[BenG]

I went ahead and ordered some JJs for the X-Can. Here's a brief description of the differences vs. Jan Philips w/ 580s after a week or so with the JJ/Telsas:

Bass: The bass of the JJs is a touch tighter, deeper, and dynamic. The stock Jan Philips is more bloated in the mid-bass in comparison to the JJs.

Advantage - JJ/Telsas.

Mid-range: This is where it get's interesting. The 580s are slightly recessed in the mids. With the stock Philips, the slight void in the mids of the 580s is filled quite nicely. Even though the mids are more forward w/ the JJs, they lack depth relative to stock tubes. I think when people say the JJs have better mids, they really mean that the entire sound-field is just extremely forward and lacks depth (more on that in the soundstage section).

Advantage - stock Philips

Treble: This is somewhat of a mixed bag, but I prefer the Philips over the JJs. The Jan philips may not produce the world's most sweet and delicate treble, but it is more realistic & clean sounding than the JJ's. Although the JJ's treble is less fatiguing, it is at the same time duller and flater sounding - well recorded cymbals have less dynamic punch and sparkle.

Advantage - Jan Philips

Soundstage(relative to headphones): This is what struck me the most when I put in the the JJs. The sound is extremely forward, I mean Grado forward without the punchiness. McCoy Tyner's piano on "Coltrane and Johnny Hartman" which should be hanging out nicely in the background is thrust forward, and Johnny Hartman's voice is thrust uncomfortably forward in the back of my jaw. Some may like this forward type of sound, I don't. However, I did notice a slightly wider soundstage and taller images with the JJs, nothing that much better than with the Jan Philips though. Overall, the JJs just threw up a falser window to the recording due to their extreme forwardness and lack of depth.

Advantage - Jan Philips


So there you have it. I believe the stock Jan Philips to(overall)produce a more neutral presentation in the X-Canv2 listening through 580s. I'm still going to use my NOS Siemens, but I think you should'nt hold your breath for the JJs if you listen to well recorded music and have a decent source. Then again, you may disagree.

 

[dngl]

That may be true in the x-crap, but it's seriously different with the Melos (also a hybrid). Anyway, that's good news for you 'cause you have siemens

 

[Hirsch]

BenG,

Your observations seem very similar to my own. I ran the JJ's for close to a month, but the overall presentation never got as good as the stock Jan Philips. I put the stock tubes back in a week ago, and it was a palpable relief to hear the X-Can sounding good again.

I'm going to try some other 6922's to get a broader range of comparison (got some on the way now).

 

[BenG]

I think the stock X-Can was designed around the 580/600s frequency dips & humps. Tube rolling with this unit doesn't seem to provide a more overall neutral sound(with speaker & head solid-state amps as my reference).

The NOS E88CC Siemens are not a perfect match for the X-Can, they just actually sound nicer in the mids. Trouble is the sound-field is actually more laid back and narrower, and the highs are a little too tubey & dirty to my liking. I like tube amps that sound like solid-state amps for some reason

I think a better move than expensive tube rolling would be to upgrade the power supply, or save up for a better amp.

 

[bootman]

Quote:

I think the stock X-Can was designed around the 580/600s frequency dips & humps. Tube rolling with this unit doesn't seem to provide a more overall neutral sound(with speaker & head solid-state amps as my reference).

I agree that the x-cans were voiced with the Senns in mind.

I have to strongly dissagree with the JJs being worst than the stock tubes!

I found that the Jan Phillips shipped with my unit were too shrill in the highs. I let the amp warm up for a few days and the highs would still not smooth out. I tried a matched set of JJs and I noticed an improvement right away. The highs were now smooth and the midrange was still sweet.

The bass was still the same loose bass that the x-cans are known for but this improved (a lot) with the use of the x-psu.
Granted, there are better tubed amps out but for the price (about $200) the X-cans are still a good value.

 

[Tomcat]

I wonder how amp-dependent the performance of certain tube brands might be. I am quite pleased with the JAN Philips 6922 in my Earmax Pro, but I haven't tried anythinhg else so far. So my recommendation isn't exactly an informed one. My newer pair of JAN Philips seems to be a little more forward, dynamic and extended than the old pair, though. However, I would have to rely on my recollection for this judgement, because there is tube wear-out to take into account, of course.

 

[Nick Dangerous]

I found the JJ's to beat the stock Philips tubes in every way, but perhaps this is a difference in manufacturing tolerances?

 

[Beagle]

I am getting the impression that nothing can make the X-Cans sound acceptable. I am using Valvo tubes and still cannot get anything good out of it except a smooth midrange. It still sounds warmed over and colored, but in a nice way I guess.

 

[Hirsch]

I've got to change the opinion expressed above. Since getting the X-PSU, the JJ's have come into their own. X-Can is sounding good.

The main problem is determining whether to leave the amp on all the time, which seems to eventually degrade the sound at about two weeks (recovers after cooling off period), or turn it off between uses (gets to 95% at about 30 min, but needs at least 12 hr warmup to get to full sonic potential).