[Blackmore]

Yes, to me, it was, but I don't remember which pair did it for me at the end, front or back, however, it will be much better to switch all 4 of them and hear the results, that's what I did anyway.
 
 
 
 
Quote:

   
Is there a difference in what stage tubes replacements?

 

[sneeze]

 

Thank you!

 

[sneeze]

What is best 6SL7 tubes?

 

[Modwright01]

up

 

[klyrish]

I know it's a long shot given how old the thread is and when the last reply to it was but is there anyone here still using this amp and still rolling tubes? I love all the information @Hirsch provided but sadly, it seems that the vast majority of the tubes mentioned back in those 2002-2003 posts are impossible to find now. I cannot, for the life of me, find any Amperex, Valvo, or GE 6SL7 tubes at Tube Depot, on eBay, or even other sketchy-looking sites on Google.

Granted, the stock tubes do sound fantastic to me but knowing there's a possibility of getting more out of this incredible amp, I can't seem to just be content with what I've got.

Assuming the NOS tubes from earlier in this thread are now unobtainium, is anyone rolling with anything else? It appears NOS (and potentially new-run) RCA 6SL7 tubes can be found and they seemed to have favorable notes about them but that they weren't the best. I'm very happy with detail retrieval/resolution, 3D positioning/imaging, and layering/separation, but I do wish there was more impact/slam. Is there any tube that could increase dynamics while retaining the other things I like?

 

[jonathan c]

I know it's a long shot given how old the thread is and when the last reply to it was but is there anyone here still using this amp and still rolling tubes? I love all the information @Hirsch provided but sadly, it seems that the vast majority of the tubes mentioned back in those 2002-2003 posts are impossible to find now. I cannot, for the life of me, find any Amperex, Valvo, or GE 6SL7 tubes at Tube Depot, on eBay, or even other sketchy-looking sites on Google.

Granted, the stock tubes do sound fantastic to me but knowing there's a possibility of getting more out of this incredible amp, I can't seem to just be content with what I've got.

Assuming the NOS tubes from earlier in this thread are no unobtainium, is anyone rolling with anything else? It appears NOS (and potentially new-run) RCA 6SL7 tubes can be found and they seemed to have favorable notes about them but that they weren't the best. I'm very happy with detail retrieval/resolution, 3D positioning/imaging, and layering/separation, but I do wish there was more impact/slam. Is there any tube that could increase dynamics while retaining the other things I like?

Here are a few sources for 6SL7 tubes. I hope that these help. I have not required or used 6SL7s but these sources have been invaluable to me for others: 12AU7, etc.

 

[klyrish]

I've purchased a few sets of NOS/vintage tubes as well as new-production tubes from JJ Electronics and Tung-Sol and have been trying them out in various configurations over the last month or so. I'm truly shocked by what I've heard.

For starters, my system:
Roon Core (2014 MacBook Pro)
Matrix X-SPDIF 2 AES-out
Sonnet Morpheus XLR-out
EAR Yoshino HP4
ZMF Verite C/ZMF Atticus (using a 10' LQi Espirit UP-OCC silver-plated copper cable)

All interconnects between components are Better Cables Silver Serpent cables and the USB cable from the MBP to X-SPDIF is an AudioQuest Carbon cable.

Tubes purchased (in order of purchase):

• Matched pair of GE 6SL7GT with the side getter that were highly recommend by Hirsch
• Matched quad of JJ Electronics 6SL7 (new production)
• Matched quad of Tung-Sol 6SL7GT (new production)
• Matched pair of KEN RAD 6SL7GT
• Matched pair of 1940s Sylvania VT-229

The GE tubes were an awakening when used in the sockets closest to the back of the amp (as recommended due to the sockets near the transformers apparently putting a lot of wear on vintage tubes from Hirsch's reports almost 20 years ago). Bass was much tighter, details were more obvious, and music in general felt more alive. I wasn't disappointed with the stock Sovteks and in fact was extremely impressed with them but the GEs showed just how much more potential this amp has.

I purchased both matched quads at the same time from Viva Tubes and they arrived together.

