advertisement


Amp for tannoys part2

You need to consider that vintage Tannoys work best with amps with moderately high output impedance.Which really means valve amps.If you use your typical high damping factor,low output impedance,highish negative feedback solid state or Class D amp what you are likely to get is overdamped bass response .They will sound choked up and lack bass.
Having said there are some SS amps that have highish output impedance ,no negative feedback and lower damping factor.Bakoon in particular which combine beautifully with Tannoys.There might be some others that I am not aware of but the Bakoons would take a lot of beating .
 
@hifinutt : That is really interesting, it seams to be that it is depending very, very much of the combination with the speakers.
What makes me wonder that I have listened to the Masterclass AA Monos with a Tannoy Turnberry GR, some 94dB efficient Odeon Midas (2,5 way speakers) and the A21SE with a Harbeth SHL5 and the Optima 200 with a Harbeth Compact 7 (1997 model). None of them were a difficult load.

I think I have to try one again with another system, I really love the look and the concept of the Sugden amplifiers. Therefor I was always a bit disappointed that I didn't liked the sound until now.
 
You need to consider that vintage Tannoys work best with amps with moderately high output impedance.Which really means valve amps.If you use your typical high damping factor,low output impedance,highish negative feedback solid state or Class D amp what you are likely to get is overdamped bass response .They will sound choked up and lack bass.
Having said there are some SS amps that have highish output impedance ,no negative feedback and lower damping factor.Bakoon in particular which combine beautifully with Tannoys.There might be some others that I am not aware of but the Bakoons would take a lot of beating .
How high is 'moderately' high? Can you suggest a figure please. This is the first mention of this, apparently important consideration. I'd like a bit more statistical flesh on these bones if you or anyone else can please. Ta.
A quick hunt re the Luxman 590 (bigger brother to the 550 I'm considering) reveals this
"The output impedance at the speaker terminals was a very low 0.075 ohm at low and middle frequencies, rising to 0.11 ohm at the top of the audioband. As a result, the modulation of the L-509X's frequency response with our standard simulated loudspeaker was less than ±0.1dB".
Means nothing to me so can you put that in the context of your comments?
 
You need to consider that vintage Tannoys work best with amps with moderately high output impedance.Which really means valve amps.If you use your typical high damping factor,low output impedance,highish negative feedback solid state or Class D amp what you are likely to get is overdamped bass response .They will sound choked up and lack bass.
Having said there are some SS amps that have highish output impedance ,no negative feedback and lower damping factor.Bakoon in particular which combine beautifully with Tannoys.There might be some others that I am not aware of but the Bakoons would take a lot of beating .
Remember the OP has MGs with butyl surrounds, which I believe behave more like HPDs than hard-edged MGs, so I'd expect less need for high output impedance?

Besides, doesn't it also depend on enclosure design? I'd expect more need for high output impedance with vintage Tannoys in sealed cabs than in ported cabs?
 
Good Q. Part experience at audition,part ownership (currently Luxman) , previous experience of class A, wantingsomething long lived...EAR are lovely amps too, so are Audionote, Leben, Accuphase, but my shortlist of needs rules many out so simply pondering. What would you add?

I’ll tell you what I would do if I wanted to spend around 5 - 10 K on a new amp, especially given that it would be a low power one. I would commission Arkless Electeonics to design and build one for you.

And while you’re waiting (because it would take ages) just buy yourself something relatively cheap and which you can sell on easily, like a little Radford STA.
 
Remember the OP has MGs with butyl surrounds, which I believe behave more like HPDs than hard-edged MGs, so I'd expect less need for high output impedance?

Besides, doesn't it also depend on enclosure design? I'd expect more need for high output impedance with vintage Tannoys in sealed cabs than in ported cabs?
I wish I knew the answers, but there's no rush I guess. As in my answer to Tony, It'll be a try and see with the Luxman anyway for a few weeks/months whilst I get used to it as a pair and then?

It is useful however to know one potential reason for 'overdamped, choked up bass' although unless one really understands how this relates to cabinet damping and bracing, port size and position, room acoustics and etc, it'll still be a bit of a 'oh well lets try valves' situation, and since me and technical understanding will never really meet, these kind of 'this worked for me and that didn't' threads are very very helpful when shortlisting.
Anyway, back to the garage. Big day today finishing cutting out driver and port holes.
 
You need to consider that vintage Tannoys work best with amps with moderately high output impedance.Which really means valve amps.If you use your typical high damping factor,low output impedance,highish negative feedback solid state or Class D amp what you are likely to get is overdamped bass response .They will sound choked up and lack bass.

