection from your turntable to the phono preamplifier. The big advantage of a balanced connection is its ability to remove picked up noise and interferences. And best of all, cartridges by nature are already balanced signal transducers! With True Balanced your are simply using everything, literally everything, that your cartridge is picking up from the record groove. You are not throwing away half of the usable signal, like is done in typical single-ended RCA phono connections.

The X8 comes with a 5pin output jack and with our standard semi-balanced Connect it Phono E 5P -> RCA cable. By upgrading it to our fully balanced 5P to XLR version (available separately) and using a balanced phono stage, like our Phono Box DS3 B or any of our RS/RS2 phono stages, you are fully set-up for the True Balanced experience. This leads to increased dynamics, less noise and improved signal to noise ratios. You can imagine it, like hearing parts of your music that literally were not there before.

"Pro-Ject is hanging its X8 hat on “true-balanced” connectivity, all the way from the cartridge to the phono stage. According to Pro-Ject, any pre-mounted moving coil cartridge – including the factory-fitted Ortofon – will dispatch a balanced signal via the Austrian company’s 5-pin output jack when adapted to XLR with a 5P/XLR cable (sold separately). In the box, we get a semi-balanced Connect-it E 5P/RCA fly-lead.

Thanks, Joe.
I can only drool more at this point. Very interesting!

All stereo turntables have five points of connection, but some are tied together to the ground, unbalancing at the source.
These tables solve that.

I want to read more about that Austrian adapter for when I modify my newest Dual TT. It could just get a new plinth with XLRs.
If it's just the cable, I can do that, but I am more curious about any other concerns that may emerge.

I double checked my Pre and it has 1/4'' ins, in keeping with old Yamaha gear having one foot in pro audio and one in consumer audio, but they are not TRS, like on all my Crowns. I can't go balanced TT outs without a different phonostage/Preamp.

Just a kitten's paw full of coin, right?


I need to buy a car first and maybe a better pre or DAC next, but all of them have some decent specs and super features.

I tend toward a "J" tonearm, maybe because I am used to setting them up.
First tonearm I ever set up, after I got my old Garrard worked out, was a 16"  J-type on an RCA transcription TT, which only ran at 16 and 33, that my uncle (radio personality) owned. It was built in the late fifties but he wanted a stereo cartridge on it. He had the arm off still after sending it in to have a cartridge head installed.

All I had to work with was a straight line on a piece of paper that fit over the spindle. I figured it out.
I think I spent as much time getting the hole in the paper aligned with the line on the paper as I did the rest of it. I was fourteen at the time, but coming along.
He saw that and gave me a job to do.

One of the best ways to teach someone something is to ask them for a favor that involves their interests.

I re-did it twice more before it sounded right to me, though. I know I had a few albums I knew with me. Probably Steppenwolf, Beatles, got first listens but I don't really remember the rest.

tempest62 cuts to the bone.

THIS is the kind of comment from the front line that makes all the difference.

OMG, The Torii...

But no, I am building a shrine to SETware. I must proceed with the assurance of a sleepwalker, and remain pure.

Two UFO25s, the second POSSIBLY unnecessary in practice, but as I understand it the extra 3 watts gives me 9dB more headroom until clipping. Why am I even doing this...

9dB is a big increment, not huge. 20 watts would be so much nicer... But if I'm going to wait two years, I will only take this decision once.

I can see how a larger room would demand way over 10 watts. Steve's Torii MkV page practically yells, THIS THING SOUNDS LIKE OUR SET AMPS. It's like he's daring me to stray from the Path.

I must keep the faith, and return to the UFO25 development log, which has been read so far (is this possible?) half a million times.

Oh my User...

Quote:


I regret to inform you that the 3 extra watts will give you 3 or 4 dB more headroom, not 9. A 20 watt amp would give you 9ish dB (math available on request).

I've said several time how much I love my balanced mono UFOs, but I didn't do it for the watts, I did it because I wanted balanced amps and the short speaker cables that monoblocs allow. The watts are a nice bonus, but not really a game changer IMO.

I look at it like this: compared to a single UFO the 2nd one makes e.g 88 dB efficient speakers sound like 91 or 92 db and 92 dB sound like 95 or 96, and so on and so on.

The important number is the Racheal is 6 watts per channel. So when you mono them you use two channels per (mono) channel equals 12 watts per channel. Which adds up to 24 watts total for your system.

