ECP Torpedo III [indexed in first post]

Correct me if I'm wrong, I think Tom said the variations in the Cinemags were purely cosmetic, ie the top laminations lifting up on some pairs.

 

I thought he said it in this thread, but turns out it was Headfi, Here is his post on the Cinemags: http://www.head-fi.org/t/781651/torpedo-iii-build-thread/270#post_12953695 (post 283 if that didn't link correctly)

 

@SteelCannon what did you hear, and from whom?

 

the quote actually has everything to do with variance in sound, or more specifically, a lack thereof. that post by tom on HF that @Anders cites suggests that variance in cinemags was physical variance in the units and not variance in anything to do with the sound they produce.

@TomB wondering what you think about this, since it would be good to have some sense of clarity on this rather than have notions about cinemag variance floating around

 

@brencho are you suggesting that all functioning ge 12ay7 tubes sound the same? Even in the world of tubes it is pretty much accepted that some tubes sound different than others.

As I pointed out earlier and have now moved to this post, tom's quote may not hold as true anymore because new mods came out since.

quote is from feb 14th. here is the full quote. I did not ask Tom for permission to post this but there is no sensitive info so it should be ok.

"That’s sort of the point - something not mentioned on the forums is that the variances in tubes and the Cinemags (basically handmade) are much greater than any of these mods being discussed – much greater. IOW, your amp may already sound better simply because I rolled in a good pair of tubes, or simply because your particular pair of Cinemags happen to be great. You are much better off searching for a pair of magical tubes rather than anything else.


Another point - you may have noticed Doug made statements about a revised PCB, too. That may have a better effect than any daughter boards. Your amp already sounds better than my prototype that has the CCS boards. I attribute the difference to your PCB being better than the prototype PCB – or the tubes or Cinemags as stated above.
"

 

wow, first dislike, i'm honored. though i don't understand why you dislike what i said. you were claiming that there was variance in sound to cinemag transformers, and were questioning the validity of @Anders post, which explicitly clarified that variance in cinemags was *physical* and not *sonic*

i would obviously never argue that tubes don't affect sound. that's just silly. i also don't know why you'd think that, given that we were discussing cinemags. i have various tubes that i use on the t3, but now that i've found my one or two favorites, don't tube roll anymore. so clearly i believe that tubes affect sound (albeit in often subtle ways)

 

if you believe that functioning tubes can sound different, why do you believe that functioning transformers cannot sound different?

Tom said that there werent issues with the cinemags, ie they are all function properly. This has absolutely nothing to do with sound variance among functioning transformers.

 

I was merely explaining that Andres' quote had direct relevance to the issue at hand -aka cinemags- since you questioned its relevance. I'm all done here, carry on guys.

 

It needs to be clarified what Tom means by mods. If he is referring to the official mods sold by Beezar (two different CCS, Mundorfs) then that goes contrary to everything he has posted in this thread. He has continuously offered opinions (sometimes quite strong) on how rolling tubes, CCS and Mundorfs mods made to the sound.

Variances in tubes, sure. Transformers are much more precise device especially from a large manufacturer like Cinemag. I'm not sure if I'd buy gross variations even from a single person winder winding them by hand. I would be interested to hear from Tom or Doug if Cinemag are winding these by hand or using a machine like Lundahl, McIntosh, etc would be using.

All we can really do is wait for Tom to clarify. Because I interpreted his Headfi post like Brencho.

 

Granted, sometimes it depends on how much beer I've had when I make a post, but I think the real answer is that I was struggling mightily in dealing with you and your amp, which you sent to me for repair. You've chosen to share some of our conversation, so let me just state that I was very frustrated in trying to meet your expectations. In searching for some explanation of how your T3 build was operating (which I literally re-built for you), I offered a number of hypothetical explanations, including that there might be some variances in the Cinemags. This was based on Doug's and mine initial experience with Cinemag's quality control. The de-lamination has already been mentioned. Previous posts have pointed out differences in the construction of the plastic runners - even on the same transformer.

