I am back, folks. My system was the third most talked about system after Mike Levine's and Albert Porter's.
For some personal reasons I took a break from audio. But I am back with good news and not so thrilling news. The not so thrilling news is that the system is unchanged. And the good news is that it is so hard to improve it, regardless of the price -- I do not know what to upgrade, except may be cables -- as I hit the peak performance from my perspective. The sound thrills me still every time I listen. Still, 140plus tubes, embedded in the finest of amps and pre-amp driving a legendary speaker that can give a good run for money to speakers costing $100k plus, all making heat and magic at the same time. Wow, life is good.
Acknowledgements:
There are several people I wish to acknowledge who have helped me a great deal in building this system:
1. Charlie, who designed one of the finest preamps. Although, TRL Dude is marginally better, the Charlie X-2 will stay with me for ever and will continue to provide listening pleasures
2, Paul Weitzel of Tube Research Labs (TRL) for his helping on tuning the amps and on his feedback on many other technical aspects of the system at the micro and macro level.
3. David Royalty for building nice wooden battery casing for the TRL moded Sony CD player and also for numerous technical feedbacks.
4. Ivan Li of Hong Kong for showing me the insight into planar speaker placement.
5. Steve Dobbins of Xact audio for coming all the way from Idaho to install the tonearm and overall turntable tune up.
6. many visitors who have graced my listening room with their presence.
7. All audio friends who are not mentioned above.
8. Audiogoners who continue to post interesting and thought provoking comments here.
"Also, mine will be an audio room which could also do home theater, and not vice versa. Two different things. My passion is pure audio."
I did my dedicated room with exactly the same mindset. It is designed for 2 channel but 'equipped' to accommodate home theater. After all the multiple layers of sheetrock, quietrock, green glue,special insulation, dedicated sub-panel (with almost 2 dozen dedicated cryo-treated outlets and 10 individual circuits/breakers of mostly 20 amp each) separated by functions exclusive to lighting, HVAC, and audio-only (the majority of them)... I... also designated a breaker and pre-wired [IN Wall] all my home theater speaker wires with their connecting "outlet plates" as well as all cable and computer connections 'pre-disposed' for a projection based home theater... This was all done with one major theme always in mind: COMPLETE separation of ANY and EVERY home theater artifact(s) from the primary purpose of the room which IS 2 CHANNEL, thus permitting [as close to] an ideal listening environment as I possibly could construct and that also happens to support the makings of a formidable home theater environment IF I should ever decide to take the plunge (which so-far I haven't). Remember: home theaters of every level, from a simple flat screen TV with a few add-on speakers all the way to some which are quite elaborate and spectacular, can be found in millions of homes and is a relatively easy task with gratifying results. But a truly sublime 2 channel audio system capable of "Transporting" the listener deceptively close to an actual re-enactment of a musical event is a difficult and astounding accomplishment which requires far more commitment and personal attention...It is, to so many of us, almost something of a 'Cult-like' commitment... But I can only speak for myself really, we all have our own degree of passion for this 'hobby'. As for a dedicated audio room...if you can make it happen somehow you will truly have the first AND MOST important ingredient towards your systems' great sound taken care of, the ROOM. Go for it and good luck. AND Happy Lissn'n!
The four best rooms that I have heard are(in no particular order), Mike Levine's room, Winston Ma's room, Ivan Lee's room (in Hong Kong), and my own.
My room was also built for audio, using double sheetrock, sound blocking board, AC channels, and then walls sealed and pumped with fiber glass.
Agear, rubybookie's thread describes his room as: "The wall construction is 12" thick ,made up of a double wall of 2x4 studs at 16 oc with the studs staggered ,insulation (rock wool), t&g 3/4 plywood glued and screwed, then the drywall is glued with a v notch trowel. " It is still using woods. I intended to go to the ultimate level of having no wood at all except the ceiling. I want to make the most solid and yet simple room, where I can still attach material on the wall such as diffusors to tame the mids and highs but bass without compromise will only come with all four concrete walls.
