[sachu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Henmyr /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thanks for the answer. Do the CHT better the "large, deep 3D-like soundstage" that I've read that the CK2III has? What headphones did you test both with? Did you try both with your very hard to drive orthos? I would guess that the outcome COULD (as I really have no idea) be different as my current headphones are not that hard to drive in comparison. thanks again.

The only reason I actually built the CK2III in the first place was due to the fantastic synergy it had with my HD580 and DT770s..But once I discovered the orthos the CK2III wasn't all that much fun.

The CTH and the CK2III were both tested with all my orthos and the AKG K701s. The CTH was better with all. The CTH also had the better soundstage by a large margin, excellent highs, detailed and very nice mids compared to the CK2III.

I see that you have the Grado RS1..apparently the CTH is supposed to be heavenly with the RS1.

I reiterate, the CTH is a much better amp than the CK2III.

 

[keyid]

I agree with the CTH assessment though I didnt have them at the same time and im biased towards tubes. I also rolled various CK2III output transistors and I preferred tubes.

 

[HeadphoneAddict]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sachu /img/forum/go_quote.gif The only reason I actually built the CK2III in the first place was due to the fantastic synergy it had with my HD580 and DT770s..But once I discovered the orthos the CK2III wasn't all that much fun. The CTH and the CK2III were both tested with all my orthos and the AKG K701s. The CTH was better with all. The CTH also had the better soundstage by a large margin, excellent highs, detailed and very nice mids compared to the CK2III. I see that you have the Grado RS1..apparently the CTH is supposed to be heavenly with the RS1. I reiterate, the CTH is a much better amp than the CK2III.

The RS-1 was very good with the CTH - better than the orthos (sorry wiatrob), and I should get a chance to try the CTH again in a couple of weeks (if I didn't offend wiatrob just now).

 

[keyid]

not getting much luck dampening the ortho (yh-1) to mate with the CTH. Must have tried 20 different combinations of felt thick/thin, cotton webbing, blue tack and micro fiber. They are very hard to drive once dampened, my vol is around 3-4'o clock w/ 100ohm on R18 output resistors. Hope to hear RS-1 with CTH, maybe the push I need to finally get one.

 

[Giuss]

Is it possible to see complete schematics?

 

[holland]

.

 

[wiatrob]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HeadphoneAddict /img/forum/go_quote.gif SNIP (if I didn't offend wiatrob just now).

No offense, I bought a pair of RS-1s because of it

 

[HeadphoneAddict]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wiatrob /img/forum/go_quote.gif No offense, I bought a pair of RS-1s because of it

And I'm sorry about your wallet!

 

[holland]

Quote:

CTH<snip>...<snip>CK2III

I just want to be practical. They are different.

I have both as well, and will continue owning them (I can't sell my builds). The CK2III is in my stable of "go to" amps for work. It always comes back in rotation. The CK2III is cheaper, in the long run. You don't have all these tube itches @ $xx per tube. The CK2III is a very steady and solid performer. It is a very good amp, clean crisp edges, good extension, and very hard to beat for the money. Output transistor changes are relatively small in impact, compared to the wide array of tubes. Tube amps, I find somewhat lacking around the edges. You have to swap and invest in tubes to get what you're looking for (IMO). It's also much easier to control gain on the CK2III.

The performance of the CTH depends drastically (as do all hybrids) on the tubes utilized.

If you want to swap both tubes and transistors, the SOHA II is your guy (for more money).

It all comes down to preferences and what you need. The CTH, while nice, is primarily targeted at transportable. The CK2III is not entirely in that vein.

 

[sachu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by holland /img/forum/go_quote.gif I just want to be practical. They are different. I have both as well, and will continue owning them (I can't sell my builds). The CK2III is in my stable of "go to" amps for work. It always comes back in rotation. The CK2III is cheaper, in the long run. You don't have all these tube itches @ $xx per tube. The CK2III is a very steady and solid performer. It is a very good amp, clean crisp edges, good extension, and very hard to beat for the money. Output transistor changes are relatively small in impact, compared to the wide array of tubes. Tube amps, I find somewhat lacking around the edges. You have to swap and invest in tubes to get what you're looking for (IMO). It's also much easier to control gain on the CK2III. The performance of the CTH depends drastically (as do all hybrids) on the tubes utilized. If you want to swap both tubes and transistors, the SOHA II is your guy (for more money). It all comes down to preferences and what you need. The CTH, while nice, is primarily targeted at transportable. The CK2III is not entirely in that vein.