I tried the JJ's tubes first and was again shocked at the transformation in this amp. Bass was very tight and punchy, treble had excellent detail and extension but was a little hot, and the stage sounded wider and better separated. I used these for about 3 days before deciding to move onto other tubes. I was in love and it was a dramatic change from stock and stock + GE.

Next, I tried the new-production Tung-Sols and was initially disappointed but realized quickly that these are extremely special tubes. They're on the warmer side but their dynamics are the best of any tube I've put in this amp. Separation is incredible and while at first they sounded dark, I realized it was only because of how incredibly bright and even harsh the GE and JJs tubes are (but I didn't realize this until much later after doing lots of tube rolling). Resolution and detail retrieval are fantastic and are among the best I've ever heard. Timbre is incredible; instruments sound organic and lifelike and often like they're right in the room with me. I cannot believe how hard both sets of ZMFs hit with these tubes in. They've got great imaging and are among the most holographic tubes I've heard in hereAfter getting used to the general tone of these tubes, it's hard not to get addicted. There is no sense of harshness or any other frequency response weirdness with these. While their highs aren't the most energetic, they're well-represented, extremely detailed, and completely non-fatiguing. These are also DEAD quiet. There is no hiss at all even with volume cranked, unless it's on the recording.

Based on the fact the tubes in the sockets closest to the back of the amp have the most impact on sound and the ones closest to the transformers could be draining vintage tubes much faster than they should be, I put a pair of the JJ 6SL7s in the sockets closest to the transformers and then tried the GE tubes and Tung-Sol tubes in the sockets closest to the back of the amp.

JJ + GE was detailed and hard-hitting, but it was an extremely hot and aggressive sound, leaving me fatigued after only about 20 minutes of listening and leaving a "haze" in my hearing almost like I had been at a show without earplugs in.

JJ + Tung-Sol was a pleasant surprise. The warmth and dynamics of the Tung-Sol tubes combined with the punchiness and brightness of the JJs and provided a pretty enjoyable presentation of sound. Ultimately, it still ended up being fatiguing, though after a much longer time. For a little while, this was my preferred setup and I was content enough but kept thinking about some of the vintage tubes mentioned earlier in this thread and as usual, my curiosity and lack of being able to be happy with what I've got led me to continue pursuing vintage tubes.

I stumbled across the KEN RADs on eBay while looking for the Sylvania VT-229s and took a chance based off of a few decade+ old posts I saw on other forums. They are decent tubes, probably not worth the $100 I paid for this matched pair, but nothing remarkable for or against them.

The 1940s Sylvania VT-229 tubes were the ones I was most excited about given Hirsch's reports from the early 2000s about how huge the stage became and how wonderfully detailed these tubes are. I can confirm that the stage is the widest, deepest, and most 3D of any of the tubes I've tried and these are probably the most detailed as well (but honestly, it's only slightly more than the new-production Tung-Sols) but I started noticing a lot of fatigue. Even more than I was getting with the quad of JJs.

Up to this point, I had been using two of the JJ 6SL7s in the sockets closest to the transformers for pairing with the vintage tubes.

I decided to switch it up and swap the pair of JJs for a pair of Tung-Sol. The change wasn't as pronounced as I expected but both the KEN RAD and Sylvania were tamed a bit and had better dynamics with only a minimal loss in slam/punchiness. Highs are still very detailed but not harsh. However, I still ended up with fatigue and that weird hearing "haze" after hours of listening throughout the workday.

I finally pulled up a sine sweep video on YouTube with the Sylvania's inserted and noted all of the spots where things got uncomfortable.

There were a lot.

I ended up making a PEQ profile for the Verite C in Roon to reduce 1995, 2750, 2900, 5400, 7000, and 8700 all between 1-3dB. This made the Sylvania's almost completely fatigue-free but also had a pretty negative impact on the overall presentation. Things sounded...off slightly and it was bothering me. I tried the KEN RAD again and found that almost all of those same spots suffered from frequency response issues. Same with GE. The JJs only get uncomfortable for me around 2750 and 7000, and with the Tung-Sol, it's only 2750 (and only needs about -1.3dB).