Thanks Agear. My current room is exactly what Cardas is suggesting, i.e., 26 by 16, and the ceiling slants from 12 to 9 feet. In addition, I have no two walls which are exactly parallel. I had this room built 10 years ago. The new room is also going to follow the 1.618 ration room. The new room is going to be 28 x 17.4 and the ceiling will be slanting as well. I am thinking of all walls made of concrete blocks.
Gallant, I would pimp Rugyboogie for more explicit details on his approach to room dimension ala Toole. I did not have control over exact dimensions as my room was grafted into a full basement remodel. My room is 13.5 x 17.5 x 8.25. Bp24 is right. Cardas does have some suggestions for a "golden ratio" room:
But I still find the KT90 to better than both the KT120 and 150. I feel I am only one standing on a deserted island with a big sign dug in the ground (for patrolling planes to see), "KT90 sounds better" while most people are raving about the KT150. I hated its sound even though I got "more" bass and probably more power. I am not certain if I found the power to be "more" in my system because I already have a lot of power. Also, my bass is already very powerful. Unlike other people, I hear things differently in my system which I dare to say is because I have more revealing system.
I am curious about your comparison of KT90 with KT150 if you could shed some more light in that please. Interesting, if I have to describe the sounds of the three tubes, I would say they sound similar to their shapes: The Kt90 is straight, extended at the top and bottom and the same in the middle. The KT120 is thicker in bass and a bit less extended at the top, and the KT150 is a bit more thicker and fatter (in bass). That thickness in my system is taking away all the three dimensionality off and collapsing the soundstage, which I love so dearly.
I have given off my KT150s to another friend who owns TRL GT400. I want him to burn them in for an extended period of time. May be I will take them back and try them on again after their good burn in. May be they will sound better then but for now, I am not letting any tube other than KT90 come in my GT800 driving my bass. I do have a mixture of KT90 and KT88 (the KT88 has a sweeter midrange) in the GT400 which is driving my mid/highs.
Some people may find that contradictory that if I am praising about the KT90 for their highs why am I using them in the bass amp and why I cannot get "more" bass in the bass amp by using KT150. And likewise, why do I have some KT88s in the mid/high am if I think Kt90 has better highs. My answer has always been that a good highs (tweeter and amp driving the highs) sound makes the bass better. Similarly, I have mixed some KT88s and KT90 in the GT400 driving the mid/high drivers to add some midrange flavor. It is very much like cooking a dish so I have added some spices to my taste but the KT150 is just too salty and is taking away the flavor.
Great idea... The Room makes or breaks your final sound. It will take longer than you think but if the planning and execution are well managed it truly separates a " Room with great audio equipment in it" from a "Great listening room that brings out the best of audio equipment in it". Big Difference. Go for it.
Gallant, I agree about avoiding treatments that are parasitic (bass traps, absorbent panels) and focusing on diffusion. Use those things in a stepwise fashion and use your ears.
08-04-15: Gallant_diva I have an announcement to make, sharing a good news with all audio friends: I am going to build a new media room, all from scratch. It will be 28x17 in size, about 12 feet high ceiling. I have no unlimited budget as our friend Mike does :), so the objectives are: SSB (Simple. Solid, Budgeted). Thus the start will be a solid room with good topology. The room will allow additions (such as diffusors -- I don't like absorbers or bass traps). It will have slanted ceiling, so parallel walls, and concrete blocks based walls, no windows, one door, and rock bottom floor. All power cabling in underground pipes.
Will take advice and opinions including from Mike Levine and Agear.
Oooo. That is good news. I recommend following Winston Ma's blueprint:
I have an announcement to make, sharing a good news with all audio friends: I am going to build a new media room, all from scratch. It will be 28x17 in size, about 12 feet high ceiling. I have no unlimited budget as our friend Mike does :), so the objectives are: SSB (Simple. Solid, Budgeted). Thus the start will be a solid room with good topology. The room will allow additions (such as diffusors -- I don't like absorbers or bass traps). It will have slanted ceiling, so parallel walls, and concrete blocks based walls, no windows, one door, and rock bottom floor. All power cabling in underground pipes.
Will take advice and opinions including from Mike Levine and Agear.
