Tube buffers - Should I add some valves to my system?

[myrman]

I am considering adding a tube buffer to my system probably between my pre and power or maybe just between the CD & pre. I just want toslightlysoften the top end that my ATCs are producing but I dont want to lose any soundstage or detail. My first thought was the MF X10D but there seems to be some interesting Chinese options. For less than £100 I thought they might be worth a try. Has anyone any experience of any of them?



Weiduka 6J1



YAQIN CD2-6J1

I found an interestingreview of the Yaqin here which seems to rule out the MF: LINK

I quite like the idea of being able to swap valves. Who knows I might even end up having some idea what half you tube rollersare on about.

[mrwippy]

I thought the prime reason for abuffer stage was to impedance match or allow longer cables to be driven! Be cheaper to tape a tissue over your tweeters! Sorry if thats a bit negative, but this IMOjust bring us back full circle to having tone controls, which TBH I wouldn't mind at all.

Paul

[SergeAuckland]

mrwippy wrote:

I thought the prime reason for abuffer stage was to impedance match or allow longer cables to be driven! Be cheaper to tape a tissue over your tweeters! Sorry if thats a bit negative, but this IMOjust bring us back full circle to having tone controls, which TBH I wouldn't mind at all.

Paul

Completely agree. It seems sad somehow that we've collectively abandoned tone controls, yet try and achieve the same results by changing cables, or introducing unecessary electronics. If you want tochange the sound, then get a pre-amp with tone controls. Quad 34 or 44 comes to mind as being superbly built and cheap.

S.

[paulf-2007]

I'm sure someone will be along to give their opinion, but I have read somewhere on here about tube buffers doing sweet fuck all and being a waste of money. No personal experience myself, but tread carefully.

[myrman]

paulf-2007 wrote:

I'm sure someone will be along to give their opinion, but I have read somewhere on here about tube buffers doing sweet fuck all and being a waste of money. No personal experience myself, but tread carefully.

Much like biwiring then

[paulf-2007]

myrman wrote:

paulf-2007 wrote:

I'm sure someone will be along to give their opinion, but I have read somewhere on here about tube buffers doing sweet fuck all and being a waste of money. No personal experience myself, but tread carefully.

Much like biwiring then

There's no reason why bi wiring would work, some peolpe hear what they want to hear imo.

[SergeAuckland]

paulf-2007 wrote:

I'm sure someone will be along to give their opinion, but I have read somewhere on here about tube buffers doing sweet fuck all and being a waste of money. No personal experience myself, but tread carefully.

Buffers have a function, mostly to do with impedance matching between a high(ish) source and a low(ish) destination. If you already have a pre-amp, then the output impedance will already be sufficiently low that indeed the buffer will dosweet Fanny Adams.

Using a buffer as a tone control is madness.

S.

[paulf-2007]

SergeAuckland wrote:

paulf-2007 wrote:

I'm sure someone will be along to give their opinion, but I have read somewhere on here about tube buffers doing sweet fuck all and being a waste of money. No personal experience myself, but tread carefully.

Buffers have a function, mostly to do with impedance matching between a high(ish) source and a low(ish) destination. If you already have a pre-amp, then the output impedance will already be sufficiently low that indeed the buffer will dosweet Fanny Adams.

Using a buffer as a tone control is madness.

S.

thats her, fanny adams, just couldn't remember her name.

[murray johnson]

I'd be more inclined to investigate fitting some decent tweeters

[myrman]

SergeAuckland wrote:

paulf-2007 wrote:

I'm sure someone will be along to give their opinion, but I have read somewhere on here about tube buffers doing sweet fuck all and being a waste of money. No personal experience myself, but tread carefully.

Buffers have a function, mostly to do with impedance matching between a high(ish) source and a low(ish) destination. If you already have a pre-amp, then the output impedance will already be sufficiently low that indeed the buffer will dosweet Fanny Adams.

Using a buffer as a tone control is madness.

S.

I dont want to cut the treble as such just change its presentation slightly if that is possible. The ATC tweeter isvery clean and detailed and using CD as my main source I am very much at the mercy of the recording. Just fancy adding a touch of warmth and I mean just a touch, I don't want or expect a massive change.

[paulf-2007]

would it be possible to modify the crossover with something to adjust the hf, something like they use on Tannoys.