I think I'm done chasing the NOS/vintage tubes dragon. The improvements seem to come with trade-offs and they're just not worth it when these readily-available new-production Tung-Sols provide such a wonderful overall package. The biggest drawbacks to them are that the highs aren't the most energetic and that they're tall-bottles. The smoothness of the frequency response is so appreciated, dynamics and slam are the best of any tube I've heard in this amp, and they're able to separate and place dense passages with ease. These are also the only tubes I can use the amp's high-Z outs with. All of the other tubes sound flat and congested with extremely harsh highs and really wonky FR. No amount of EQ could help. But the Tung-Sol sound absolutely wonderful through the high-Z jack, noticeably increasing slam and treble extension vs. the low-Z (and yes, accounting for volume differences).

So, long story slightly longer: I think I'll be sticking with the matched-quad of new-production Tung-Sols in this amp and recommend that anyone still rocking this amp in 2021 give the new-production Tung-Sols a shot. They were about $130 with shipping for the matched quad from Viva Tubes. I might look into getting a custom cover machined for me if it's not too expensive. I don't like having the cover off the amp.

 

[johnser96]

I've purchased a few sets of NOS/vintage tubes as well as new-production tubes from JJ Electronics and Tung-Sol and have been trying them out in various configurations over the last month or so. I'm truly shocked by what I've heard.

For starters, my system:
Roon Core (2014 MacBook Pro)
Matrix X-SPDIF 2 AES-out
Sonnet Morpheus XLR-out
EAR Yoshino HP4
ZMF Verite C/ZMF Atticus (using a 10' LQi Espirit UP-OCC silver-plated copper cable)

All interconnects between components are Better Cables Silver Serpent cables and the USB cable from the MBP to X-SPDIF is an AudioQuest Carbon cable.

Tubes purchased (in order of purchase):

• Matched pair of GE 6SL7GT with the side getter that were highly recommend by Hirsch
• Matched quad of JJ Electronics 6SL7 (new production)
• Matched quad of Tung-Sol 6SL7GT (new production)
• Matched pair of KEN RAD 6SL7GT
• Matched pair of 1940s Sylvania VT-229

The GE tubes were an awakening when used in the sockets closest to the back of the amp (as recommended due to the sockets near the transformers apparently putting a lot of wear on vintage tubes from Hirsch's reports almost 20 years ago). Bass was much tighter, details were more obvious, and music in general felt more alive. I wasn't disappointed with the stock Sovteks and in fact was extremely impressed with them but the GEs showed just how much more potential this amp has.

I purchased both matched quads at the same time from Viva Tubes and they arrived together.

I tried the JJ's tubes first and was again shocked at the transformation in this amp. Bass was very tight and punchy, treble had excellent detail and extension but was a little hot, and the stage sounded wider and better separated. I used these for about 3 days before deciding to move onto other tubes. I was in love and it was a dramatic change from stock and stock + GE.

Next, I tried the new-production Tung-Sols and was initially disappointed but realized quickly that these are extremely special tubes. They're on the warmer side but their dynamics are the best of any tube I've put in this amp. Separation is incredible and while at first they sounded dark, I realized it was only because of how incredibly bright and even harsh the GE and JJs tubes are (but I didn't realize this until much later after doing lots of tube rolling). Resolution and detail retrieval are fantastic and are among the best I've ever heard. Timbre is incredible; instruments sound organic and lifelike and often like they're right in the room with me. I cannot believe how hard both sets of ZMFs hit with these tubes in. They've got great imaging and are among the most holographic tubes I've heard in hereAfter getting used to the general tone of these tubes, it's hard not to get addicted. There is no sense of harshness or any other frequency response weirdness with these. While their highs aren't the most energetic, they're well-represented, extremely detailed, and completely non-fatiguing. These are also DEAD quiet. There is no hiss at all even with volume cranked, unless it's on the recording.

Based on the fact the tubes in the sockets closest to the back of the amp have the most impact on sound and the ones closest to the transformers could be draining vintage tubes much faster than they should be, I put a pair of the JJ 6SL7s in the sockets closest to the transformers and then tried the GE tubes and Tung-Sol tubes in the sockets closest to the back of the amp.

