Hay All,

Im just wondering, would a basic valve amp be overkill for my mordaunt short 902i's?
Im currently looking at changing my cd player and receiver to better components and have been stuck on the question on wether I should go tube or transistor for my new stereo amplifier.

Im aware of the pro's and con's of both units but Im just not sure wether I would be overdoing it with a tube amp on these particular speakers?

Any/All comments appreciated

avsforum or audioholics would be better place to ask that type of question.

Just my thought

With today's technology there is no reason to "go tube". It is illogical, irrational to "go tube."

I'm agree with this point of view of The Audio Critic editor. In short: it doesn't matter much today.

From a technical standpoint, it's really irrational to get a tube amp. I believe in getting a normal amp from a decent manufacturer, which is neither too cheap (risk of bad quality) nor too expensive (risk of snakeoil technology). I had good results with the Yamaha AX-596, for example.

YOu really should listen to a few different amps to get a feel for the type of sound you like. Especially if those speakers of yours are 8 ohms and efficient. IMHO a good amp is a good amp regardless of its design, and there can be good and bad examples of each type.

One huge advantage of tubes, is that with different tubes, you can change the sound dramatically...some people like this flexibility. Also some like their distortion vs. that of solid state amps.

Can it be overkill if you like the sound of it and can afford it?

I couldn't agree more ... I recently bought a used Onkyo A9711 for 200€ ... great amp, great investment.

Wise musings of The Audio Critic:

"As for amplifier topologies, the sensible answer is, “Who cares?” Any amplifier, regardless of topology, can be treated as a “black box” for the purpose of listening comparisons. If amplifiers A and B both have flat frequency response, low noise floor, reasonably low distortion, high input impedance, low output impedance, and are not clipped, they will be indistinguishable in sound at matched levels no matter what’s inside them. Of course, some of the new “alphabet soup” topologies do not necessarily satisfy those conditions.

I really believe that all this soul-searching, wondering, questioning, agonizing about amplifiers is basically unproductive and would be much more rewarding if applied to loudspeakers instead. For various reasons that I have discussed in the past, people are more willing to change amplifiers than loudspeakers. That’s most unfortunate because a new and better loudspeaker will change your audio life but a new amplifier will not."

Peter Aczel

From the reviews on my speakers they advise not to get an amp that will aggrevate the top end as this my make the audio to bright. Currently running through a Sherwood surround receiver which doesnt sound to bad, probably lacking a bit in Dynamics/overall clarity (when used with PC playing .FLAC) however does a good job of controlling the treble so the sound never sounds to bright.

I think I have changed my prefrence and am now more in the market for a decent CDP which will probably make more of a difference.

The CD player will probably make no difference at all. Once digital = digital (as far as they are the same kind of digital.)

Why do you think your current amplifier lacks a bit of dynamics/overall clarity?

What makes you consider the advice in the reviews to be trustworthy?

It is certainly possible for solid state amplifiers to audibly degrade the signal but it is rare among hi-fi brands.



Why do you think a decent CDP will make more of a difference?

Again, it is possible for CD players to audibly degrade the signal but it is rare these days even for reasonable consumer brands.

It sounds like you are saying that all cd players sound the same. Is that what you are saying?

Most of the answers here are going to come from Computer People.

They will all say i"f the specs and the quality are similar than the sound will be virtualy the same".

"Analog tube or digital solid state will not make a difference."

On an audiophile site you will hear some of the same; but you will get more qualitative answers, from people who have owned many types of setups.

They do if the digital output is used.




And why should it not be??!



It makes a difference. "Tube" is NOT necessary. So using it makes no sense.



If you like superstition or just plain BS that's the place to go.

Get a Panasonic SA-XR55 or XR57 receiver. If you feed it a digital signal it uses a unique PCM>>PWM converstion process and stays digital all the way through until the final converstion to analog. In 2-channel mode with a bi-wirable/bi-ampable speaker, it will use 3 of its amplifiers per speaker. It's really clean sounding and dead silent when no signal is being fed to it.

That amp is probably good value for the money, as it is in the lower price range. However, I can't resist in quoting "The Ten Biggest Lies In Audio", again from The Audio Critic:

QUOTE

7. The Biwiring Lie

Even fairly sophisticated audiophiles fall for this hocus-pocus. What's more, loudspeaker manufacturers participate in the sham when they tell you that those two pairs of terminals on the back of the speaker are for biwiring as well as biamping. Some of the most highly respected names in loudspeakers are guilty of this hypocritical genu-flection to the tweako sacraments— they are in effect surrendering to the "realities" of the market. The truth is that biamping makes sense in certain cases, even with a passive crossover, but biwiring is pure voodoo. If you move one pair of speaker wires to the same terminals where the other pair is connected, absolutely nothing changes electrically. The law of physics that says so is called the superposition principle. In terms of electronics, the superposition theorem states that any number of volt-ages applied simultaneously to a linear network will result in a current which is the exact sum of the currents that would result if the voltages were applied indi-vidually. The audio salesman or 'phile who can prove the contrary will be an instant candidate for some truly major scientific prizes and academic honors. At the same time it is only fair to point out that biwiring does no harm. It just doesn't do anything. Like magnets in your shoes.

