Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphone Amps (full-size) › Dubstep Girl's Massive 5AR4/5R4/5U4G Rectifier Review/Comparison! (Rectifer Tube Rolling thread)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Dubstep Girl's Massive 5AR4/5R4/5U4G Rectifier Review/Comparison! (Rectifer Tube Rolling thread) - Page 6

post #76 of 652
Will different rectifier tubes affect the WA3's sound noticeably?
post #77 of 652

Great thread and topic.

post #78 of 652
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rossliew View Post

Will different rectifier tubes affect the WA3's sound noticeably?

 

i don't think that the WA3 has rectifier tubes,  only power and driver.

post #79 of 652
Correct, the WA3 has solid state bridge rectifier. ph34r.gifbasshead.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubstep Girl View Post

i don't think that the WA3 has rectifier tubes,  only power and driver.

Edited by GrindingThud - 12/12/13 at 4:49pm
post #80 of 652
What exactly are tube rectifiers and how are they used? Sorry for being so noobish, but we all have to learn at one point in our lives, right?
-- thanks
post #81 of 652
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nusho View Post

What exactly are tube rectifiers and how are they used? Sorry for being so noobish, but we all have to learn at one point in our lives, right?
-- thanks

they convert AC to DC - you can easily google it. 

post #82 of 652
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nusho View Post

What exactly are tube rectifiers and how are they used? Sorry for being so noobish, but we all have to learn at one point in our lives, right?
-- thanks


Not to worry. I had to start somewhere too.

 

So here's a primer from Wikipedia:

 

A rectifier is an electrical device that converts alternating current (AC), which periodically reverses direction, to direct current (DC), which flows in only one direction. The process is known as rectification. Physically, rectifiers take a number of forms, including vacuum tube diodes, mercury-arc valves, copper and selenium oxide rectifiers, semiconductor diodes, silicon-controlled rectifiers and other silicon-based semiconductor switches. Historically, even synchronous electromechanical switches and motors have been used. Early radio receivers, called crystal radios, used a "cat's whisker" of fine wire pressing on a crystal of galena (lead sulfide) to serve as a point-contact rectifier or "crystal detector".

 

Rectifiers have many uses, but are often found serving as components of DC power supplies and high-voltage direct current power transmission systems. Rectification may serve in roles other than to generate direct current for use as a source of power. As noted, detectors of radio signals serve as rectifiers. In gas heating systems flame rectification is used to detect presence of flame.

Because of the alternating nature of the input AC sine wave, the process of rectification alone produces a DC current which, although unidirectional, consists of pulses of current. Many applications of rectifiers, such as power supplies for radio, television and computer equipment, require a steady constant DC current (as would be produced by a battery). In these applications the output of the rectifier is smoothed by an electronic filter to produce a steady current.

 

A more complex circuitry device which performs the opposite function, converting DC to AC, is known as an inverter.

 

Nusho--and there's more at the door!... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectifier

post #83 of 652
post #84 of 652
Quote:
Originally Posted by magiccabbage View Post
 

this might help also - http://www.head-fi.org/t/534985/power-versus-driver-tubes-question

 

http://www.ecpaudio.com/pdf/parafeed_basics.pdf

 

I am still learning myself 


And actually, I still don't get how glass and metal do this kind of magic. It is all so fascinating to me--still :)

post #85 of 652
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clayton SF View Post
 


And actually, I still don't get how glass and metal do this kind of magic. It is all so fascinating to me--still :)

i wanna start building next year so id better start getting used to keeping the info in my head. I presume as you build it becomes easier. The act of making hopefully will help me understand how it all works. 

post #86 of 652

Thanks DSG for the clarification :)

post #87 of 652
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xcalibur255 View Post
 

After looking at the 422A data sheet I have to wonder why nobody is making a reproduction of the tube today.  It has nice specs.  Less voltage drop and more capacity than a 5U4G, and indirectly heated too.  On paper the tube is very similar to a GZ33/GZ37 actually.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubstep Girl View Post
 

 

yes, i believe Glenn also said something similar when i asked him about the 422A in his amp, he said it looked like a very nice tube.