Hello Gallant_Diva, So, my little visit to the KT 120's is over and I found it an interesting comparison. Before I get into too much description I will say both these tubes seem to reside somewhat hand-in-hand with each other in their own world of "hyper powerful" tubes that essentially bridge the once wide 'power gap' between tubes and SS amplifiers. That is to say that in a well designed amplifier capable of extracting their fullest potential ( our TRL's being perfect examples), I no longer see serious need for having to use big solid state amps anymore in what were once power hungry applications. Such applications include very large rooms, very inefficient speakers, or even a preference toward LOUD listening levels...these tubes bring Rocky Balboa punch and "Terminator toughness" to the table. But I'm getting ahead of myself.
In an ideal world there would be more tube manufacturers developing "High output" variations of other tube series as well but in general we have a lot to be grateful for with the current diversity of tubes already out there...
Which leads me back to the 120 & 150. The good news is I found both of them truly capable of satisfying their owners based on his (or her) personal listening priorities. I'm going to cheat a little bit here for the sake of comparisons by making a couple of well known analogies: Most of us are familiar with the different sonic virtues in a tube based system of a 'triode mode' listening session versus a 'regular' tetrode or ultralinear configuration of tube output. A solid state amp owner can similarly think of 'Pure class A' versus 'regular AB' (or perhaps A/AB). Well the differences we speak of between the 120/150 are nowhere near as significant as these examples but they do help illustrate the 'camps' each tube seems to have its roots (or should I say "Pins")in? ha ha.
Essentially I found the 120's to flesh out a bit more mid or lower midrange body or texture which places it into a bit more of that warmER or full bodied camp...In my above analogies it would lean a hair more toward the triode/Class A camps but absolutely NOwhere near as obvious...as I said it simply 'leans' that way ever so slightly in comparison. This then, by definition, adds a bit more 'tube' to a tube based system and would help more readily define such system as such in a blind listening shootout. Bass punch is excellent [for a tube based system] and "Very good" overall compared to any system. 3D 'Spatiality' (if you can call it that) was very good also...this effect itself apparently being something of a hotly contested topic. I mention this because 2 friends I have known for several years through my local audio club were visiting my system for the first time by coincidence while the 120's were installed. Be aware these are true solid state system owners who are also electronic engineers as well as builders and [one is actually a designer of an all SS based product line] so our discussions about after-market power cables and speaker wires/IC's etc. are always quite fun! So, as we discussed my system's merits (a very good overall report card by the way...and essentially via very tough critics!) I mentioned how the soundstage depth they were experiencing was one of the many elusive characteristics I had spent much time working to capture in my system...Their response was rather tepid at best: after acknowledging it was undeniably there and quite obviously an integral part of a truly natural sounding presentation,they were equally as hasty to proclaim how soundstage depth is a relatively unsupported fallacy which is merely a recording engineer's manipulation of microphones and/or the actual volume of the performer's instrument into the associated microphone and therefore it was quite a low priority/essentially inconsequential aspect of system reproduction...
I said uh huh...and just smiled. I said to myself maybe it's something like the rather heavy set young lady who knows she couldn't possibly be seen in a skimpy bikini but rationalizes that she can still go swimming in some 'other' bathing suits...
But I digress..As for the 120/150 comparison the 120 was something of an ear opening reminder of how wonderful our options are as tube based amp owners! I almost said to myself "I may switch to these for a good long while instead of the 150's for now" and knew I would never sell my stash of them..but I had to put the 150's back in to conclude this story.
