[Bob383rad]

I have a Marconi Osram B65 6sn7 which with the Pinnacle and HD800's sound truly holy.

 

[lojay]

I have a Marconi Osram B65 6sn7 which with the Pinnacle and HD800's sound truly holy.

 
I feel that the Teton sounds a bit too lush and "harmonic" for classical music. Anyone feel this too? 

 

[lojay]

   
I feel that the Teton sounds a bit too lush and "harmonic" for classical music. Anyone feel this too? 

 
I was using the Raytheon 6528 and Sylvania 6SN7W metal base. I have swapped in the WE421A and Tungsol BGRP 6SN7 (the quietest one I have in my collection) and wow, the sound is much closer to the 4-45 for classical and well-recorded music. Still lacking a bit of air and space though.
 
Am I doing something wrong or having the wrong tube complement?

 

[britneedadvice]

   
I was using the Raytheon 6528 and Sylvania 6SN7W metal base. I have swapped in the WE421A and Tungsol BGRP 6SN7 (the quietest one I have in my collection) and wow, the sound is much closer to the 4-45 for classical and well-recorded music. Still lacking a bit of air and space though.
 
Am I doing something wrong or having the wrong tube complement?

Hi lojay
 
Harmony (one definition)  :-
 

harmony noun (MUSIC)

C2​

 [C or U] a pleasant musical sound made by different notes being played or sung at the same time:
 
Whatever's your understanding of the word, this appears to be what you want ??
Lushness,I use tubes which are generally considered to be 'lush' sounding and I have no problem with what I'm hearing.(with Classical  Music).
I would have thought the 6528 Raytheon / Sylvania 6SN7W (or TS BGRP)would have produced a tone which you have have found 'less lush'.I would assume that if you are unable to find a less lush sound with these tubes(whilst listening to Classical music), then there's not much hope for the Teton(for you), certainly if Classical Music represents the majority of your listening?
 
 
 

 

[lojay]

Hi lojay 

Whatever's your understanding of the word, this appears to be what you want ??

Lushness,I use tubes which are generally considered to be 'lush' sounding and I have no problem with what I'm hearing.(with Classical  Music).

I would have thought the 6528 Raytheon / Sylvania 6SN7W (or TS BGRP)would have produced a tone which you have have found 'less lush'.

I would assume that if you are unable to find a less lush sound with these tubes(whilst listening to Classical music), then there's not much hope for the Teton(for you), certainly if Classical Music represents the majority of your listening?

By "harmonic" I was mincing my words. In fact I was referring to even order harmonic distortion. I feel the EC 445 is a more linear amp with less distortion, which to my tastes is better for live recordings including classical recordings as there is a great sense of realism.

With the WE421A, the Teton is much closer to what I perceive as realism and loses much of the audible harmonic distortion attendant with the Raytheon 6528. Maybe it's not distortion but the result of impedance mismatch with my HD800, I do not know.

Thankfully I enjoy a wide range of genres. The Teton is magnificent with most genres, much better than the 445 there as the added lushness and weight makes everything more musical and pleasant to my ears. If I can manage to get the Teton sound like the 445 for live classical and acoustic recordings, I will know which amp to keep!

 

[minimus]

Lojay,

Not sure about the Raytheon 6528. Did you buy it from Todd? The only 6528 I really like are the TI or Tung Sol 6528. I bought one other brand on eBay and it sounds lousy in comparison. You can also dabble with rectifiers. I do believe the Mullard U52, TI 6528, and TS BGRP 6F8G is the most linear tube complement I have heard with the Teton. A Sylvania 6F8G is also worth a try. It is my favorite input tube in the Teton. Chengka described it as more refined than the Sylvania metal base. I think it also creates a bigger sense of air than other tubes.

I can't say I have ever found the Teton to sound lush, though, in an absolute sense. Only compared to the 4-45, which is lean.

 

[lojay]

Lojay,

Not sure about the Raytheon 6528. Did you buy it from Todd? The only 6528 I really like are the TI or Tung Sol 6528. I bought one other brand on eBay and it sounds lousy in comparison. You can also dabble with rectifiers. I do believe the Mullard U52, TI 6528, and TS BGRP 6F8G is the most linear tube complement I have heard with the Teton. A Sylvania 6F8G is also worth a try. It is my favorite input tube in the Teton. Chengka described it as more refined than the Sylvania metal base. I think it also creates a bigger sense of air than other tubes.

I can't say I have ever found the Teton to sound lush, though, in an absolute sense. Only compared to the 4-45, which is lean.

 
Thanks for the recommendations. In fact I'm buying a U52 from a local seller in 1 hours time.
 
I think the Teton was very lush with the 6528, which was mitigated by replacing it with a WE 421A, so there might be a problem with the 6528. Still trying to get that sense of air and endless expanse of a soundstage with the 4-45 - once I achieve that with the Teton I will know I only need one amp. 
 
