Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphone Amps (full-size) › Singlepower MPX-3 vs. Raptor
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Singlepower MPX-3 vs. Raptor - Page 3

post #31 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by 909
As is RS Audio's following certainly strong here too coincidently. And both camps tend to be very passionate about what’s pleasing to them and brand loyal as well.

When I started my amp search (about two yrs ago) I thought without question I’d get a Raptor based on the opinions stated here and else where. Then I thought it would be wise and won’t hurt to at least consider and listen to another amp. But still in the back of my head based on my readings I never thought another amp (within my price range) would or could be as good as the Raptor. Yet to my complete surprise the MPX3 with NOS tubes was more to my liking and then the even lesser known EC-2A3 made the music seem real and that’s why I got it.



ditto
What is NOS tubes? Is NOS like EH, a brand name ?
post #32 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by rshdhead
What is NOS tubes? Is NOS like EH, a brand name ?
NOS = New Old Stock. Basically tubes that were made a while ago, but not used. EH 6sn7 is a current production tube.
post #33 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by elrod-tom
The first time I heard the Raptor, it was a pre-production model. I'd agree that it seemed to struggle with low impedance cans (specifically Grado PS-1, SR225). I've spent some time with a Raptor as recently as last summer (SIGH...it's fall!!), and it handled the Grado PS-1, HF-1, SR325i, and GS1000 very nicely.

I've not spent time with a newer generation SinglePower, but they certainly have a strong following on this site.

Yes, the first batch of Raptors shipped (the first 20) had trouble with low impedance phones. Ray told me this because I had one of them. He made changes right after that first batch was shipped. I know he changed to hi-temp caps, he also provided vibration isolation for transformer. He may have changed the biasing but I'm not sure of that. I was not aware of these changes until earlier this year when he updated my Raptor. The improvement in driving low impedance cans was dramatic. Before the update to the Raptor, the CD3K's lacked bass, were cool sounding and sibilent. After the update, the CD3K's were were warm, dynamic and musical. Before the change, I was thinking of selling the Raptor, now there is no way that I would sell it. I don't have the latest and greatest Raptor power supply that has the torroidal transformer. I'm sure its better and I might eventually send it back for the upgrade but it is sounding so good now that I'm not in any hurry to change it.
post #34 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by PFKMan23
NOS = New Old Stock. Basically tubes that were made a while ago, but not used. EH 6sn7 is a current production tube.
PFKMan, thanks. You are always so promptly helpful. Then why old tubes are better than new production ?
post #35 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by rshdhead
PFKMan, thanks. You are always so promptly helpful. Then why old tubes are better than new production ?
My answer isn't definitive by any means but from where I stand, alot of it has to do simply becayse tubes simply were used alot more back then, with radios, TVs, military applications and the like. Production tolerances were tighter, because there was a much larger demand and supply for tubes (more competition/usage) which in turn led to better tubes. At this point, the market is considerably lighter which means an overall smaller demand ,which to me atleast can also mean looser tolerances because companies can get away with it.

To be honest though, sometimes you just need to hear it for yourself. GO compare some current production tubes to some NOS tubes.
post #36 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by PFKMan23
My answer isn't definitive by any means but from where I stand, alot of it has to do simply becayse tubes simply were used alot more back then, with radios, TVs, military applications and the like. Production tolerances were tighter, because there was a much larger demand and supply for tubes (more competition/usage) which in turn led to better tubes. At this point, the market is considerably lighter which means an overall smaller demand ,which to me atleast can also mean looser tolerances because companies can get away with it.

To be honest though, sometimes you just need to hear it for yourself. GO compare some current production tubes to some NOS tubes.
Now I understand why Mikehail gave me 3 old tubes in the package of MPX3 and look-new tubes in seperate package. He wanted me to use the old tubes first that, he believes, should sound better the new ones.

These old tubes are, 2 Tung-sol as output and 1 Hytron as driver. There are no labels of 6SN7 on these old tubes, but something else. They should be 6SN7. I am sure not 5687 because of size.
post #37 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by rshdhead
What is NOS tubes? Is NOS like EH, a brand name ?
rshdhead...here's a pretty good sticky thread that is most informative to tube noobs:

http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=121357

Everyday, we wake up and learn a little more...isn't it cool?
post #38 of 106
Raptor has a lean tone body that is not corrected by tube changing - it always sounds like a (fine) solid state amp regardless of tubes used. Can't imagine it sounds like any other tube amp - although the G & W T2.6F was closest in sound to the Raptor, but not as lean as the Raptor.

Great detail, image definition and image separation though.

Gave me a headache with long listening sessions - someone told me this was because of the negative feedback used in the circuit. I would have kept it and loved it except for this listening fatigue factor.
post #39 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by drarthurwells
Raptor has a lean tone body that is not corrected by tube changing - it always sounds like a (fine) solid state amp regardless of tubes used. Can't imagine it sounds like any other tube amp - although the G & W T2.6F was closest in sound to the Raptor, but not as lean as the Raptor.