[mr.me]

I would forget those tube buffers they will only degrade the sound of your system. I would suggest that you get yourself a tube preamp. That should do the job nicely

[SergeAuckland]

myrman wrote:

SergeAuckland wrote:

paulf-2007 wrote:

I'm sure someone will be along to give their opinion, but I have read somewhere on here about tube buffers doing sweet fuck all and being a waste of money. No personal experience myself, but tread carefully.

Buffers have a function, mostly to do with impedance matching between a high(ish) source and a low(ish) destination. If you already have a pre-amp, then the output impedance will already be sufficiently low that indeed the buffer will dosweet Fanny Adams.

Using a buffer as a tone control is madness.

S.

I dont want to cut the treble as such just change its presentation slightly if that is possible. The ATC tweeter isvery clean and detailed and using CD as my main source I am very much at the mercy of the recording. Just fancy adding a touch of warmth and I mean just a touch, I don't want or expect a massive change.

It rather depends what you mean by Presentation. You can cut the level of the tweeter a fixed number of dBs which will reduce the whole top end, using a shelving control. Alternatively, you can reduce the extreme HF by using a roll-off filter that will keep the lower end of the tweeter's range unchanged, and just roll-off the very highs. If you're really interested in doing this properly, thena parametric equaliser is the answer.

Warmth is also a difficult parameter to define, but using something like the Quad tilt control, that reduces the HF andrelatively increases the LF to provide a better balance if it all sounds too sharp.

If I were in your position, I would borrow or buy a Quad 34 or 44 andtry it. If you don't like what it does, you can very easily resell the Quad, at probably no or very little loss.

S.

[ridley]

I used an X10D a few years ago between an Arcam cdp & an MF X-A1, it added width to the soundstage, bass was slightly more powerfull & treble just a tad smoother. I liked the effect in that system, the difference though not massive was easy to hear.

[Purite Audio]

Have you tried not toeing in the speakers?
Keith.

[Uncle Ants]

Which brings us to the whole point of having decent tone controls. You can choose to use them ... Or not, and adjust the to suit. Sticking something in the signal path to slightly adjust the tonal balance will work of course (though possibly with unwanted side effects), and on some recordings is a good thing ... But only for the recordings which it works for. You could always get something like a Quad and put it in the tape loop if your amp has tape monitoring ... Purism AND proper adjustable tone controls at the same time :-)

[earlofsodbury]

Don't touch those buffers, even the best of them (MF) degrade the sound and contribute nothing useful. Total dead end waste of money.

Strap some good quality 0.1uF film caps in parallel with the tweeters, that'll tame the sting.

[myrman]

earlofsodbury wrote:

Don't touch those buffers, even the best of them (MF) degrade the sound and contribute nothing useful. Total dead end waste of money.

Strap some good quality 0.1uF film caps in parallel with the tweeters, that'll tame the sting.

Now theres a cheap option.What exactly will that do? I dont want to lower the level in any way.

[earlofsodbury]

myrman wrote:

earlofsodbury wrote:

Don't touch those buffers, even the best of them (MF) degrade the sound and contribute nothing useful. Total dead end waste of money.

Strap some good quality 0.1uF film caps in parallel with the tweeters, that'll tame the sting.

Now theres a cheap option.What exactly will that do? I dont want to lower the level in any way.

It will roll-off the treble a little earlier, as I say it'll just take some of the metallic sting from the sound - you may find you actually need a larger cap to get enough change, so maybe buy some cheap bipolar caps - 0.1uF, 0.68uF, 1uf, 10uF and see what works for you. Once you have a value that works for you, it can be replaced with something higher in quality.

[SergeAuckland]

myrman wrote:

earlofsodbury wrote:

Don't touch those buffers, even the best of them (MF) degrade the sound and contribute nothing useful. Total dead end waste of money.

Strap some good quality 0.1uF film caps in parallel with the tweeters, that'll tame the sting.

Now theres a cheap option.What exactly will that do? I dont want to lower the level in any way.

I'm now really confused. You said at the beginning that you "want to soften the top end" Now you say "I don't want to lower the level in any way"

Do you really know what it is you want to achieve? How to you expect to "soften" the top end without reducing it's level at some frequency?

It sounds to me that either you just don't like the 'speakers any more, or more likely, you'rea ripe candidate for some tone controls.

S.