[exdmd]

The Bob Latino Dynaco kits are available from tubes4hifi both in kit and assembled form for much, much less than $3K.

Link only $1295 + shipping WIRED with 12AU7 and EL34 output tubes. Shipping extra. A lot less than $3000.

 

[FLTWS]

Got curious, looked it up. The names Dynaco and Hafler live on, bought by a Canadian company. But no kits. I found some interesting info on current products:
https://www.dynaco.com/

Well the new version of the most popular tube amp in history (the original Dynaco ST-35) is $3K. Dick Olsher liked it:
https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/dynaco-st-70-series-3-tube-power-amplifier/

At $3K I'm not sure I would call it a screaming bargain. I think that appellation is better applied to Vidar and Aegir

Especially when you consider I bought my first Dynakit Stereo 70 in August 1970 for $99.95.

 

[Bazile]

You may want to consider a repair whether you get Aegirs or not
https://www.ebcelectronics.com/Adcom-GFA-555-GFA-555II-Repair-Service.html

Thanks. The Adcom has been a member of my audio family for better than 25 years. For less than $300 I'll likely get the monoblocks and fix the Adcom.

 

[judson_w]

I have a question for you guess that are native English speaking.
I'm trying to figure out if Aegir as mono block will be high power enough for my speakers.

In my search for the efficiency of my Quad ESL's I have been measuring and reading a lot.
The Quad ESL (also called ESL-55 or 57, the first model) is a very high efficient electrostatic speaker, with a rated efficiency of 93 dB 8 ohm, which is quite impressive for an electrostatic speaker.
My measurements agree fully with the efficiency number provided by the manufacturer. One Aegir is more than enough to drive these speakers more than loud enough for my ears.
Now we switch to the newer model, the ESL-63 that was introduced in 1981 and has a rated efficiency of 86 dB. That is, that is what people write and people think but ....
Let's look at the information supplied by the manufacturer fore this speaker.



Wait a minute what is that 1,5 µbars per volt? I'm used to dB per Volt as on the second line in between brackets.
Now I don't know µbars so I looked it up and there are several online converters to translate µbars to dB.
So far no problem, but ...... 1,5 µbars translates to 77 dB and not 86 dB! Also 8 ohm. (or am I totally wrong here?)
Now I know of the confusion about the use of i.e.and e.g. in the English language and I also know people use it in the wrong context.
What is going on here? If the i.e. is mixed up with e.g. I'm OK because than the value on the second line doesn't say anything about the value on the first line.
To me it looks more like a "deliberate" mistake, to make the SPL look better than it is. Because 77 dB is very low.

So my question to you guys: What would you make of this? Mistake (i.e and e.g. mixed up) or not so much?

To get 86 dB you need 4 µbars not 1,5 so a Typo or other mistake is out of the question.
My measurement says 80 dB, so even a little better than the 77 dB, but 6 dB short on the 86 db value.

While the microbar per volt is a new way to measure sensitivity to me, I think the difference here is that the first one is microbar per 1 volt and the second one is dB per 2.83 volt RMS. I have not dug into the microbar per volt method so I do not know how the volt is being calculated, but I would wager 1 volt vs 2.83 volt RMS is the reason for that discrepancy.

 

[Derrick Swart]

The amp I have right now is a 10+ year old, cheap and simple Yamaha AV-receiver, the RX-V357. Fine for TV and movies. Never been particularly good for music.

room for improvement indeed but i would start with the speakers how ‘painful’ that might be. Budget most for the transducers is wise; powered/active speakers can be an affordable choice. check out thomann.nl

 

[treecloud]

I built a Dynaco ST35 kit back in the day. It was OK. I gave it away a few years later...

OK here's a good one. Had a pair of mint Mac MC-30 monos 45+ years ago. My parents had one, given to me and I bought a match. Sold them after a few years for a few hundred bucks. Ouch.

Built a Pas 3x but never a ST35.

First "good" system Rabco ST-4 TT, Decca cart, PAT-4, Stereo 400, double Advents. Swapped it for a '72 Honda 750. Forgot to tell the guy it's not a bike you can't just open the "throttle" all the way to see what she'll do. That bike was eventually stolen...hummm.