Add: As for the Bi-amping in home stereo setups, a quote from the axiomaudio.com site:

QUOTE

Bi-amping, or biamplification, is used mainly in professional sound reinforcement applications, where extremely high levels of loudness are required. Here big, separate amplifiers powering the low frequencies, and smaller amps for the midrange will increase overall output. Sometimes they will use a separate outboard electronic crossover (the speaker's internal crossover is disabled or bypassed entirely) so the operator can vary and adjust individual crossover frequencies, tailor the “slope” of the crossover to match the strengths of each set of drivers, and also adjust the relative sonic balance of bass, midrange and treble to suit the environment. This is important for huge auditoriums or outdoor events where separate arrays of treble and midrange horns are operating with big “bass bins,” but such systems have no place in domestic home theater systems in normal rooms. Additionally, it puts control of the relative smoothness and tonal balance into the hands of the sound system operator, a dangerous tool for all but the most experienced sound reinforcement experts.

Bi-amping can also help when you have speakers with difficult impedance to deal with. I don't use it because my speakers get plently loud already and they don't need anymore power.

But the Dual Amp feature is pretty cool because it really does supply significantly more power to the your speakers. Digital amps and pure digital amplification chain and eventually digital speakers are the future. I'm surprised we're not there already.

7. The Biwiring Lie

Here is a link you should check out, as it seems to depend on the speakers:

http://www.empiricalaudio.com/frAudio_FAQ's.html#What effect does Bi-wiring have?

<They do if the digital output is used.>

OK, I get where you are coming from now. I never understood why anyone would think that the dacs in a receiver could possibly be better than those in a good cdp, but I suppose if they are better in the receiver than it would make sense.

By using the digital output we reduce the analog signal path (and that includes the signal buster in our cheap CD player analog output.) In doing so we save money in the digital part of the system (where it doesn't help much.) And use it in the analog part: speakers, amp, pre-amp, DAC.

Sure, but that only works if you are using cheap components. I am talking about a GOOD cdp vs a receiver's dac.

The point is a good receiver (with a good DAC inside) makes a good cdp redundant.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, since a good dac in a receiver is something that I think is rare.

Sorry I havent checked this thread in a while.



Maybe I should rephrase what I mentioned earlier, it's not that the amplifier lacks clarity however playing Flac via digital vs Anologue CDP audio quality the CDP player wins hands down.
I bought my speakers from advise from a HT technician and from the review that What Hi-Fi gave them also I listened to a pair of MS-902's at the local Hi-Fi store. the 902's could only be better, to my ears they sounded better then the wharfedale diamond 9.1's



As there was audible difference from the Akai (which sounded better then Flac encoded digital) wouldnt it make more sense that a CDP with better dac's and altogether better componentry will make a world of difference compared to a budget CDP?

Overall my system sounded at its best with the Akai cdp the sherwood and the speackers belting out almost any type of music, Ive tried Dire Straits, Rocketeer soundtrack and Jean Michelle Jarre not to mention others and all sounded better through the bugdet Akai then via digital. The CDP just seemed to sharpen the overall sound and make it more dynamic. If a budget CDP can do that then a moderate NAD or Cambridge Audio CDP should sound much better.

At the end of the day what Im saying is that I would prefer a decent CDP over playing Lossless files over digital as I suppose the additional filtering done by the CDP makes all the difference. And of course it all depends on your ears, Mine are very sensitive as they havent been exposed the abuse of some other people

I stopped buying What-HiFi a number of years ago after reading the reviews for optical/Spif cables, interconnects and speaker cables. It was a load of misinformed snot.

didnt read but I just got a

Marantz PM7001 and it sounds amazing... I think I can acctually hear an improvement from my Denon Amp (which died after 11 years of service)

Okay maybe it isnt the best magazine but regardless I think these speakers are crackers for there price.
As stated I did comparitive listening test between older MS902 and Wharfedale Diamond 9.1 and I thought the MS902 had a more fuller sound then the wharfedale, the Wharfedale sound a little reserved and tiny compared.

> Maybe I should rephrase what I mentioned earlier, it's not that the amplifier lacks clarity however playing
> Flac via digital vs Anologue CDP audio quality the CDP player wins hands down.

If you compare a CD versus a FLAC recording of the CD played back through your sound card you can hear a significant difference?

> As there was audible difference from the Akai (which sounded better then Flac encoded digital) wouldnt it
> make more sense that a CDP with better dac's and altogether better componentry will make a world of
> difference compared to a budget CDP?

Not if it is cheap and easy to make audio circuitry that is good enough.