So I did, and here's the difference I found...[you can guess by now?]: The 150's didn't have that extra bit of tube warmth that helped define that extra body...that slightly undeniable personal aspect of presence that is an often welcoming aspect to many systems and will almost instantly define a tube based system from a 'typical' SS (No, we're not talking a pure Class A ss system as they do edge closer)but, you-know-what-I-mean... What the 150's do (in MY system,YMMV!) is stay remarkably neutral up through the mids and remain very clean and extended right out the top... And this is the premise I built my room around once I put them in, approximately 2 years ago. I had been running other amps and other tubes previously, so my room treatments and overall setup was different accordingly. Since the 150's I have made changes (mostly with diffusors vs abfusors vs absorption) that cater to the 150's strengths/character. But to add: the 150's still give me all the body and natural tone and timbre I could ever imagine and of course I am very choosy with types of cables I'm using, not to mention the caps! So,ironically;in comparison with the 120's: the 150's are more in the tetrode/ ultralinear and class AB SS camps!)but so be it for now...Do they give me that 3D Spatiality we discussed before? In my configuration of speaker placement and room treatments which caters heavily to that important aspect (IMHO)they do... Oh, and there is just one more thing that completely threw me into the 150 and this is part of why I will ultimately stay with them too: remember how I said the 120's did a very very good job with bass overall...and an excellent job considering it is a 'tube based' system? Well the KT150's absolutely "rule the roost" when it comes to bass. In my TRL's these 150's simply STOMP BASS like a 747 overhead from a hundred feet. They turn your woofers into sledgehammers and rock your room like you wouldn't believe. Control and definition, extension and punch... The bass is superb compared to ANY type of system including and especially the high power SS world...bring em on...These babies are smokin.
OK, I'm getting a little carried away so I'll put it to rest for now. This was fun...there's always more/lots to continue with and talk about. Until then, Thanks and Happy Lissn'n!
Good to hear back from you. With regard to the tubes, Paul think KT150 is better but I follow my own ears so Paul and I disagree. The thing is that my system is so ruthlessness revealing and ruthlessly optimized that any pin drop alerts me immediately. Tubes are a big big factor because they have their own sound. KT150 has more power but it gives me a collapsed soundstage. As I said in my experience KT90 is better than KT120 and KT120 is better than KT150. Surprise? People will disagree? Sure, they can.
The sound of KT90 is just awesome and I intend to keep it. Now KT88 is another beast. It has much different sound than the KT90/120/150 cluster. KT88 has sweater and may be better midrange but its highs and bass are not as impressive as that of the KT90, and I talking about all in my system. Since I must and I do bi-amp my system, my TRL GT-800 t the bass is all using KT-90s, while the GT-400 is driving the mid/highs and has a combination of KT88 and KT90.
One can continue to experiment with a combination of KT88 and KT90. I can allow some KT120s but KT150? Nah. So I am curious to hear your opinion on the tubes.
Hello Gallant_diva, I am enjoying your history lessons about the brilliant work of Leo Spiegel and agree it seems absolutely appropriate that it took a NASA scientist to design the ultimate speaker. I believe the Full Range ( also referred to as simply ' The Original Apogee' for those unfamiliar) was designed with no limitations or serious consideration to price points... and of course, their performance reflects this.
I just wanted to touch base briefly and let you know I have spent several hours doing some critical listening with the KT120's in place of the KT150's. My next step is to insert the 150's back into the GT200's once again and make a final assessment. No, I don't have any KT90's and I didn't want to try the 88's as the significant loss in output power I felt would be too unfair to the overall presentation... But I will hopefully be reporting back again asap with some type of personal reflections on them... TTYS... Lissnr
lissnr: You get to the bottom of the matter quicker than most audiophiles do. You are right about my approach to putting the crossover inside my pre-amp. The major improvement should come from removing the gain switch. Basically, the Apogee Fullrange crossover (I think you already know it so I mention it for other readers) is a genius design because of its simplicity (and I firmly believe in the old audio principle of less is more in aduio). This was the work of art by Leo Spiegel, the retired NASA engineer, who was no less than a genius. It was he who conceived the whole Apogee ribbon concept (ribbon based speakers for midrange and tweeter existed prior to that but not for the bass), which made a tremendous contribution to high-end audio -- compare that with Bose, huh. Even after 30 plus years, Apogee speakers stand head and shoulder above many top end speakers costing $100k plus. For me (and yes I may be biased) this is the best speaker and I would not trade it against any speaker at any price. The only dynamic speaker which impressed me and made me think of "upgrading" was the Avalon Sentinel. But again, the Avalon may generate more dynamics but it cannot beat the big Apogee in 3D soundstage, imaging, sweetness, and coherence. So I gave up the idea even though I had a chance to purchase the big Avalon at a good price ( I have listened to and owned smaller Avalons). The Avalon Sentinel looks very pretty though, I must admit. But the thing is every time I listen to my Apogee-based system, I hear myself saying "ahh". I do not think the Avalon can make me do that every time.