JJ + GE was detailed and hard-hitting, but it was an extremely hot and aggressive sound, leaving me fatigued after only about 20 minutes of listening and leaving a "haze" in my hearing almost like I had been at a show without earplugs in.

JJ + Tung-Sol was a pleasant surprise. The warmth and dynamics of the Tung-Sol tubes combined with the punchiness and brightness of the JJs and provided a pretty enjoyable presentation of sound. Ultimately, it still ended up being fatiguing, though after a much longer time. For a little while, this was my preferred setup and I was content enough but kept thinking about some of the vintage tubes mentioned earlier in this thread and as usual, my curiosity and lack of being able to be happy with what I've got led me to continue pursuing vintage tubes.

I stumbled across the KEN RADs on eBay while looking for the Sylvania VT-229s and took a chance based off of a few decade+ old posts I saw on other forums. They are decent tubes, probably not worth the $100 I paid for this matched pair, but nothing remarkable for or against them.

The 1940s Sylvania VT-229 tubes were the ones I was most excited about given Hirsch's reports from the early 2000s about how huge the stage became and how wonderfully detailed these tubes are. I can confirm that the stage is the widest, deepest, and most 3D of any of the tubes I've tried and these are probably the most detailed as well (but honestly, it's only slightly more than the new-production Tung-Sols) but I started noticing a lot of fatigue. Even more than I was getting with the quad of JJs.

Up to this point, I had been using two of the JJ 6SL7s in the sockets closest to the transformers for pairing with the vintage tubes.

I decided to switch it up and swap the pair of JJs for a pair of Tung-Sol. The change wasn't as pronounced as I expected but both the KEN RAD and Sylvania were tamed a bit and had better dynamics with only a minimal loss in slam/punchiness. Highs are still very detailed but not harsh. However, I still ended up with fatigue and that weird hearing "haze" after hours of listening throughout the workday.

I finally pulled up a sine sweep video on YouTube with the Sylvania's inserted and noted all of the spots where things got uncomfortable.

There were a lot.

I ended up making a PEQ profile for the Verite C in Roon to reduce 1995, 2750, 2900, 5400, 7000, and 8700 all between 1-3dB. This made the Sylvania's almost completely fatigue-free but also had a pretty negative impact on the overall presentation. Things sounded...off slightly and it was bothering me. I tried the KEN RAD again and found that almost all of those same spots suffered from frequency response issues. Same with GE. The JJs only get uncomfortable for me around 2750 and 7000, and with the Tung-Sol, it's only 2750 (and only needs about -1.3dB).

I think I'm done chasing the NOS/vintage tubes dragon. The improvements seem to come with trade-offs and they're just not worth it when these readily-available new-production Tung-Sols provide such a wonderful overall package. The biggest drawbacks to them are that the highs aren't the most energetic and that they're tall-bottles. The smoothness of the frequency response is so appreciated, dynamics and slam are the best of any tube I've heard in this amp, and they're able to separate and place dense passages with ease. These are also the only tubes I can use the amp's high-Z outs with. All of the other tubes sound flat and congested with extremely harsh highs and really wonky FR. No amount of EQ could help. But the Tung-Sol sound absolutely wonderful through the high-Z jack, noticeably increasing slam and treble extension vs. the low-Z (and yes, accounting for volume differences).

So, long story slightly longer: I think I'll be sticking with the matched-quad of new-production Tung-Sols in this amp and recommend that anyone still rocking this amp in 2021 give the new-production Tung-Sols a shot. They were about $130 with shipping for the matched quad from Viva Tubes. I might look into getting a custom cover machined for me if it's not too expensive. I don't like having the cover off the amp.

That is quite a comprehensive review you made there. I recently purchased an Ear Hp4 and im using it to drive my HD 800S and i must say that im facing similar problems with the treble. I wish I could tame a little bit of the sibilant 's' sounds in vocals, they are absolutely distracting, if i could get rid of these then the HD800S would be the dream HPs for me. I am not sure if your ZMFs are more fatiguing than the Sennheiser's and i don't know if you are having sibilant 's' sounds too, but the stuff you have written above made me want to start rolling some tubes too.