The per channel is typically most interesting because you usually connect one channel to a speaker and you use the speaker sensitivity and the power per channel to give you an idea of the maximum volume you can expect before clipping.

HTH

Ah yes, CA. You are right. Doubling the watts add 3dB. So the Torii is 6dB louder (@ a given distance?) than a pair of UFO25s, roughly.

And with a 90dB speaker we start, with one watt, at 90dB, which is effing loud.

Sounds like you get the amp that sounds best to you, then make sure you have speakers sensitive enough to achieve what you want. In fact with a 9dB difference between a Torii and a single UFO25, it would almost seem like sensitiive speakers are a good idea for both.

Maybe the insistence on more than 2.3 watts is often about not wanting to change the speaker to fit the amp. Thus the title of this thread. No reason to fear 2.3 watts if your speaker is sensitive enough.

It's too bad we don't have more good head to head comparisons of different DW amps. I watched Thomas's review of the Torii vs. the UFO2 but not much stuck out for me. Maybe I should watch it again. Then there's the Audiophiliac saying that the anniversary amp is "more musical" than the basic UFO, and making an entire review out of that one conclusion.

Yep. Quite often they hardly even show the actual device they're talking about.

Heh heh, then there are the reviewers you never see, just their hands holding the product and tilting and rotating it for 20 minutes...

Best of luck KJ with your comparative listening research. We don't get many chances to hear opinions from comparative testing.

Almost two years from getting my amps, I'm almost considering changing a double UFO25 order to a single Taboo order. At least the Taboo has balanced inputs.

Steve says yes. 3 watts. binding posts. You have my attention.

I'll have a contrary experience and opinion than Brad with the Taboo. Sure they were designed with headphones in mind but there were three Mk versions before hand, I have had the III and have the IV, and both are quite capable of driving speakers. (I'd be very interested in hearing if Steve felt they were inferior at driving speakers). I have used mine, with a CSP2+ or CSP3, ZBIT and ZROCK2 and HR-1 speakers in a fairly large room in my audio-visual system and it does run out of steam with the huge low frequency sounds of video content at very high volumes, but not with music. And it doesn't sound "thin" to me.

In my own experience the Taboo is neither more nor less "thin" than the Zen or Torii or Rachel amps I have had. I have had the 27th amp Steve built, a "Select" amp, a modded C amp, a version of EL34 monoblocks Steve no longer builds, the model of Rachel before Rachel, a Torii Mk II, a Torii Mk III and SE84UFO3 monoblocks. Each had the Decware sound, none of which I would actually describe as "thin" sounding. And with a preamp and a ZROCK2 more "density" can be added to the sound.

Brad to my knowledge has not had an SE84UFO or a Torii . . . . So I am not sure how he can compare "thinness" between models.

There are a lot of factors that go into how one experiences an amp: source, speakers, room, power, cabling, hearing--more. In my case, and in several rooms and with progressively more resolving speakers, none of the amps really sound "thin" and the Taboo is quite a performer. Fantastic with headphones as well!

I will say this about the Taboo Mk IV: the 25th Anniversary mods do improve the amplifier, I've had it both with and without, and the power difference between it and a single SE84UFO is not huge. Yes, it's a bit more powerful, but speakers I have on hand (HR-1, two pair, ERR one pair) work with both and with not that much of a "headroom" difference.

Shit, I could get 20 hours of therapy for the cost of a UFO25.

Argh, don't tempt me...I could get one 25 and still do a fully-modded Torii Junior, which (I'm not sure what's up on the page now) Steve basically seemed to say was just as good as the Torii Mk. IV, at least.

Heh heh, yeah I'm sure the DW PPs are superior. As I trudged through the heat and humidlty back home from the park near my house, where I feed the stray cat every day, I began thinking, once again, about what a 730-day wait FEELS like. It feels like trudging through endless heat and humidity, forever. I still almost can't wrap my head around it. No, it's too inhumane for me.

I don’t worry about the wait. Two years from now all the current products will be improved and we’ll be first in line.  ;D

My attitude is the wait list is like it is on layaway. I have been making monthly payments since I made my order.  This allows me to make a purchase over time that otherwise I wouldn't be able to to afford. It allows me the ability to buy a complete system without putting it on a CC and paying interest. The wait list levels the playing field without me dipping into my savings. 10 percent down and X amount of months to pay works to my advantage. It also removes my purchase from being an impulse purchase seeking the thrill of instant gratification.

