will
|
Hey Jack...not sure what all is up, but I have a lot of nice tubes that tend warm and tend hardish in the upper ranges too, especially since the tube sound depends on all else, and each tube influences all else. In my case, it is often too much signal power from one or more tube positions that can too easily consolidate the signal information enough to harden the upper ranges... When it happens, it sounds like it is packing the textures and air into rigidity and seeming bright, when it can be just too consolidated based on my experiments.
An example, in my Toriis, all else the same, the greater force of most good quality E88CC/6922 types compared to good ECC88/6DJ8 types, can amp the signal up and kill enough space and fine detail to create irritating forcefulness and hardness. It can "sound great" on some stuff, but not like natural music across most recordings. I just stopped using E88CCs for input tubes for this reason except at times when I am exploring a change up with mild rectifiers, VRs, and/or open power tubes that tone things back enough to allow good space and textures from E88CCs, especially in the mids to in the upper ranges.
Resolving heaviness/thickness (smearing) from low bass into the mids can also contribute here to more notable space and textures with good tubes, though if done by reducing bass more than resolving it, this may become an issue depending on all else. Still, even with the rest toned down, I rarely leave E88CCs in with my Toriis or CSP3 inputs. And I almost always use OB3s rather than OA3s for the same reason. A steady preference for RGN1064s rectifiers and equivalents seems persistent also for me...old school Euro tubes, 4 pin, and rated at 4V and 1 amp DC, plate/anode ±500V (2x), and 60mA with max output of 30 watts. This is not a "powerful" tube, but the most complete and musical rectifier in my particular settings... their ease and resolution of very subtle fine detail and space big for me.
Not to say that this combination would work in your setting, just some information based on my experiments that I hope may help. For me, it is all a fine line to get things set so that most recordings sound pretty great, and real tube synergy really important. For example, I can replace my preferred 75C1 input tube VRs with milder OB2s, OA2s or similar, and it can sound more open and good with other tubes adjusted just so, but it becomes difficult for me to get a good sound across recordings. So in my setting, my input tube sound needs the 75C1s for the broader balances of sound I need and creating a baseline that is relatively consistent for the inputs no matter what else I try. Same with OB3s before the power tubes, OC3s and OA3s able to work really well on many recordings (with the right company), but across recordings styles, not so broadly flexible. For me, both tend a little off balance, OA3s a little too forceful, and OC3s tending a little too open/lean.
Also, once the tube set is well balanced for average recordings, I need some latitude from the tubes used so that they don't easily become overstated with a little more signal juice...needing some quality gain tuning here to make more recordings sound good. With gain riding between a pre-stage and the amp gains, I can beef up the signal a little if the recording is lean, and tone down the signal if the recording is too dense or dark and needs opening.
Also, I find power and power filtration can have loads of influence on how powerful the signal feels/sounds, and related, how consolidated it is. Too consolidated and dense, it can fill in space and textures, limiting open, unsmeared sound necessary for harmonic textures and air. Similar to too powerful sounding tubes, I find more voltage at the wall leads to more signal intensity, which can lead to more darkness, fullness, and consolidation. It can also happen from overdoing or using less transparent and fast parts for filtration and cables. Or even pretty revealing PCs, IC, and speaker cable designs, when too big for a system/room, can contribute to overdoing signal intensity, potentially darkening, slowing and thickening lower down, and hardening higher up. Yet another set of relatively delicate balances toward finding an average balance that allow for tuning more range of recordings styles with gain tuning.
Clearly this can go the other way too, a too small cable can leave a system/room lean, which can also contribute to sharp upper ranges even when using pretty good cable materials and design... they can off-balance the spectral range toward too clean without enough warmth to carry that cleanliness. Or a cable might just be too hot due to less transparent materials and other design choices, and that can kill space and textures.
But again, even with nice cables that can allow good textures and decays top to bottom when well balanced with the system/room, if a little too big, here, they can create too much density/compression/consolidation. So I find generally, that bigger/bolder cables of good quality, can be similar to bigger bolder tubes of good quality... these can be good, but sometimes they can seem good for "warmth" and bass, while also consolidating speeds, space and harmonics, potentially making the bottom slow and even muddled, and the mids/upper mids hot.
In my experience, all this points to the need to listen across the spectrum, and to a range of recording styles when analyzing the benefits or lack thereof of a system/room, and for changes. For example, the spectral balance alone could seem pretty good, but if there is not good fine detail and space from good speeds and resolution top to bottom, then to me, some balances are off. And overstating the signal and sound can be seductive, added "warmth" coloring powered up mids and upper mids...variations on this theme can make an off-balance system seem more balanced for good recordings especially....But for a broader range of recordings to sound really good, to me, working toward all balances balanced together, and without overt compensations helps. Similarly, compensating with tubes or cables that balance dark, and truncate highs excessively, can create their own sets of issues for getting the most from a broad range of recordings.
And on and on, everything effecting everything, I find it can be challenging to pinpoint issues and solutions until we have sorted most of them out without big compensations, big compensations sometimes seeming to help, but doing so from off-balancing the system/room just so, and rarely working across a greater range of recordings in my experience. Then, even when things get pretty close, where everything is supporting everything else, we, and it are always changing, especially with tubes being sort of alive and changing with use... contributing to the benefit of gradually trying to refine discernment of what is happening in the sound, while making it easier to get the magic.
And this is not particularly looking at room influences, though I have found that in the few relatively large rooms without loads of treatment, I can get upper mids and highs that are not hard without killing bass and warmth. But I have worked at refining the balances inside and outside the gear. And the rooms I have tried without a lot of heavy bass treatment still need a pretty notable bass EQ cut that is gradual and pretty mild from maybe 50 or so, to about 30 or so, and growing pretty steep from there down to 20 or so, helping to clear up the lowest room aggravated muddle that can make the rest of the bass thick, smeared and slow, and can also leak into the mids.
So I am not suggesting that some of what you are having difficulty getting is not from recordings or your cartridge or setup or whatever.... Just offering general observations I have found in my setups to help toward finding issues and solutions.
|
Pages: 
Dynagrid Jr. Reviews and Impressions (Read 5085 times)
