Preamp Deal of the Century

i think it really depends on the sensitivity of your amp. i don't know the rowland, but my vac is pretty sensitive, and likes ideally under 20db of gain, so the top switches are set to low output (forward), and the back dial is set to highest output (all the way counter-clockwise).

hey bwhite (brian?)... i checked my kenrads, and they say vt231. something about them, maybe because i have them in my vac as well... just too much. sounds a little more veiled than the black glass tungsol.

you also liked the sylvania metal base 6sn7W... would this be similar to the black base, top getter, sylvania 6sn7W? i have a pair of these, and thought they were extended, but a little thin...

Hi Dennis - if your KenRads say VT-231 they are in the middle of the 3 sonic spectrums I've mentioned. In my system I find these to work the best - yes, their sound could be interpreted as "veiled" when compared to other 6SN7's but they deliver a weight and body that no other tube I've found can match. The rounds are much more open, a bit sweeter and dynamic.

In my system, I'd say my room is slightly "live" - so that adds a natural "air" to some extent. The KenRads tend to roll the highs slightly, push the midrange and give the sound a more natural overall timbre. Voices are much less metallic than with other tubes (Sylvania 6SN7W metal base).

I've found that most every tube has trade-offs. You just need to determine where in your system you can compensate for those.

There is never a sure fire tube implementation that works perfect in every system & for everyones taste (as I am finding out with my Aesthetix IO). The best solution is usually to try as many as you can.

Bwhite, good comparison of the black Ken and black Tungsol. Yes the Ken has better weight on bottom which lends an expansiveness to the sound, and particularly, at least on my system, in the depth field on such things as large drums (listen to Gladiator on this for example). I do not find the Kens veiled, but if a system is a little dark, or tends to veer off that way a bit more than some, it can sound...um, distant in that darkness, if you don't like that sort of thing (I do, BTW). Also, while I don'y think either is a screamer up top, they sound both about the same to me in extension. Its just that with the Ken bigger on bottom, perhaps it is percieved as being a bit less extended on top, maybe. Add in the darkness aspect (I love gloomy Connemara days on the coast of Ireland...) and I think the mind would percieve it as rolled on top, maybe, who knows...

Anyway, I settled for the Tung too, but it was a close call; I know what Bwhite is saying. And, yes, it was the harmonic sweetness that won out (and something else, see below). If the system I have the Syrah in now was itself more full range, however, I wouldn't be surprised if I went back to the Kens. One thing though, even more than the sweet/weight trade-off: the Tungs lend more of a feeling that players are more integrated in their playing. For instance, listen to well recorded acoustic guitars. One drawback of the Tungs - and this may be an interaction with my particular system, like a system might veer towrds darkness more than another even though it starts off as no maore dark - is that the voice image is smaller with the Tungs. You get used to it, and its not un-realistic, but I do miss the large projection quality of the Kens...maybe I'll put them back in, just for a second this weekend, and...well, there you have it.

Bwhite, better watch NOS-ing that IO. You may need deep, deep therapy at some later time (24, right?)...

WHY I see some suprateks for sell? do seller find better preamp?
thanks