 

Before you all rush out to pay excessive amounts of money on a Western Electric 422a, maybe it is good to put things a bit in perspective. Although  I do not have all the rectifiers Dubstep girl has tested, I have a few of the top contenders: WE422a and GZ37 Mullard fat bottle (black base). I use them in my 300B amp (see profile). The power supply of that amp is a choke input type supply. My amp needs an indirectly headed triode, hence no GEC U52 for me.

 

Both are great rectifiers but they are quite different. The Western Electric 422a compared to the Mullard GZ37 big bottle is bass light, and less defined and dynamic in the bass. The Mullard GZ37 big bottle (BB) has incredible bass depth, dynamics and definition.

 

The WE422a excels in the midrange, where it is very natural, and smooth but also very detailed,  and transparent. You hear everything here but it still sounds natural (beautiful tone and timbre of instruments, no grain). Quite an achievement. I think that is where the WE422a really shines. The midrange of the Mullard GZ37BB ,on the other hand is warmer, sounds bigger, less quick on its feet, but still very natural and relaxed. The midrange of the WE422a is more exciting, the Mullard is more relaxed.

 

The WE422a also has beautiful highs, natural tone and very quick. You clearly hear the hi-hats hit each other. And again, no grain, no hard edge. The Mullard GZ37 BB’s treble is more rolled off, less defined,  but again still very natural and smooth, just not as prominent..

 

Last, the WE422a excels in soundstage width and depth, the Mullard is more intimate compared to the WE422a., but it still has a decent soundstage don’t you worry.

When I owned the Sennheiser HD800, I much preferred the Mullard GZ37BB to the WE422a.  The HD800 could use some extra bass, and did not need the soundstage qualities of the WE422a. In fact, when I used the WE422 the soundstage became too large,  there was not enough presence, I felt removed from the music. The Mullard GZ37 BB was for me a perfect match with the Sennheiser HD800.

 

I now use the Fostex TH-900, and things get more tricky. The jury is still out on this one. With the WE422a, the midrange is very present. It completely cures the recessed midrange issues of the Fostex, as a bonus it creates a large open and very detailed soundstage that is very addictive….However, it loses some of its main qualities and that is the bass. With the Mullard GZ37BB the bass of the Fostex TH-900 is simply incredible. Deep, dynamic and very well defined. The WE422a is not capable of doing that. The bass is not only less deep, it is also less defined and dynamic. For some reasons, the WE422a is not capable of controlling the bass of the TH-900 as much as the Mullard does.

 

Now beware I listen mostly to classical (opera & symphonic) music, with some good slides of jazz and pop/rock. And you could argue that for classical the WE422a is to be preferred, but it is not that easy. In my opinion classical music (at least symphonic and opera, but also piano) profits just as much from a well defined deep bass as other types of music, as long as it does not overwhelms the midrange….And it does not with the Fostex. Bass provides the basic rhythm of the music, mess that up and the structure is lost, also in classical music…Good bass definition is very important for complex  and dynamic (classical) music (Mahler just as much as the Stones), it gives direction and purpose. If you lose that,  the rest does not matter (to me) anymore.

 

To summarize, the WE422 excels in the midrange, but falls a bit short in the bass (IMO, and on my equipment). The Mullard GZ37 excels in the bass, and has no real shortcomings, it is just less capable in the midrange and treble than the WE422a. At this moment, I use the Mullard GZ37 BB in the 300B amplifier, and the WE422a in my Lampizator DAC….

Hope this helps a bit….