I will definately try the Tung-Sols and try to find other 6SL7's with smooth treble response. Maybe if im lucky and find the appropriate tubes soon enough then I won't go completely bankrupt.

 

[klyrish]

That is quite a comprehensive review you made there. I recently purchased an Ear Hp4 and im using it to drive my HD 800S and i must say that im facing similar problems with the treble. I wish I could tame a little bit of the sibilant 's' sounds in vocals, they are absolutely distracting, if i could get rid of these then the HD800S would be the dream HPs for me. I am not sure if your ZMFs are more fatiguing than the Sennheiser's and i don't know if you are having sibilant 's' sounds too, but the stuff you have written above made me want to start rolling some tubes too.

I will definately try the Tung-Sols and try to find other 6SL7's with smooth treble response. Maybe if im lucky and find the appropriate tubes soon enough then I won't go completely bankrupt.

Thanks! I'm glad my findings were of help to at least one person.

Regarding the treble, I had to go through and make a custom PEQ profile in Roon for the Verite C because I just couldn't take it anymore. And despite these issues, I had the HD800s for a few months last year and found them to be the most fatiguing headphones I've ever used. To figure out what was causing problems for me and the VC, I used this YouTube video:


And had the amp at normal listening levels. I just played that a few times with a pen and paper and paused when something got painful or close to it, noting the approximate frequency and then using those to drop by anywhere from 1-4 dB as needed. For me with the VCs, 2600-2900 is a hot spot and right around 2750 is absolutely excruciating, so I have -2.5 dB on it with a Q of 2.2 and that made a huge difference. I'd recommend doing the same.

And note that different tubes produced different results. All have issues for me between 2500-2900 and on some of them, I get painful peaking around 7100 and 8700. I also noticed when using non-stock tubes in the sockets closest to the front with NOS tubes in the back sockets, there were a lot more painful peaks and they were more extreme vs. using the stock tubes in the front sockets.

I've continued rolling and have discovered something sort of shocking: leaving the stock Sovteks in the sockets closest to the front of the amp and only rolling the two sockets closest to the back of the amp has resulted in absolutely incredible sound and performance. Even the new-production TS sound better (less dark but not BRIGHT) with the stock tubes in use. Timbre sounds more natural and "right" than any other tubes I've put in the front sockets and, I might be crazy, but I swear that layering, separation, and 3D effects are enhanced with the stock tubes, really allowing the tubes in the back sockets to showcase their unique flavors and flairs.

I also picked up a pair of 1940s Tung-Sol 6SU7GTYs and they are AMAZING. Easily the best tubes I've heard in this amp. Detail retrieval and resolution is unmatched--beating out even the fabled 1940s Sylvania VT-229s. Stage is tall, wide, and deep--more so than any of the other tubes I've used. Microdetail is insane. They're simply incredible and the only complaint is the lack of dynamics as noted by Hirsch way back when. Bass is well-represented and incredibly detailed, it's just lacking punchiness and slam but everything else about these tubes being so amazing makes it easier to accept.

 

[johnser96]

Thanks! I'm glad my findings were of help to at least one person.

Regarding the treble, I had to go through and make a custom PEQ profile in Roon for the Verite C because I just couldn't take it anymore. And despite these issues, I had the HD800s for a few months last year and found them to be the most fatiguing headphones I've ever used. To figure out what was causing problems for me and the VC, I used this YouTube video:


And had the amp at normal listening levels. I just played that a few times with a pen and paper and paused when something got painful or close to it, noting the approximate frequency and then using those to drop by anywhere from 1-4 dB as needed. For me with the VCs, 2600-2900 is a hot spot and right around 2750 is absolutely excruciating, so I have -2.5 dB on it with a Q of 2.2 and that made a huge difference. I'd recommend doing the same.

And note that different tubes produced different results. All have issues for me between 2500-2900 and on some of them, I get painful peaking around 7100 and 8700. I also noticed when using non-stock tubes in the sockets closest to the front with NOS tubes in the back sockets, there were a lot more painful peaks and they were more extreme vs. using the stock tubes in the front sockets.

