[Mel4]

Hi,

I was just wondering if anyone has had experience of usin these two together and
if it cures some of the brightness of the X-Cans ?

 

[Nick Dangerous]

Nothing cures the brightness of the X-Cans better than tube rolling. I know that ear-bleeding sound you are talking about very well. Check my signature file and roll in some 6922's. Ye shall be pleased.

 

[Mel4]

Yeah Nick,

I may well just try some of those JJ's you mention on there but I'm not sure what the overall
total is going to be importing them from US.

They don't seem to be available over here in UK unfortunately..

Bugger...

Anyway I am gettin a little P***ED off with the prices people are asking on Ebay
for the likes of the the X-10D and especially the X-PSU.

There is one on Ebay over here with ''Buy it now'' for £250 !!

They were only £130 when new for chris' sake...

 

[Trawlerman]

Hi MEL4

If you look on the 'net you should be able to find company called CHELMER VALVES of Chelmsford, Essex (That's in the UK for all the yanks)

Their own branded VALVES (not tubes) are usually JJ/Tesla's and they are very swift and efficient. Give them a call, i'm sure they would be only too glad to help.

Mick in Hull

Listening to THE WHO - Happy Jack
via Krell MD10/Studio DAC >-- Tube Tech Genesis Amps (EL34s) >-- Spendor SP3/1s Speakers

 

[raymondlin]

I have a X-PSU, did have a X-tone, which I sold for £120 a few weeks ago, costed me £70. But would have made a lot more as 2 X-tone just went on ebay for £180 ! I also have a X-ACT which has kept it's value, as I only paid £90 for it new.

 

[Mel4]

Thanks Trawlerman !,

Will deffo check that one out m8

Yeah, the x-psu I wouldn't touch I'm afraid.

From what I hear you can get the same results with a £10
adaptor with a higher power output.
I believe the only diff between the x-psu and the original is the
output is double ?

When you look inside it is just a box with a toroidal transformer in it...

I think I will try some new Tubes instead

 

[raymondlin]

I think the difference with the X-psu with a $10 transformer is that the X-psu can power up to 4 X-ponents at the same time. Reviews have said that it actually sounds better, the more x-ponents it's powering.

I don't really know what kind of transformer inside, but a toroidal transformer is better then a normal transformer, hense the cost difference. The extra money also go on the casing too, I suppose you are really paying for the image and the name rather the purely on the result from it.

 

[Snusk-Pelle]

I have problems with brightness. Which tubes will give the least bright sound with X-CANS.

 

[BoardC3]

thats an easy answer check out Nick Dangerous's guide for tube rolling thats in his signature

 

[Duncan]

Quote:

Originally posted by Trawlerman Hi MEL4 If you look on the 'net you should be able to find company called CHELMER VALVES of Chelmsford, Essex (That's in the UK for all the yanks) Their own branded VALVES (not tubes) are usually JJ/Tesla's and they are very swift and efficient. Give them a call, i'm sure they would be only too glad to help. Mick in Hull

Also Maplin Electronics sell Edicron (based in Oxfordshire, UK) valves... you just have to give your local branch a call, and they'll be in within 3 working days

 

[Hirsch]

Quote:

Originally posted by Snusk-Pelle I have problems with brightness. Which tubes will give the least bright sound with X-CANS.

My X-Can has got Amperex PQ 6922's (US white label). I like 'em, but they can be a tad expensive.

 

[ddriveman]

Quote:

Originally posted by Snusk-Pelle I have problems with brightness. Which tubes will give the least bright sound with X-CANS.

I have tried several tubes and here they are in decreasing order of preference:

1) Amperex Bugle Boys (Holland) ECC88 NOS. I rate this the best overall. Certainly reduces the brightness of the stock JAN Phillips 6922 tubes without reducing any detail. Very smooth with extended bass and detail midrange. Can be expensive

2) Telefunken 6922 CCa (Gold Pins) NOS. Very dynamic and punchy sound. Bass is tighter than the Amperex but sounds a little too forward and hard for my liking. Still smoother and les bright than the stokc tubes. Also expensive and hard to find.

3) Mullard ECC88 (steel pins) NOS. Smooth and soft. Less dynamic than the Amperex and Telefunken. Bass is a little too soft. I bought this used (and hence cheap) but can be expensive also.

4) Siemens ECC88 (steel pins). Got these cheap. Not sure if original NOS or copies. Sounds very much like the stock JAN phillips (hence my suspicion that this is a relabelled Phillips).

The NOS tubes can be expensive (almost $50 each for the Amperex and Telefunken) and begs the question whether it is beetr to just upgarde the X-Cans for a better and more expensive head amp. But I like the overall sound of the X-Cans so I plunged into it.

Hope this helps

 

[Blazter]

I find there is a lot that can be done w/ this great little amp. I first tried getting better bass and less of that hard edge w/ the X-PSU power supply. Helped some, but not a lot. I then began my tube rolling career and boy has it been a long and arduous task at times.

At first I really preferred the Amperex Orange Globe A-Frame tubes. What great bass! Very good vocals and the top end was softer while still being very detailed. I then found that playing w/ the power cord into the X-PSU and the interconnects would really change which tubes sounded best. W/ some very detailed cables like the MC2 digital & Quattro-Fil IC combo the Siemens tubes are just too revealing for the X-Cans/580 w/ Clou cable combo.telefunkens can be a bit too forward w/ this set up. My old stand by A-Frames were nice, but the vocals were a little edgy still. I finally settled on the early 60s Amperex Bugle Boy for now, though the telefunken ECC88 are very good too & the Mullard CV-2493 is also another great tube for softening the top end. When getting the Bugle boys make sure you get the older version w/ the all gray plates and no shiney metel supports b/w mica spacers. Warmer IMO.
In general my rule of thumb has been that the NOS steel pin tubes will sound sweeter up top in the X-Cans while the gold pin 6922/7308/ tubes will be a little more revealing and also a little bit too much top end energy...depending on interconnects and power cords of course

Isolation is another way to get the most out of this amp. I use a 3 inch thick maple block under mine. For more detail I will invert some DH Cones under theamp and power supply & for still more "air" you can set the cones on the DH squares. I dampen thetop of th epower supply and amp w/ lead shot socks. Another great tweak that requires a little time b/c too much canbe detrimental.

 

[Mel4]

Heh,

Saved myself a lot of time and hassle by buying a new Hi-Fi amp.

The X-CANS are only so good but the Headphone output on my
new amp shows how much better it can get.

I would say you will only gain from the X-Cans if you are using
budget equiptment to start with.

Most (decent) Normal Hi-FIamps past the £300 mark sound quite
a bit better, but for the price with budget equiptment it is a cracking
little amp...

 

[ddriveman]

I agree with Blazter that the steel pin NOS ECC88/6922 tubes have a smoother and sweeter top end that those of the Gold pin variety. Also, balacing interconnect with tubes can make a significant difference. Silver Interconnects (Alphacore Goertz Tirode Quartz) tend to be too bright for the Telefunken but were better for the Amperex Bugle Boys adding more detail to the sweet top end. For the Telefunkens, I prefer the Van De Hull D102 Mk III cable which soften the top end without loosing the bass impact.

As to Mel4, I agree that tube rolling can be expensive so I am curious as to what Head Amp you upgraded to from the X-Cans.