The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Hendy Amps Michelangelo Equalisers (HW)
Old 4th December 2018
  #841
Lives for gear
 
swafford's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by audiomaster View Post
Has anyone tried the ECC803S-JJ long plate version? Apparently thicker mids and slightly more top end according to most descriptions.
I have tried the ECC803S in my MA when I first bought it (used.) I did a quick comparison between the original JJ's it came with, the standard JJ replacements and the 803S using the same settings on the same song just adjusting the calibration pots to match output using pink noise.

In my non-mastering studio in a well treated, um, room (OK it's a barn) on a pair of Dynaudio BM6a's with a BM9s sub, I found the 803s, compared to the standard ECC83-S to be a bit more harsh on the top and less detailed in the mids. The fresh ECC83-S sounded great compared to the set that arrived in the unit (age unknown). Both sets of 803s and 83s were balanced and matched.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #842
Gear Nut
 
tas chris's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by teebaum View Post
ordered!

i also will try them in the tubetech hlt2am

Hi Teebaum,

did your already try the cryo-treated tubes ? Just curious if it makes a difference

Christian
Old 4 weeks ago
  #843
Lives for gear
 
teebaum's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by tas chris View Post
Hi Teebaum,

did your already try the cryo-treated tubes ? Just curious if it makes a difference

Christian
i haven't had a chance yet, but at the moment i like michelangelo and hlt-2am super the way they are, so i don't force it
Old 4 weeks ago
  #844
Lives for gear
 
nomatic's Avatar
My tests say the stock tubes changed often are optimal over here......
Old 4 weeks ago
  #845
Lives for gear
 
teebaum's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomatic View Post
My tests say the stock tubes changed often are optimal over here......
I've swapped mine before.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #846
Lives for gear
 
JP__'s Avatar
 

Verified Member
I think it really worse mentioning which version of the MA you guys are using. I would expect a quite big diff in usuage which may lead to diff prefs in tubeselection as well.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #847
So far, no one is telling anything
Old 3 weeks ago
  #848
Lives for gear
 
nomatic's Avatar
I have serial number one.....

Non stepped , no low Z mode, tube glory....
Old 3 weeks ago
  #849
Gear Head
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomatic View Post
I have serial number one.....

Non stepped , no low Z mode, tube glory....
wow, nice!

I am also an owner, love my MA. I would be interested in what tubes others have used with tonal delight!
Old 3 weeks ago
  #850
Lives for gear
 
teebaum's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomatic View Post
I have serial number one.....

Non stepped , no low Z mode, tube glory....
i also have one of the first, the first with rotary switches, also no low z, in this context not comparable with later units.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saxnscratch View Post
So far, no one is telling anything
in the end only the same few dudes share their experiences here.
therefore it is not advisable to demand it ;-)

I changed my tubes when the original ones started sounding a little flat.

since chris developed the device explixit to the unespensive and well available "j.j.", i stayed with them, especially since some people didn't talk about improvements by other tubes and my experiences with j.j. on the sound side were mostly positive...

the michelangelo fits so well into my chain, so i let it.

the next time there's a change, i might want to experiment a little.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #851
Lives for gear
 
JP__'s Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saxnscratch View Post
So far, no one is telling anything
When I remember correct we already have at least one or two full pages about tube rolling within this thread.

Last edited by JP__; 3 weeks ago at 10:55 AM..
Old 3 weeks ago
  #852
Lives for gear
 
JP__'s Avatar
 

Verified Member
Still no big fan of the JJs here (neither in the MA nor the Pollock), I think they lack mid definition in a bit smeary way.
But thats the good thing about tube based gear, its easily possible t finetune it to our likings, chain and needs and it doesn't necessarily needs expensive rare NOS stuff to experiment a bit.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #853
Quote:
Originally Posted by JP__ View Post
Still no big fan of the JJs here (neither in the MA nor the Pollock), I think they lack mid definition in a bit smeary way.
But thats the good thing about tube based gear, its easily possible t finetune it to our likings, chain and needs and it doesn't necessarily needs expensive rare NOS stuff to experiment a bit.
The Mullard CV4004 12AX7 (M8137) in TT HLT2A does the midrange-thing extremely well. It shines, specially, when there are a lot of information with complex interrelation between them. It just reproduces a very relaxed and (in a very musical way) detailed sound.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #854
Lives for gear
 
Switchcraft's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JP__ View Post
Still no big fan of the JJs here (neither in the MA nor the Pollock), I think they lack mid definition in a bit smeary way.
But thats the good thing about tube based gear, its easily possible t finetune it to our likings, chain and needs and it doesn't necessarily needs expensive rare NOS stuff to experiment a bit.
Idk, I think I will go with the person that designed the box on this one.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #855
Gear Maniac
 