I’d agree with this based on the amps I’ve tried with 15” Golds in various cabinets. From memory the amps I’ve tried are: Leak Stereo 20, Prima Luna Prologue 2, Radford STA15, Quad 303, Quad 306, Naim 45.5/110, Onix OA21S, Amptastic T-Amp and a couple of low-power SETs. My favourites of that list are the push-pull valve amps and the 303, the 306 very slightly behind and best of the conventional solid state. The Naim and Onix just sounded too dry and lean, maybe if the Tannoys were hard against a wall they’d sound more balanced. I didn’t think the SETs, a tiny Decware and a pair of Coincident 300B monoblocks had the required grip or dynamic range. I much prefer push-pull with these speakers and the Leak’s 10 Watts is all I’d need, but I am not a high-volume listener. The Amptastic was surprisingly good, as it always is, but again no match for the 303 or valve amps.

My HPD385's certainly sounded fine with a Sony TA-F770es, which has a highish DF.

For me the big dividing line in the Tannoy timeline is between Monitor Gold and earlier and HPDs and later, the Golds being the transition point between valve-voicing and solid state. This makes sense as the Golds were released as an answer for the emerging transistor technology and arrived around the same time as the Quad 303, 50E Sugen A21 etc. By the time the HPD arrived the market had moved almost exclusively to solid state and far more powerful and grippy amps were around that could cope with the heavier cone and more compliant surround. I look at the HPD as a Quad 405, silver-Pioneer-era etc speaker. The thing I took away from my listening above is the ones that work the best to my ears are period-correct. I realise there are huge gaps, e.g. I’ve not tried any really powerful US high-end, nor class A solid state. I can only comment on what I’ve tried.
 
@hifinutt : That is really interesting, it seams to be that it is depending very, very much of the combination with the speakers.
What makes me wonder that I have listened to the Masterclass AA Monos with a Tannoy Turnberry GR, some 94dB efficient Odeon Midas (2,5 way speakers) and the A21SE with a Harbeth SHL5 and the Optima 200 with a Harbeth Compact 7 (1997 model). None of them were a difficult load.

I think I have to try one again with another system, I really love the look and the concept of the Sugden amplifiers. Therefor I was always a bit disappointed that I didn't liked the sound until now.

look forward to your thoughts , just before I sold my p3esr i tried the sugden a21se with it and it didn`t blow me away , then i tried it with a modest arcam and the sound was very organic and simply delightful .
 
if you had 11k this would be simply amazing i think , paul benge in hastings now the dealer for these and by all accounts they are selling well

https://hifiwigwam.com/forum/topic/138144-silbatone-integrated/?tab=comments#comment-2477574

79922801_581386579360537_5141791631086714880_n by https://www.flickr.com/photos/158267783@N02/, on Flickr

video-1576701441 by https://www.flickr.com/photos/158267783@N02/, on Flickr

i was hoping to get a listen here but i fear the queue is too long !! and my ice power are sounding rather delightful with my tannoys and as they cost under 300 quid it might take a bit of persuasion to spend more !!
 
For me the big dividing line in the Tannoy timeline is between Monitor Gold and earlier and HPDs and later, the Golds being the transition point between valve-voicing and solid state. This makes sense as the Golds were released as an answer for the emerging transistor technology and arrived around the same time as the Quad 303, 50E Sugen A21 etc. By the time the HPD arrived the market had moved almost exclusively to solid state and far more powerful and grippy amps were around that could cope with the heavier cone and more compliant surround. I look at the HPD as a Quad 405, silver-Pioneer-era etc speaker. The thing I took away from my listening above is the ones that work the best to my ears are period-correct. I realise there are huge gaps, e.g. I’ve not tried any really powerful US high-end, nor class A solid state. I can only comment on what I’ve tried.

Indeed.

The dynamic mass of the Golds, HPD, Tannoplas K series is the same ie The HPD+ cones are not heavier.

They sounded tight and sweet on Quads 306 a 520f and even better on an ML No333
 
How high is 'moderately' high? Can you suggest a figure please. This is the first mention of this, apparently important consideration. I'd like a bit more statistical flesh on these bones if you or anyone else can please. Ta.
A quick hunt re the Luxman 590 (bigger brother to the 550 I'm considering) reveals this
"The output impedance at the speaker terminals was a very low 0.075 ohm at low and middle frequencies, rising to 0.11 ohm at the top of the audioband. As a result, the modulation of the L-509X's frequency response with our standard simulated loudspeaker was less than ±0.1dB".
Means nothing to me so can you put that in the context of your comments?

I don’t think DF is the whole story.

My M2 has 25W with a DF of 20. It is ‘relaxed but lively’ sounding with the 12Rs in a sealed cab. Bass has a lovely organic flow, without spilling over.

The F6 has a DF of 14 (also 25W) and sounded like a powerhouse with the same speakers. Not over-damped but far more controlled in general.

They share the same power supply btw.

I think you need to listen at home.