So at the time - in a frustrated effort to respond to your complaints - I suggested that there might be variances in the Cinemag sound quality by assuming that their build quality might stretch to affecting their sound. Note that this was very early on, and I had little experience with Cinemags at the time (compared to the present).

Since that time, I have built probably over a dozen T3s, testing and listening to every single one of them. Add to that a number of repair T3's, to boot. In all of that, I have yet to discover an actual variance in the Cinemag sound quality.

So, if you were to ask my opinion about the sound differences with your amp - as far as it was configured when I rebuilt it for you - it has only the Epcos caps and no CCS boards whatsoever. No offense - but the amp is at another performance level entirely with the Mundorfs and Output CCS boards, Cinemags not withstanding.

 

thanks for the clarification.

 

No problem. Sorry if my previous communication caused some confusion over the last two pages on this thread.

 

Same core material, same windings and ratios... I'd sure hope for the same sound unless quality control is a real issue.

Nevertheless, knowing that Mr. @dsavitsk is a Lundahl guy at heart, here's to expecting a very different T4 form factor in order to accommodate them.

 

There is no issue with sound quality variations in the Cinemags. Full stop. A few of them had some laminations slightly off kilter on the edges, but this was not enough to cause any issues at all.

A hypothetical T4 will use transformers from Cinemag. They make an excellent product at a good price point, and there are decidedly few winders anymore who do the same. Lundahls would be expensive, and large, and push a hypothetical T4 into the price range of things like the DSHA3.

 

He said "will".

But just to be clear, DS revealed nothing at the meet and I know absolutely zilch about a hypothetical T4.

 

With a statement like that, I have to ask, what exactly do you see are the benefits or differences in performance of each of these options? Since you feel the differences are great, I would appreciate a bit more information on how they improve the amp.

I'm not looking for vague generalizations, but a clear understanding of what each of these options will do to a stock amp, since much of what has been discussed on this forum is difficult to follow due to the number of variables and the variety of different threads of conversation that have happened at the same time.

For example, precisely what do the CCS tube boards do sonically? I don't think I've seen a single mention of any sonic differences associated with this tweak. The diyforums site says nothing, other than how to install it (similarly for the CCS output boards). So what does this tweak DO (sonically), exactly?

Thanks,


---Michael

 

Michael, you'd be better served by reading this thread which discusses the changes in the amp as numerous folks have modded it with these upgrades along the way. TomB shouldn't need to rehash it all now, and he is correct in that an upgraded amp is significantly different than a stock amp, based on my own experience doing the mods.

 

I have. I believe I have read every post in the entire thread. There is little cohesiveness to the various conversations that intermingle in this thread, and I don't believe I saw anything that discussed the aural benefits of the tube CCS... The index at the beginning is good, but doesn't address the individual tweaks in a manner that allows for an understand of the benefits.

Since TomB has made a pretty strong statement about the benefits, I was hoping to understand what he believes to be the benefits of the various options.

I think I understand the benefit of the CCS output chips, and have a decent understanding of the resistors that people have tried. The caps and particularly the tube CCS is unclear to me.

 

That is what I figured. We did a GB on LH for their higher end 1:10 SUT and the consistency was incredible; even on the fly leads wires were within millimeters of each other. I have no doubt they are up there with Jensen, Lundahl, etc

 

Woof.

Caps: There's no possible way you could have read every post in the thread and not gleaned any of the aural benefits of capacitor swaps. Go to the first post, type CTRL+F and search for "cap." Then click the links. If you still want more, use the "Search this thread only" function in the search bar in the top right of the page for relevant terms including, but not limited to, "Mundorf," "Rike," "Solen," and "Epcos."

Tube CCS:

• Beezar product page
• What the CCS boards are doing
• Since the output CCS boards appear to have been released in late July 2016, most, if not all, discussion about "CCS" in the thread before such date in the thread refers to the tube CCS boards. Like this. So, again, search the thread.