Now back to the Apogee design. So Leo, the genius, conceived everything from scratch (a far cry from many "technicians" who have tried to improve the Apogee design and failed even in that effort). The Apogee Fullrange was designed with no compromise unlike the later speakers, each of which was a compromise (e.g. placing kapton behind the midrange ribbons). It required two amps and the simple but great idea of a passive line-level crossover works wonderfully well. I have never been in favor of Active crossovers. They make the sound analytical and kill the purity of the signal. It is like buying a diamond and covering it with a fine see through fabric. The source has to be as pure as possible. By removing the switch I am expecting a big improvement. The crossover is essential as the speaker cannot work with one amp. I know the resistor value already. The other thing si loading resistors which must match the input impedance of the amps. Mine are already optimized. I also get rid of the tin box (which can act as a filter) and extra connectors. I do plan to leave the original output at the pre-amp, to be used as an optional comparison. Hence the two additional outputs will be low and high. I am also going to install the original caps first and will experiment with Jupiters, Dueland, or even Mundorfs. These are lien level caps and hence very small values. So we will revisit the cap issue again.
I have spoken to Paul about this but these are my own ideas. I will work with David, another friend who is pretty artistic and has all the tools for making holes and installing connectors.
More later . I am curious to know of your impression of KT150. I simply dont like them and prefer the KT90.
07-21-15: Gallant_diva Agear: Sorry for the late reply. I have not heard Analysis Audio speaker except the smallest one and even that was a short encounter. So I have no positive or negative opinion about the, I like the panel speakers tough. I think Maggies are great speakers although their midrange will never come close to that of the Apogees.
No worries. I am a fan too. I know from others that Lissnr is getting great sound from his setup....kuddos to you all....
Agear: Sorry for the late reply. I have not heard Analysis Audio speaker except the smallest one and even that was a short encounter. So I have no positive or negative opinion about the, I like the panel speakers tough. I think Maggies are great speakers although their midrange will never come close to that of the Apogees.
Hello Gallant_diva, Thanks for your advice, I see you can get very busy here responding to visitors! I agree your project with the FR's makes a lot of sense; anytime you reduce cabling/connectors, etc. the safer and more intact your signal will be. Sounds like you are experimenting with different resistor values (visible inside the gain switch or not???), then listening to each with the ultimate goal to obviously eliminate that rheostat/attenuator completely once you hear the values best for your room and system preference? A "Gallant" effort indeed! But also very time and patience consuming as well. Once you have your values you begin choosing between the Mundorfs and others... Well, free market competition is what keeps the globe spinning so you must look at your capacitor options from that perspective...it sure beats the alternative (no or minimal choices!). I know the dude chassis is certainly bigger than most but we both know it can get pretty crowded in there nevertheless...Did Paul give you some suggestions about how or where you can implement a design? He's usually very helpful when it comes to such things but he has so much on his plate all the time it's amazing he finds any spare time at all. I understand your aversion to 'hype' as we all must sort through loads of opinions and assessments both well founded and ... not so. This hobby seems to have more supposed 'experts' than most! I think revealing systems can be the ultimate connection to the recording event but we all know it can be a double-edged sword as lesser quality recordings and all the care being taken OR not being taken during the process will be blatantly exposed. Apogees have a "Ruthlessly revealing" reputation so we both sort of live by that sword too but [when properly fed] there's pretty much nothing else that'll be more lifelike! Add TRL... As for the KT150's vs the rest...I broke out my KT120's last night and swapped out the 150's then started listening. Once they're all warmed up and settled in a few days I'll report back (but they sounded remarkably better than I last remembered...). Happy Lissn'n
Thanks for your response , they are black and are on the stands. I could try to put them further apart but I'm listening near field as is. Have them toed in slightly and some tilt back. They really don't sound too bright, using a tube pre with some SS mono blocks. They are also about 26 inches fron back wall. I also had a few pairs of the Major, they sounded better, should of kept a pair, although these are mint for there age. Thanks for your help and response you are very kind.