Edited by playitloud - 12/13/13 at 5:20am
post #88 of 652
Quote:
Originally Posted by playitloud View Post
 

 

 

Before you all rush out to pay excessive amounts of money on a Western Electric 422a, maybe it is good to put things a bit in perspective. Although  I do not have all the rectifiers Dubstep girl has tested, I have a few of the top contenders: WE422a and GZ37 Mullard fat bottle (black base). I use them in my 300B amp (see profile). The power supply of that amp is a choke input type supply. My amp needs an indirectly headed triode, hence no GEC U52 for me.

 

Both are great rectifiers but they are quite different. The Western Electric 422a compared to the Mullard GZ37 big bottle is bass light, and less defined and dynamic in the bass. The Mullard GZ37 big bottle (BB) has incredible bass depth, dynamics and definition.

 

The WE422a excels in the midrange, where it is very natural, and smooth but also very detailed,  and transparent. You hear everything here but it still sounds natural (beautiful tone and timbre of instruments, no grain). Quite an achievement. I think that is where the WE422a really shines. The midrange of the Mullard GZ37BB ,on the other hand is warmer, sounds bigger, less quick on its feet, but still very natural and relaxed. The midrange of the WE422a is more exciting, the Mullard is more relaxed.

 

The WE422a also has beautiful highs, natural tone and very quick. You clearly hear the hi-hats hit each other. And again, no grain, no hard edge. The Mullard GZ37 BB’s treble is more rolled off, less defined,  but again still very natural and smooth, just not as prominent..

 

Last, the WE422a excels in soundstage width and depth, the Mullard is more intimate compared to the WE422a., but it still has a decent soundstage don’t you worry.

When I owned the Sennheiser HD800, I much preferred the Mullard GZ37BB to the WE422a.  The HD800 could use some extra bass, and did not need the soundstage qualities of the WE422a. In fact, when I used the WE422 the soundstage became too large,  there was not enough presence, I felt removed from the music. The Mullard GZ37 BB was for me a perfect match with the Sennheiser HD800.

 

I now use the Fostex TH-900, and things get more tricky. The jury is still out on this one. With the WE422a, the midrange is very present. It completely cures the recessed midrange issues of the Fostex, as a bonus it creates a large open and very detailed soundstage that is very addictive….However, it loses some of its main qualities and that is the bass. With the Mullard GZ37BB the bass of the Fostex TH-900 is simply incredible. Deep, dynamic and very well defined. The WE422a is not capable of doing that. The bass is not only less deep, it is also less defined and dynamic. For some reasons, the WE422a is not capable of controlling the bass of the TH-900 as much as the Mullard does.

 

Now beware I listen mostly to classical (opera & symphonic) music, with some good slides of jazz and pop/rock. And you could argue that for classical the WE422a is to be preferred, but it is not that easy. In my opinion classical music (at least symphonic and opera, but also piano) profits just as much from a well defined deep bass as other types of music, as long as it does not overwhelms the midrange….And it does not with the Fostex. Bass provides the basic rhythm of the music, mess that up and the structure is lost, also in classical music…Good bass definition is very important for complex  and dynamic (classical) music (Mahler just as much as the Stones), it gives direction and purpose. If you lose that,  the rest does not matter (to me) anymore.

 

To summarize, the WE422 excels in the midrange, but falls a bit short in the bass (IMO, and on my equipment). The Mullard GZ37 excels in the bass, and has no real shortcomings, it is just less capable in the midrange and treble than the WE422a. At this moment, I use the Mullard GZ37 BB in the 300B amplifier, and the WE422a in my Lampizator DAC….

Hope this helps a bit….

thanks for posting - that does help. When you  say BB you mean black base?

post #89 of 652

BB= Big Bottle. The High Wycombe one,...Can be both black or brown base...


Edited by playitloud - 12/13/13 at 6:24am
post #90 of 652

Ok I located  a pair of 596 tubes for 200.00 shipped . To bad there was only  pair. May have found a stash of R60 will get that price next week

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) › Dubstep Girl's Massive 5AR4/5R4/5U4G Rectifier Review/Comparison! (Rectifer Tube Rolling thread)