Great detail, image definition and image separation though.

Gave me a headache with long listening sessions - someone told me this was because of the negative feedback used in the circuit. I would have kept it and loved it except for this listening fatigue factor.
I disagree. I wouldn't call the Raptor lean at all. Its fast and it has powerful bass with a little added warmth from the tubes. Its warmer than any SS amp that I've owned but only slightly so. If the Raptor sounded fatiguing, you must have been using the SA5000 (that can gave me an instant headache). The CD3K sounds warm and musical through the Raptor, same for the K701. If anything, the Raptor is almost too warm and full bodied for my taste with the HD650/Zu.
post #40 of 106
Although my experience with it is limited to several meets, I generally agree that the Raptor has the speed and clarity of a solid state amp and not as much warmth as the MPX3 or other tube amps. Even though I have not tube-rolled in the Raptor, however, I think it definitely depends on the overall setup. At the International Meet I loved Zatara's setup of a laptop-->Scott Nixon tube DAC-->Raptor-->HD650s. I described it as slammin and found it much "warmer" with the tube dac in the chain, but it still had the clarity, speed and dynamics that sets it apart.
post #41 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveM324
I disagree. I wouldn't call the Raptor lean at all. Its fast and it has powerful bass with a little added warmth from the tubes. Its warmer than any SS amp that I've owned but only slightly so. If the Raptor sounded fatiguing, you must have been using the SA5000 (that can gave me an instant headache). The CD3K sounds warm and musical through the Raptor, same for the K701. If anything, the Raptor is almost too warm and full bodied for my taste with the HD650/Zu.

I didn't use the SA5000 with it - used the K701 and Rega Apollo or E5 Signature with great ICs.

I have never heard a tube amp with a leaner tone than than Raptor and used all kinds of tubes (TungSol black glass, Mullard, Ratheon WA, RCA clear top, Amperex, Brimar, Seimens, etc.) and couldn't correct its lean tone body.

The tone becomes hard and irritating with long listening, to me. Got to where I had to stop after 15 minutes. No other amp has ever done this for me.
post #42 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by drarthurwells
Raptor has a lean tone body that is not corrected by tube changing - it always sounds like a (fine) solid state amp regardless of tubes used. Can't imagine it sounds like any other tube amp - although the G & W T2.6F was closest in sound to the Raptor, but not as lean as the Raptor.

Great detail, image definition and image separation though.

Gave me a headache with long listening sessions - someone told me this was because of the negative feedback used in the circuit. I would have kept it and loved it except for this listening fatigue factor.
Unfortunately, i had a similar listening experience (not headache, but ear) and as I previously said couldn't listen as loud or as long as I would have liked; so there’s at least a bit, if not more truth here. I agree with your description, but I wonder how much listening fatigue had to do with the E5 source.

Did you try the Apollo -> Raptor? I suspect it would have been a better combo. I wish I could try the Raptor again with my new source.
post #43 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by 909
Unfortunately, i had a similar listening experience (not headache, but ear) and as I previously said couldn't listen as loud or as long as I would have liked; so there’s at least a bit, if not more truth here. I agree with your description, but I wonder how much listening fatigue had to do with the E5 source.

Did you try the Apollo -> Raptor? I suspect it would have been a better combo. I wish I could try the Raptor again with my new source.
Yes, see my previous post.

Glad to hear someone say I tell at least a bit of the truth.
post #44 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by drarthurwells
Yes, see my previous post.

Glad to hear someone say I tell at least a bit of the truth.
I also said "if not more" (trying to be diplomatic).

Was the Apollo more tolerable than the E5 with the Raptor?
post #45 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by drarthurwells
I didn't use the SA5000 with it - used the K701 and Rega Apollo or E5 Signature with great ICs.

I have never heard a tube amp with a leaner tone than than Raptor and used all kinds of tubes (TungSol black glass, Mullard, Ratheon WA, RCA clear top, Amperex, Brimar, Seimens, etc.) and couldn't correct its lean tone body.

The tone becomes hard and irritating with long listening, to me. Got to where I had to stop after 15 minutes. No other amp has ever done this for me.
No listener fatigue here with the Raptor and CD3K, K701, K340 or HD650. I've used the Rega Apollo, Rega Saturn, Sony XA9000ES and the Meridian 500/566 transport/DAC for sources. I use an Acoustic Zen Tsunami PC and MIT power conditioner. Maybe you had an early Raptor before the upgrades. There was a significant difference before and after the updating of my Raptor. I was not very happy with my Raptor until Ray made the changes to my amp. Now its incredibly good with a full body and warmer sound. If some people heard the Raptor as it was before the updates I can understand how there is so much disparity in opinions of this amp. Before and after the updates were like 2 different amps. I think the new power supply might even improve upon the updates in mine.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphone Amps (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphone Amps (full-size) › Singlepower MPX-3 vs. Raptor