I will not agree with you on that..but we are both entitled to our own opinions. I only put down what I found when I compared the two amps.

The CK2III I had was extremely rolled off in the highs and a mid range that was hardly as involving as the CTH was. it did have a better lowend.
I must have spent about 170$ on my CTh including over a dozen different tubes. I agree with the more esoteric tubes you will eventually end up spending a lot more than the actual amp cost to build.

 

[holland]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sachu /img/forum/go_quote.gif I will not agree with you on that..but we are both entitled to our own opinions.

sure are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sachu /img/forum/go_quote.gif The CK2III I had was extremely rolled off in the highs and a mid range that was hardly as involving as the CTH was. it did have a better lowend.

Sounds like something was wrong, to be honest. The sound of the CTH drastically changes with tubes swaps. There were some tubes that were really not that great in the CTH, so blanket statements don't really mean a whole lot without taking that into consideration.

 

[sachu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by holland /img/forum/go_quote.gif sure are. Sounds like something was wrong, to be honest. The sound of the CTH drastically changes with tubes swaps. There were some tubes that were really not that great in the CTH, so blanket statements don't really mean a whole lot without taking that into consideration.

Look..I don't want to get into a back and forth thing here..

I just reported what I heard and my opinion.

I tried the best tubes I had with the CTH but the bass wasn't up to the mark when compared to the CK2III. Changing to boutique parts or some fancy tubes may do the trick..

I did forget to mention that the bass improved ont he CTh with an RCA 5963 but lost some of the sparkle in the highs that the 12BH7 had.

The CTH did a far better job with all the headphones I have compared to the CK2III. Considering that my set up is not the same as yours, its possible your CK2III does well in your rig. throw in the fact that listening is so subjective, it complicates things even more.

To me the CTh is a superior amp compared to the Ck2III

 

[holland]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sachu /img/forum/go_quote.gif Look..I don't want to get into a back and forth thing here.. I just reported what I heard and my opinion. I tried the best tubes I had with the CTH but the bass wasn't up to the mark when compared to the CK2III. Changing to boutique parts or some fancy tubes may do the trick.. I did forget to mention that the bass improved ont he CTh with an RCA 5963 but lost some of the sparkle in the highs that the 12BH7 had. The CTH did a far better job with all the headphones I have compared to the CK2III. Considering that my set up is not the same as yours, its possible your CK2III does well in your rig. throw in the fact that listening is so subjective, it complicates things even more. To me the CTh is a superior amp compared to the Ck2III

Heh. For someone not looking for a back and forth you sure are coming off strongly. I understand you're passionate about the CTH so strong opinions are somewhat expected.

As far as opinions go, I never disputed yours, other than the "extreme roll-off". You may want to re-read my original posting.

For the poster of the question, you may want to start another thread.

 

[runeight]

Perhaps this lively discussion is a matter of purpose.

As you all know I did the redesign of the CKKIII. The purpose of this amp is a cheap, good quality, no NFB solid state amp. It is not intended for rolling anything and I am surprised if anyone can hear any difference between different O/P transistors. But because there is no NFB, I believe there could be some slight SQ differences. This amp is not designed to be extremely portable because it uses a 15-0-15 transformer.

OTOH, the CTH is specifically designed to be both very portable and able to use a whole multitude of tubes. In this case the amp is expected to be different depending on the tube chosen. I also expected that there would be different opinions about the sound of different tubes and that folks would even prefer a different tube for different music. The goal was to make it sound very good given its size and flexibility. There is no other amp that I am aware of that can do what this amp can do in such a small space using only a single wall wart (including a compact, dual heater supply and a 95V B+ for the tube).

So, maybe the amps are both doing what they were designed to do.

 

[holland]

You know, Alex. That was exactly what I wanted to say, and you said it so much better. Cheers to you.