I've continued rolling and have discovered something sort of shocking: leaving the stock Sovteks in the sockets closest to the front of the amp and only rolling the two sockets closest to the back of the amp has resulted in absolutely incredible sound and performance. Even the new-production TS sound better (less dark but not BRIGHT) with the stock tubes in use. Timbre sounds more natural and "right" than any other tubes I've put in the front sockets and, I might be crazy, but I swear that layering, separation, and 3D effects are enhanced with the stock tubes, really allowing the tubes in the back sockets to showcase their unique flavors and flairs.

I also picked up a pair of 1940s Tung-Sol 6SU7GTYs and they are AMAZING. Easily the best tubes I've heard in this amp. Detail retrieval and resolution is unmatched--beating out even the fabled 1940s Sylvania VT-229s. Stage is tall, wide, and deep--more so than any of the other tubes I've used. Microdetail is insane. They're simply incredible and the only complaint is the lack of dynamics as noted by Hirsch way back when. Bass is well-represented and incredibly detailed, it's just lacking punchiness and slam but everything else about these tubes being so amazing makes it easier to accept.

It's actually a great pleasure for me to discuss this with someone who had the same experience with this amp - headphone combo.

Well, my DT1990's are definately more fatiguing than the HD800S's. I used to EQ the DT1990's with Equalizer APO, but I soon realised that I was trading a softer treble with the overall musical presentation. Thats why my DT1990s have been collecting dust for the past few months. When I first got the HD800S's I was using a Canor TP10 headphone amp, a very value for money amp, and its warm sound signature seemed to synergize quite well with the HD800s. Imaging, soundstage and the timbre of various instruments were not as good as on the EAR HP4, but sibilance was not an issue, due to the treble roll-off of the TP10. The EAR HP4 is so much better than the TP10 in every aspect, but the treble is not rolled off, therefore, this major weakness of the HD800S's is revealed in all of its glory when im using it.

I am really not a fan of software EQ, it might be simply psychological but I just can't stand it, I don't want to go down that path again. Analogue processing of the signal makes me feel so much better. I think I should try the Tung-Sol 6SU7GTYs myself (I live in Greece so I don't know if I can find these here and I dont want to spend a fortune in import fees). Are these short bottle or tall? Because i don't want to leave the cover open for obvious reasons. Do you think that by changing the 2 Sovteks at the back with 2 Tung-sols will make the sound of the HD800S sibilant free? Should I count on them?

If the Tung-Sols do not make the sibialnce go away but still improve the sound in the ways you are describing, I will keep using them but I will also use a passive filter to reduce the sibilance. I don't have one yet, I know that this guy here can make one : https://diyaudioheaven.wordpress.com/headphones/measurements/brands-s-se/hd800s/ .
I don't know if this is a quality filter, I never tried one, but I know a few people who might be able to make one up to my standards. My biggest concern is to eliminate the sibilance, without downgrading the sound quality of the headphone in a noticable level. I am not asking for too much, or am I ?

 

[klyrish]

It's actually a great pleasure for me to discuss this with someone who had the same experience with this amp - headphone combo.

Well, my DT1990's are definately more fatiguing than the HD800S's. I used to EQ the DT1990's with Equalizer APO, but I soon realised that I was trading a softer treble with the overall musical presentation. Thats why my DT1990s have been collecting dust for the past few months. When I first got the HD800S's I was using a Canor TP10 headphone amp, a very value for money amp, and its warm sound signature seemed to synergize quite well with the HD800s. Imaging, soundstage and the timbre of various instruments were not as good as on the EAR HP4, but sibilance was not an issue, due to the treble roll-off of the TP10. The EAR HP4 is so much better than the TP10 in every aspect, but the treble is not rolled off, therefore, this major weakness of the HD800S's is revealed in all of its glory when im using it.

