|
|
Post by darkarn on Dec 27, 2016 5:48:57 GMT
Those powerline internet things are notorious for noise. The one I had made listening to FM radio a unpleasant experience to say the least. That's the biggest reason nobody offers internet over powerlines here in NA. I've read it can make HAM radio unusable. Another thing, check the bias on your tubes. My P1 amp (bravo clone) get very noisy if the bias gets too high. I don't think there's any way of checking the bias on my amp; I can't even bias the tube on this amp (which is one of the reasons why I am upgrading my amp) This is really obvious, but have you tried another tube? It almost sounds like thrive is failing to me. Good idea, let me check with my other tubes; it will take a while. Meanwhile, I recorded what happens when the HomePlugs are switched off: Without HomePlugWithout HomePlug (Amplified) |
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,091
|
Post by Rabbit on Dec 27, 2016 7:51:04 GMT
The noise is still there........
Check the tube.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkarn on Dec 27, 2016 9:37:13 GMT
The noise is still there........ Check the tube. Whoops, I linked to the wrong files! I have fixed the links I will still check the tubes though but later as I at still at my workplace |
|
|
|
Post by darkarn on Dec 27, 2016 21:06:36 GMT
Ok I have checked all tubes (3 RCAs, 1 Shu Guang), they are working too. The noise is the same too; only when the HomePlug is switched off then the noise would go away
|
|
|
|
Post by darkarn on Dec 29, 2016 16:25:52 GMT
After some thinking through, I think I will go ahead and get a new Project tube amp. Seeing how soft the noise is currently (especially with higher impedance stuff like the speakers; the noise is non-existent unless at extremely high volume) and how I wanted a new and much better amp (especially having to switch between headphones and speakers out) for years, I think it's about time. In other words, I am willing to see whether all I need for this situation is a better designed amp with proper power supply. So, should I go with a Project Sunrise seeing how I am using low impedance headphones mostly, a Project Ember seeing that its solid-state output is flexible, or a Project Horizon as a nice middle ground of both amps (especially with the low impedance attenuation module that I have been hearing about)? Sidenote: I did a quick check and it seems that my tubes are actually these: RCA 12AU7A 1958-59 D-Getter Tall Grey Plates (1x)RCA 12AU7A 1970s O-Getter Tall Grey Plates (2x) (using one of them now) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2016 19:55:29 GMT
Sorry guys, I forgot to update as to my noise issues. It's correct that I'm only hearing the noise with the easy-to-drive HD662EVO's but I've also discovered that it's only with one particular valve, namely my Sylvania 6SN7GTA 'Chrome Dome'. That's a shame. It's not my very best valve but it's up there. I guess it's on its way out. darkarn I can only speak of the Ember & the Polaris but either has more than enough power to give the HD 650 a shake. Both are immensely tunable but if I were to be using low impedance cans more often I'd probably go for the Polaris by virtue of it's mechanical quietness. Sound-wise there's not much between them in my opinion. |
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,091
|
Post by Rabbit on Dec 29, 2016 20:30:32 GMT
The Ember is a bit more 'fruity' sounding so the Polaris seems a bit more laid bac, I think. Noise is the one thing that makes me stay with the Polaris for low impedance headphones.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkarn on Dec 30, 2016 11:16:56 GMT
Sorry guys, I forgot to update as to my noise issues. It's correct that I'm only hearing the noise with the easy-to-drive HD662EVO's but I've also discovered that it's only with one particular valve, namely my Sylvania 6SN7GTA 'Chrome Dome'. That's a shame. It's not my very best valve but it's up there. I guess it's on its way out. darkarn I can only speak of the Ember & the Polaris but either has more than enough power to give the HD 650 a shake. Both are immensely tunable but if I were to be using low impedance cans more often I'd probably go for the Polaris by virtue of it's mechanical quietness. Sound-wise there's not much between them in my opinion. Ah a pity, I hope your other valves are doing fine with the HD662EVO. The Ember is a bit more 'fruity' sounding so the Polaris seems a bit more laid bac, I think. Noise is the one thing that makes me stay with the Polaris for low impedance headphones. Sorry, I am not sure what you mean by "fruity", is it something more like being more forward? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2016 11:59:43 GMT
No, I think by fruity Ian maybe means lush. In my ember, depending what valve I use, it can sound pretty damned accurate or it can sound warm, lush & atmospheric. I prefer the latter to be honest as so many recordings don't stand up to the srutiny of an analytical amplifier. Valves can be used to take away the harshness, soften the 'edges'. In some ways not entirely unlike what the HD 650 does when compared with just about any Beyerdynamic or AKG headphone in existence. The Sennheiser's are a particularly good example of a product specifically designed to not be accurate. The mid-bass hump in my opinion has been engineered in in an attempt to combat the harshness found in some music. Or something like that  The rest of my valves are all perfectly fine so no worries there. I am thinking of maybe attempting to buy another nice valve though, if only to prolong the life of the amp, because it's staying. |
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,091
|
Post by Rabbit on Dec 30, 2016 13:27:29 GMT
Gordon must know me better than I thought!! Exactly as he says......
More lush.
You can get tubes that might have a 'lighter touch' so it's perhaps less 'tubey' sounding, but that kind of defeats the object of having a tube amp; even hybrids.
The lovely thing about the Ember is that you can switch tubes in seconds in order to Tailor the sound, but the 'fruitiness' of a tube sound is what most people might well want from an Ember. It also suits the Senn hd650 extremely well and makes a really good match, both impedance wise and sound wise. You get the best ..... a lush tubey sound, no noise because a Senn is 300 ohms and power behind it to deliver good transient response.