If I listened to more electronic or rock and less jazz, or had a bigger space, I might have chosen the F6.

I did try a friends Sansui receiver with 50W and a DF of 85. It was over damped and a bit sterile, but not horrendously so. It had other faults that were more prominent.
 
The dynamic mass of the Golds, HPD, Tannoplas K series is the same ie The HPD+ cones are not heavier.

Are you sure? I’d have expected the substantial strengthening struts on the back of the HPD to add mass and in combination with the additional compliance of the soft surround to add to the potential of over-shoot, i.e. need a different ‘ideal’ level of damping from the amp to the earlier ‘hard-edge’ Tannoys. To ask the question in another way where exactly was the mass cut from the HPD to make up for the weight of the eight large card struts and the glue holding them in place?

FWIW I’ve certainly felt Golds are ‘faster’ and ‘tighter’ than HPDs subjectively, though that is a generalisation rather than a direct A/B in the same cabs. Golds can actually be quite lean sounding!

PS When talking about Monitor Golds my experience is of the 15”, the rubber-surround 12” may play by different rules for all I know.
 
Whenever I see pics of the Legacy Arden being demo'd, all three ports are open. @cooky1257 informed me that the 3 port configuration produces the highest Fb, so I'm curious why they're most often used like this? You'd think folk with enough space and money for the TOTL Legacy model would want to harness as much low frequency extension from it as possible by blocking off two of the ports?
 
I wish people would stop going on about push pull valve amps. I should never have sold that Luxman SQ38....so annoying ! :)
It was a Quad 33/303 combo I first heard with the 15" Tannoys in Swansea uni HiFi club...when was that? 1970/71? Hence why Quad now interest me...though valves in this case.
One good thing about push pull valve amp circuits is that they are not that changed from those years even now. Radford, Rogers and Leak all were copied I understand as the basis for much of what's around now so maybe I should be looking for a PP Integrated with a phono stage, just like the Quad Q11.
I'm very rarely a high volume listener. The Luxman's 25 wpc were plenty. Back to new Quads, I'm a bit concerned about Sterophiles' measurements of the Quad mono blocks where power drops like a stone as impedance changes. A bit odd. I'm used to amp power doubling from 8 to 4 ohms, not halving. Wonder if the Q11 is designed the same way.


The Quad's single output-transformer tap is optimized for an 8 ohm load impedance. Fig.4 shows how the measured THD+noise percentage in the amplifier's output varies with power into loads ranging from 2 to 16 ohms. Taking our usual definition of "clipping" as being 1% THD+N, the amplifier gives out the most power into 16 ohms (fig.4, bottom trace), 16W or 15.05dBW. However, relaxing the definition to 3% THD+N indicates that the Quad gives its maximum output into 8 ohms, at 27W (14.3dBW), compared with 24W into 16 ohms. However, this graph reveals that loads below 8 ohms are to be avoided, the Quad II delivering a maximum of 12W into 4 ohms and just 5W into 2 ohms, again at 3% THD+N.

805Q2CFIG4.jpg


Fig.4 Quad II Classic, distortion (%)vs 1kHz continuous output power into (from bottom to top): 16, 8, 4, and 2 ohms.
 
Are you sure? I’d have expected the substantial strengthening struts on the back of the HPD to add mass and in combination with the additional compliance of the soft surround to add to the potential of over-shoot, i.e. need a different ‘ideal’ level of damping from the amp to the earlier ‘hard-edge’ Tannoys. To ask the question in another way where exactly was the mass cut from the HPD to make up for the weight of the eight large card struts and the glue holding them in place?

FWIW I’ve certainly felt Golds are ‘faster’ and ‘tighter’ than HPDs subjectively, though that is a generalisation rather than a direct A/B in the same cabs. Golds can actually be quite lean sounding!

PS When talking about Monitor Golds my experience is of the 15”, the rubber-surround 12” may play by different rules for all I know.

It's all there in the T&S figures.
The 12" he Gold has the same Dynamic mass as the 12" 3148 from the LRM ie light cone high Fs. (27g plus air load, 40g)
The 15" Gold has the same Dynamic mass as the HPD385/k3828 (68g plus air load, 90g)
The 12R is pretty much the same as the DU316/HPD 315(50g plus air load, 62g)
 
It's all there in the T&S figures.

Except it’s not! This from Tannoy’s own PR dept:

A major redesign of the Monitor Gold led to the 'Monitor High Performance Dual' HPD Series. Power handling was improved considerably by using high temperature adhesives in specially set up Tannoy coil winding and heat treatment sections. Sensitivity was maintained at 92 dB for 1 Watt at 1 meter while moving cone masses increased to give the correct 'Q' values for a range of 5 cabinet models.

Link from Jim’s UKHHSOC site.
 


advertisement


Back
Top