I am really not a fan of software EQ, it might be simply psychological but I just can't stand it, I don't want to go down that path again. Analogue processing of the signal makes me feel so much better. I think I should try the Tung-Sol 6SU7GTYs myself (I live in Greece so I don't know if I can find these here and I dont want to spend a fortune in import fees). Are these short bottle or tall? Because i don't want to leave the cover open for obvious reasons. Do you think that by changing the 2 Sovteks at the back with 2 Tung-sols will make the sound of the HD800S sibilant free? Should I count on them?

If the Tung-Sols do not make the sibialnce go away but still improve the sound in the ways you are describing, I will keep using them but I will also use a passive filter to reduce the sibilance. I don't have one yet, I know that this guy here can make one : https://diyaudioheaven.wordpress.com/headphones/measurements/brands-s-se/hd800s/ .
I don't know if this is a quality filter, I never tried one, but I know a few people who might be able to make one up to my standards. My biggest concern is to eliminate the sibilance, without downgrading the sound quality of the headphone in a noticable level. I am not asking for too much, or am I ?

So I should clarify: I did not have the HD800 when I got the HP-4. I only used the HD800 with the HeadAmp Gilmore Lite MKII and HeadAmp GS-X mini and I found the HD800 to be incredibly fatiguing and painful at times through those amps. Sorry I can't provide any help with the HD800S or how they might change in the HP-4.

I meant to touch on sibilance and forgot--and no, you are NOT asking too much. What cable are you using? I know this isn't a 1:1 comparison but with my Campfire Andromedas, I was using a copper 4.4mm balanced cable to my DAP and sibilance was HORRIBLE. I spent money on the highest-end cable Campfire sells ($350) which was silver-based and that removed all traces of sibilance with the Andromeda. If you're using a copper cable, maybe try a silver one? I bought a 10' Esprit Series UP-OCC Silver Plated Copper Headphone Cable from LQi ($309 shipped) and the difference between the stock ZMF OFC cable was astounding. Everything just came to life with the HP-4. I thought it sounded good previously but the change in the cable made the biggest difference with sound stage and presentation: it got extremely holographic and 3D. I didn't realize how flat and 2D it sounded because it was still such a step up from the HeadAmp amps I'd been using. There was a harshness/grain that was gone as well with the LQi cable.

I get not wanting to use a software EQ and if you're dead set against it, you could always pick up something like this 31-band hardware equalizer. I have one but don't use it because it takes up way too much room on my desk but when I had used it in the past, it worked great. It's kind of tedious and isn't as surgically precise as a PEQ but it should help.

If you get the right 6SUY7GTY version, they are short and are in fact shorter than the stock tubes! That was a pleasant surprise since all of the other tubes I've used besides the GE ones have been just slightly too tall to put the top back on.

 

[johnser96]

So I should clarify: I did not have the HD800 when I got the HP-4. I only used the HD800 with the HeadAmp Gilmore Lite MKII and HeadAmp GS-X mini and I found the HD800 to be incredibly fatiguing and painful at times through those amps. Sorry I can't provide any help with the HD800S or how they might change in the HP-4.

I meant to touch on sibilance and forgot--and no, you are NOT asking too much. What cable are you using? I know this isn't a 1:1 comparison but with my Campfire Andromedas, I was using a copper 4.4mm balanced cable to my DAP and sibilance was HORRIBLE. I spent money on the highest-end cable Campfire sells ($350) which was silver-based and that removed all traces of sibilance with the Andromeda. If you're using a copper cable, maybe try a silver one? I bought a 10' Esprit Series UP-OCC Silver Plated Copper Headphone Cable from LQi ($309 shipped) and the difference between the stock ZMF OFC cable was astounding. Everything just came to life with the HP-4. I thought it sounded good previously but the change in the cable made the biggest difference with sound stage and presentation: it got extremely holographic and 3D. I didn't realize how flat and 2D it sounded because it was still such a step up from the HeadAmp amps I'd been using. There was a harshness/grain that was gone as well with the LQi cable.

I get not wanting to use a software EQ and if you're dead set against it, you could always pick up something like this 31-band hardware equalizer. I have one but don't use it because it takes up way too much room on my desk but when I had used it in the past, it worked great. It's kind of tedious and isn't as surgically precise as a PEQ but it should help.