The Polaris retains a little of the 'tubey' sound by using Mosfets. So it is warm and quite lush, but there is also a cleanness that I like about it that the Ember doesn't do so well for the lower impedance headphones. It can go lower in gain which helps with control of the volume, although I still feel that it needs less for the msr7. It has loads of power so again, there's plenty for headroom, which is perhaps why I think that some of my headphones almost start dancing on my head when coming from the Polaris or Ember.
They are both really good amps and the choice is really difficult, depending on what your preferences are. The Ember has a more upfront, ballsy appeal than the Polaris I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkarn on Dec 30, 2016 16:23:27 GMT
No, I think by fruity Ian maybe means lush. In my ember, depending what valve I use, it can sound pretty damned accurate or it can sound warm, lush & atmospheric. I prefer the latter to be honest as so many recordings don't stand up to the srutiny of an analytical amplifier. Valves can be used to take away the harshness, soften the 'edges'. In some ways not entirely unlike what the HD 650 does when compared with just about any Beyerdynamic or AKG headphone in existence. The Sennheiser's are a particularly good example of a product specifically designed to not be accurate. The mid-bass hump in my opinion has been engineered in in an attempt to combat the harshness found in some music. Or something like that The rest of my valves are all perfectly fine so no worries there. I am thinking of maybe attempting to buy another nice valve though, if only to prolong the life of the amp, because it's staying. Good to hear that! Gordon must know me better than I thought!! Exactly as he says...... More lush. You can get tubes that might have a 'lighter touch' so it's perhaps less 'tubey' sounding, but that kind of defeats the object of having a tube amp; even hybrids. The lovely thing about the Ember is that you can switch tubes in seconds in order to Taylor the sound, but the 'fruitiness' of a tube sound is what most people might well want from an Ember. It also suits the Senn hd650 extremely well and makes a really good match, both impedance wise and sound wise. You get the best ..... a lush tubey sound, no noise because a Senn is 300 ohms and power behind it to deliver good transient response. The Polaris retains a little of the 'tubey' sound by using Mosfets. So it is warm and quite lush, but there is also a cleanness that I like about it that the Ember doesn't do so well for the lower impedance headphones. It can go lower in gain which helps with control of the volume, although I still feel that it needs less for the msr7. It has loads of power so again, there's plenty for headroom, which is perhaps why I think that some of my headphones almost start dancing on my head when coming from the Polaris or Ember. They are both really good amps and the choice is really difficult, depending on what your preferences are. The Ember has a more upfront, ballsy appeal than the Polaris I think. Thanks for the explanation guys! And yes, "lush" is the word I was looking for too when I wanted to describe the sound of that modded Bravo V2 I had back then. Ever since after I lost that due to my lack of skills then and how flimsy that Bravo V2 was anyway, I was looking for that sound. The Fred's tube amp I built was decent but still unable to give me that sound. I think I will go for the Ember seeing how I wanted that sound and I already have 4 tubes begging me to use them on a better tube amp  But just wondering, why else will the Polaris do better than the Ember for low impedance headphones? I thought they are using the same solid-state output to begin with |
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,091
|
Post by Rabbit on Dec 30, 2016 16:26:41 GMT
Basically lower noise floor. You'll tend to pick up more noise from an Ember on sensitive headphones so higher impedance is a better match really. Tube amps are normally better suited to high impedance headphones really since they require more voltage where low impedance headphones need more current to be driven properly. Also, without putting tube amps down, because I do like them........ SS tends to be more reliable in the long run with no tubes packing in. The Ember runs cool though, which is a really good thing for long life. Just tubes getting tired and needing replacement. It happens gradually so very often, people aren't so aware of the noises gradually creeping in. (Call it head burn in.....  ) Gordon has caught up with a tube getting tired once he used a low impedance headphone!! |
|
|
|
Post by darkarn on Dec 30, 2016 18:18:27 GMT
Hmm will using those output attenuators and attenuator modules I heard about from here help with low impedance headphones in terms of noise floor?
I agree that SS are more reliable cos one less part to worry about. And indeed it is a concern seeing that most tube amps in the market allow only one type of tube to be used; the amp would be practically useless once the world's supply of that tube runs out!
I am not that worried for the Ember seeing how it can take in so many families of tubes. Heck, I can't find any other tube amp that can do the same for this (or even any) price point!
Also, not to worry, it looks like my next headphones is most probably going to have higher impedance than whatever I have so far. I won't be touching IEMs, not even customs for a long while as I just think they are real uncomfortable
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2016 18:32:08 GMT
I was lucky enough to hear the Project Ember back-to-back with the Projrect Polaris and when everything was running optimally you honestly couldn't get a fag paper between them. I went for the Ember because I liked the flexibility (complexity?) the valve brought to the table. I think if I were buying again I'd actually go for the Polaris, if only for the reliability. I should say though that my Project Ember MkII has performed flawlessly from the get-go.
My Project Ember is a bit special though as it was one of the first prototype run. The serial number is my birthday. It also has a bigger knob than stock. Size matters.
Not.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkarn on Dec 30, 2016 19:25:50 GMT
I was lucky enough to hear the Project Ember back-to-back with the Projrect Polaris and when everything was running optimally you honestly couldn't get a fag paper between them. I went for the Ember because I liked the flexibility (complexity?) the valve brought to the table. I think if I were buying again I'd actually go for the Polaris, if only for the reliability. I should say though that my Project Ember MkII has performed flawlessly from the get-go. My Project Ember is a bit special though as it was one of the first prototype run. The serial number is my birthday. It also has a bigger knob than stock. Size matters. Not. Wow nice to have a memorable serial number! But why won't having a bigger knob matter (other than it looks nicer)? |
|
But just wondering, why else will the Polaris do better than the Ember for low impedance headphones? I thought they are using the same solid-state output to begin with
)