I felt it helped to use the Teton as a preamp to the 4-45. The results were a mixture of the airiness of the 4-45 and the weight and body of the Teton, with a slight loss of detail though compared to just plugging the phones in either.

 

[JoshL]

Hi lojay,

I too felt that the WE421 sounded more accurate and natural.

If you have a Sylvania 3 rivet bad boy, you might want to try one as I found it was airier with that tube. I also tried a Philips GZ34 metal base rectifier which helped to open up the sound as well without thinning out the mids.

 

[lojay]

Hi lojay,

I too felt that the WE421 sounded more accurate and natural.

If you have a Sylvania 3 rivet bad boy, you might want to try one as I found it was airier with that tube. I also tried a Philips GZ34 metal base rectifier which helped to open up the sound as well without thinning out the mids.

Thanks, that's what people usually say. My U52 was unfortunately lusher than the stock rectifier. There are different types of U52, mine is the brown base black / dark grey plates. The Mullard GZ37 (or 34?) I had was lush and muddied as well. I will hunt around for the GZ34 metal base. 
 
Perhaps 6F8G tubes are airier? Where did you guys buy the 6SN7/6F8G adapters?

 

[lojay]

Having spent a bit more time with both amps, I think the Apex Teton sounds "slower" than the EC 4-45, even with the WE 421A and Sylvania 6SN7 metal base. I mean the Teton is a very fast amp, for sure, but the attack and decay is not as pronounced on the Teton. The 4-45 has a Stax-like transient response which is absent on the Teton. Overall, the Teton has a very "mellow" sound to it which some may find more appealling or palatable. The 4-45 has a cleaner, quicker sound and a better soundstage which brings out the strengths of the HD800. The Teton ameliorates the HD800's weaknesses and tunes it to sound more like a souped up LCD3 with better detail extraction, soundstage and imaging. 
 
Please do not take this as criticism towards the Teton. The Teton does strike a good balance between detail and smoothness. In fact the Teton is a much better amp than the Woo WA5 was. The WA5 was noticeably harsher in the highs, though it shares characteristics of the Teton like bloomy mids and emphasis on bass quantity. The Teton extracts details better, is quicker and has better controlled bass. Of course, I am speaking from very dated audio memory, as I have sold my WA5 for quite some time now.
 
But the 4-45 is something very different altogether. With the EML 45s it sounds like a sold state amp almost, in fact more solid state like (read leaner and brighter) than the Ragnarok. It is impressive as it pulls that off with minimal shrillness (though there is still a trace of harshness compared to say the Ragnarok and the Teton).
 
This means that I may have to keep both the Teton and the 4-45 as they serve different purposes and have very different sound signatures. I am very sorry for my wallet now, and I really do not have enough real estate to house both amps.
 
Now I need to think about upgrading the rectifier tube to the leaner and cleaner Amperex / Philips GZ34, and wait for my 6F8G adapter to come. Maybe that will clean up the Teton's sound? 
 
Update: finally got the CBS/Hytron 5692 NOS I have been waiting for. The Teton finally has its sound cleaned up, and amazingly this tube is even more linear and clean sounding than the Sylvania 6SN7W metal base. The air on this tube is amazing. Will be conducting some comparisons with the 4-45, but it seems that this combination may be just enough to let the Teton rival the 4-45 in some types of music that the 4-45 does so well. .... Can I call this the "god" tube? Jesus.... either all the "NOS" tubes I have are past their prime or this is the tube.

 

[lojay]

After months with the Teton, I think I prefer the EC445 (EML 45 solid plates) for bringing out the strengths of the HD800 in terms of stage depth and width and the way details and transients are done. So I brought the Teton home from office and drove my lowly DT880s with them. 
 
Holy crap. I've never heard my DT880s sound this good. Expansive soundstage, quick as hell transients, natural tonality with a touch of euphony, everything I didn't expect from an inexpensive pair of headphones like these. All without the fuss with cable/tube-matching and modding required to make the HD800s sound great.

 

[jibzilla]

   
I was using the Raytheon 6528 and Sylvania 6SN7W metal base. I have swapped in the WE421A and Tungsol BGRP 6SN7 (the quietest one I have in my collection) and wow, the sound is much closer to the 4-45 for classical and well-recorded music. Still lacking a bit of air and space though.
 
Am I doing something wrong or having the wrong tube complement?

Just my 2 cents but...USAF 596 > GEC 6AS7g > 6sn7w long bottle

 

[lojay]

Anyone used the ECC33 on the Teton? Is that electrically feasible?

 

[britneedadvice]

  Anyone used the ECC33 on the Teton? Is that electrically feasible?

 
I have a PM from Pete which states the ECC33 can be used.
These questions get asked and asked again. (me included), I did ask, why not issue a list ( like Woo does)??
Then we all wouldn't have to bother the Amp builder!!

 

[lojay]

I have a PM from Pete which states the ECC33 can be used.
These questions get asked and asked again. (me included), I did ask, why not issue a list ( like Woo does)??
Then we all wouldn't have to bother the Amp builder!!

Thanks! Much appreciated.