If you get the right 6SUY7GTY version, they are short and are in fact shorter than the stock tubes! That was a pleasant surprise since all of the other tubes I've used besides the GE ones have been just slightly too tall to put the top back on.

Im using the stock 6.3 mm jack cable that comes with the HD800S, made of copper and the retail price for that is about 300 euros. I believe it's a decent cable, but haven't tried a different one yet. Although, I recently upgraded my XLR interconnects between the HP4 and the Musical Fidelity M6sr, I got a Beta XLR from Esprit, the price was painful but the improvements in sounstage and clarity don't go unnoticable.Unfortunately, there was no sibilance reduction or anything like that

( I also auditioned Van de Hul's The rock XLR cable but there was something in the bass i didn't like. It seemed a little bit too loose on these frequencies, nevertheless a great cable but it's not meant for me i guess. )

I think i should first try changing the stock tubes with the Tung-Sols and hope I will get a similar reduction in harshness like the one you experienced with your ZMF. Then use an analogue EQ (prices seem reasonable for me) or other passive filter and, if all else fails, i should try upgrading the headphone cable.

I thought silver cables are more revealing and make everything brighter and that would make my problem even worse, at least in theory. It might be just a false assumption of mine, but I guess I'll get to listen to a silver cable with me own ears sometime and then I'll know.

 

[klyrish]

I thought silver cables are more revealing and make everything brighter and that would make my problem even worse, at least in theory. It might be just a false assumption of mine, but I guess I'll get to listen to a silver cable with me own ears sometime and then I'll know.

I was worried about the same with the Andromedas because they're pretty bright and quickly get painful at even moderate volume levels but getting the silver cable for them tamed harshness a bit while removing sibilance. The sound is definitely brighter but it's not fatiguing; it's highly-detailed and surprisingly smooth while still retaining air and a bit of sparkle (when the volume isn't too loud). Bass also sounds a bit tighter. And I noticed similar changes in the VC between the OFC copper and the LQi UP-OCC silver-plated copper cable. I'm not saying it will for sure help or fix it but I was shocked that cable was causing so many issues with the Andromedas.

 

[klyrish]

I haven't used this amp in a few weeks because we're moving in two days so it's been packed up AND I got the very last Apex Hi-Fi Pinnacle 2 from TTVJ so I've been focused on that amp mostly (and holy crap, it is INCREDIBLE, but that's another post for another thread).

But I picked up a quad of Sophia Electric 6SL7s (the non-blue glass ones as those are sold out for at least a year according to their customer support). I've only been listening to them for about two hours and in that time the sound has changed dramatically. Fresh out of the box, they were detailed and had a noticeably wide stage (probably the widest of any other tubes I've tried in this amp), but were harsh--bordering on painful to listen to. After about 30 minutes, that harshness started subsiding and with that ugliness gone, the tubes are really starting to impress.

Bass is tightening up and dynamics are increasing. The cracking sound in the opening sample from "Mr. Self Destruct" by Nine Inch Nails was startlingly loud and almost hurt to hear. I haven't experienced that with any other tubes I've tried in this amp yet. The main kick in the song has surprising heft and force behind it. Meanwhile, sounds are coming from way outside the headphones. Imaging is precise and 3D.

I've got all 4 of them installed and so far have only used my Verite C. I know they're expensive tubes ($150/ea for A-stock with a 1-year warranty), but considering NOS prices and difficulty in finding tubes and trusting descriptions, these are worth considering. I'm definitely looking forward to spending more time with these after the move!

EDIT: After about 12 hours now, these tubes sound absolutely stunning. Easily the best-sounding tubes I've heard in this amp. The stage is so wide and deep with incredible positioning and imaging--it's honestly hard to explain without getting overly superlative but it is truly 3D and surround-like in a very realistic and believable way. Dynamics are excellent. Bass slams HARD and reaches quite deep. Microdetail retrieval is incredible--there are so many little details and textures that are presented so effortlessly. These tubes have honestly brought the HP-4 very close to the Pinnacle 2 in all areas of performance.