Ah the good old days

 

[Ableza]

While the microbar per volt is a new way to measure sensitivity to me, I think the difference here is that the first one is microbar per 1 volt and the second one is dB per 2.83 volt RMS. I have not dug into the microbar per volt method so I do not know how the volt is being calculated, but I would wager 1 volt vs 2.83 volt RMS is the reason for that discrepancy.

microbar per volt is a microphone sensitivity measure, meaning pressure input to volts output. There are conversion factors to equate to dbSPL...

 

[Pietro Cozzi Tinin]

microbar per volt is a microphone sensitivity measure, meaning pressure input to volts output. There are conversion factors to equate to dbSPL...

Now that makes it immediately clear to me.....

 

[judson_w]

microbar per volt is a microphone sensitivity measure, meaning pressure input to volts output. There are conversion factors to equate to dbSPL...

Thank you for the explanation. I have started to dig into it a bit. I found this website:
https://www.translatorscafe.com/unit-converter/en-US/sound-pressure-level/
And adding 1.5 microbar, it did yield 77 dB as @wout31 stated. I still stand by my reasoning that their example states 86dB in the sensitivity instead of 77 because it is 1.5 microbar per Volt conversted to dB SPL/2.83 V RMS. Unless I am mistaken in my use of dB SPL here.

 

[tincanear]

While the microbar per volt is a new way to measure sensitivity to me, I think the difference here is that the first one is microbar per 1 volt and the second one is dB per 2.83 volt RMS. I have not dug into the microbar per volt method so I do not know how the volt is being calculated, but I would wager 1 volt vs 2.83 volt RMS is the reason for that discrepancy.

if 1.5 microbars per VOLT corresponds to 77dB, applying 2.83Vrms instead of 1Vrms adds another 20 log10(2.83V/1.0V) = 9.0 dB, making the sensitivity 86db/1Watt /1M for 8 ohm load.

 

[Ableza]

Thank you for the explanation. I have started to dig into it a bit. I found this website:
https://www.translatorscafe.com/unit-converter/en-US/sound-pressure-level/
And adding 1.5 microbar, it did yield 77 dB as @wout31 stated. I still stand by my reasoning that their example states 86dB in the sensitivity instead of 77 because it is 1.5 microbar per Volt conversted to dB SPL/2.83 V RMS. Unless I am mistaken in my use of dB SPL here.

You are correct.

 

[judson_w]

if 1.5 microbars per VOLT corresponds to 77dB, applying 2.83Vrms instead of 1Vrms adds another 20 log10(2.83V/1.0V) = 9.0 dB, making the sensitivity 86db/1Watt /1M for 8 ohm load.

Thank you. Part of me just did not want to assume that that 1 volt listed with the microbar sensitivity was RMS. I seem to recall hearing that sometimes (but not as much anymore?) people used Vpk instead of V RMS. However, the math does work.

 

[Tim van der Leeuw]

room for improvement indeed but i would start with the speakers how ‘painful’ that might be. Budget most for the transducers is wise; powered/active speakers can be an affordable choice. check out thomann.nl

Browsing that site, I only come away with the impression that the Beovox ain't that bad... I don't find distortion-figures for any speakers on that site, but in frequency-range they are mostly lacking compared to the Beovox's 40Hz - 20KHz range.

(See: https://www.beoworld.org/prod_details.asp?pid=435 for some product details, I'm not sure which type exactly it is that I have). So despite their limited power, I am still inclined to hang on to them a little bit longer, amp up first.
Better speakers can come later, and are possibly a much bigger investment than the pre-amp / amp combo... both in money, and time to listen, compare, etc.

Thanks for the advise though, it did give me something to think about.

 

[Old Deaf Donkey]

Ars gratia artis, I figured some would go for beauty more than utilitarian function.

We had a bottle of Carpazo 2016 with pasta tonight, I need to buy more. I am hoping @bcowen tried his by now but he was probably too busy hoarding tubes.

Caparzo, though. And yes, blue patina looks gorgeous!

 

[Paladin79]

Caparzo, though. And yes, blue patina looks gorgeous!

Bill will not know I misspelled it, usually his wine comes out of a box as best I recall. I have not heard much out of the little fellow lately, he must be off cooking cables somewhere.

Yeah I will use that blue finish I should have all the lumber tomorrow, all other pieces are in place. Since @bcowen believes he can hear a difference with Sorbothane in the same room with his speakers I may have to figure out another challenge for him. Maybe get his wife to sneak some into the room concealed on her person every now and then, and see how many times he notices.