It also allows Steve the scalability for his increasing demand and having the expense of ramping up his business to stock inventory. This allows Steve to keep cost low and competitive , it gives him an advantage in the world of high end HI-FI. The Direct to Consumer "wholesale" pricing combined with a waitlist is an economical business model with the added bonus of allowing him to pass savings along to his clients and give himself some working capital at the same time. It also allows Steve to have the time to experiment with his ideas and the development of his designs with a healthy dose of QA every step of the way.

Oh dear, I've been indiscrete again

BurgerMeester   Back to the end of the Line
https://youtu.be/0xZGpI7RQuQ

https://youtu.be/Z5_uJrkJFsM

BurgerMeester asked Quote:


Same Steve question only with the ZP3 and the Rachel in and out balanced connectors.

Quote:


ZP3 is single ended (unless you know something special...) and the cables for a single ended mono connection are already available.

If you want to run a balanced connection from your turntable to phonostage (which would be pretty cool) you need something different than the ZP3. A balanced signal is essentially 4 channel and the ZP3 is two channel so it is fundamentally different. I have seen balanced phono stages, although they are pretty "high end" if you know what I mean.

If you want to run balanced to a pair of Rachels you can do that with the same cables you'd use for balanced mono UFOs. See page 17 of the UFO manual for a picture. And, now that I think about it, maybe you could use the same cables and a pair of ZP3s to get a balanced phono stage, although I'd worry about ground and hum and stuff.

Otherwise you'd want to look at a ZBIT for converting balanced to single ended, which is generally a more flexible option than building it into the amp because you can move it around the signal chain as your system evolves.

You know I don't get the whole "rooms get so hot with tubes" because that just really hasn't been my experience--especially not with preamps that have just input tubes and a rectifier or so.

Well Lon with my air conditioner off today without amps running the temperature reached 90°F with the windows closed. Of course that is only in the dog days of summer. My Apt is right below the roof compounding the temp.

I'm not saying a normal system would overheat the room but two mono blocks into two phono preamps with a Preamp in a room with no windows and the door closed with little ventilation on a day like today could become quite uncomfortable.

Harley Lovegrove, the technical director of the loudspeaker company 'Pearl acoustics Ltd.' talks about how sound is converted into electricity and how that is amplified so that the loudspeaker's drive cone can convert the electricity back into sound.

Here he talks about the heat in this edited segment https://youtu.be/abdmZbQPQtY?t=1910

Joe, That is already too uncomfortable before the amps are run.  That is how my upstairs room is with my system in the peak of the hottest afternoons of the summer (with windows open) without my window AC unit on . It's already too hot to listen, turning on my system doesn't make it worse. And listening with the AC unit on, even if the system were all solid state, is not fun as the AC sound dominates.

But when the room temperature is comfortable listening to my monoblocks and preamps on doesn't make it worse. I'm just reporting my experiences--I don't understand the issue as I don't experience it. I know all about the physics, but the output of heat is just not that significant with Decware amps and preamps. Not even with 33 years before in Texas. Same situation applied--too hot to listen before an amp is even turned on, or listening is fine with the system not making it more uncomfortable.

My room is totally sealed with the doors closed. I would imagine if one stayed in there long enough(days) oxygen would become scarce. When playing vinly there are 15 tubes being heated. After long sessions the room will get warm from the equipment but I never recall it getting uncomfortable.

Along with power transformers the power supply voltage drop resistors also add a good bit of heat generated.

Amazed to see that almost 80% of the 1900 orders on the list are for SET amps.

Use a powered subwoofer and an in-line filter? Take a load off your AMP??

Is THIS the answer? Is this a BAD answer?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65eFr2rKy3M

CAJames,

The last sentence in Steve's paper you linked rings words of truth

Quote:


THIS might be the answer for a small speaker driven by mucho watts. BAD answer for the SET 2.3 watt.

It is like comparing apples to oranges.

A SET's output tranny is at it's best interacting with the drivers coil and magnet. Placing anything it the way of that interaction will hamper, delay, mistrack that playfulness. This can be heard readily by changing speaker wires in a good SET system.

The link in that post explains the oranges.

John

Well, I like apples better than oranges. But, do like your reversal of my comparison