01010110's Avatar
I've compared five different sets of matched tubes in two Michelangelos. One was an early unit which I bought here on GS and the other a fairly recent unit which a friend of mine bought just after. They reacted very different on the different sets of tubes. I did a bunch of recordings and then used Hofa BlindTest to select the best ones for the two units (JJs where the best in one of them!). So, I'm not so sure it's a great idea to trust what someone else says here about which tubes are good or bad sounding in a Michelangelo.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #856
Lives for gear
 
JP__'s Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by 01010110 View Post
I've compared five different sets of matched tubes in two Michelangelos. One was an early unit which I bought here on GS and the other a fairly recent unit which a friend of mine bought just after. They reacted very different on the different sets of tubes. I did a bunch of recordings and then used Hofa BlindTest to select the best ones for the two units (JJs where the best in one of them!). So, I'm not so sure it's a great idea to trust what someone else says here about which tubes are good or bad sounding in a Michelangelo.
Interesting experiment.
But as I said before to me tube selection is mostly based just on taste. And on the chain. A comparisson with just the single device is a bit useless to me, not just with tube comparisson.
May someone needs the JJs to balance out his chain and another the Mullard...? Who knows without knowing inner details?
To me its not about bad sounding tubes and good once and not about making a developer look bad. Its about the last % to absolute personal perfection.
Blank statements are a bit useless for others, true. But to me its often others who love to read blank and absolute statements where others just shares their very personal opinion.

But if I like the sound of a certain tubeset more in conclusion with better measurements (low noise for example) then its maybe not all about taste only...? So, I did with the MA.

Whatever, trusting someone blindly because of statements in an (anonym) forum is never a smart move, for sure.

Last edited by JP__; 3 weeks ago at 01:48 PM..
Old 3 weeks ago
  #857
Lives for gear
 
JP__'s Avatar
 

Verified Member
PS: I have the feel some here might think that talking about modifying (is a tube change already a mod?) means the gear isnt good enough or the developer lazy or whatever...?
To me its quite the opposit: gear that reacts well on a tube change IS good gear as it gives you all possibilties to finetune and is transparent enough to show those possibilities in a usefull manner by listening. I rather expect bad or very colorful sounding gear to show no audible diffs with diff set of tubes. Similar to bad converters, bad MCs, bad PS, bad grounding etc is able to hide those kind of finedetails

Last edited by JP__; 3 weeks ago at 01:47 PM..
Old 3 weeks ago
  #858
Lives for gear
 
Switchcraft's Avatar
 

I apologize for being glib, I went through a few different styles of tubes when I first changed them and none of the ones I tried sounded as transparent. That’s why I went with the tubes it was designed for. The Michelangelo is already so much color and any of the tubes I tried was too much of a change to the spectral balance. I was using Q clone to test and my ears (obviously). I’ll have to go back and see which I tried to be exact, but nothing I tried worked as well.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #859
Gear Head
 
Sargon's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JP__ View Post
Still no big fan of the JJs here (neither in the MA nor the Pollock), I think they lack mid definition in a bit smeary way.
But thats the good thing about tube based gear, its easily possible t finetune it to our likings, chain and needs and it doesn't necessarily needs expensive rare NOS stuff to experiment a bit.
The cheap Tung Sol re-issues are maybe worth a try if you´re looking for a more solid sound. Yes, I also found the original JJs a bit too "smeary". And for my taste the overall sound a bit too heavy handed for my mastering chain. The Tung Sol will provide you a very differend flavor, a cleaner sound with slightly more definition, slightly better transient response and stereo image, and perhaps a lower noise floor. To avoid misunderstandings, the Michelangelo with original tubes sounds awesome, but the question is what the box is used for. I don´t use mine (2016 model) as a classical equalizer but more as a saturation box only with minimal boosts or cuts (sometimes even at zero), to give the music a slightly bigger and more organic sound (the MA is really hard to beat in that department). And for that purpose tubes like the Tung Sols make a better job in my opinion. There are probably a lot more tube options out there.. and I´m always thankful for any good suggestion. Of course, everything is highly subjective of and totally matter of taste, so don´t take this too serious..

Last edited by Sargon; 3 weeks ago at 03:03 PM.. Reason: typo
Old 3 weeks ago
  #860
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sargon View Post
The cheap Tung Sol re-issues are maybe worth a try if you´re looking for a more solid sound. Yes, I also found the original JJs a bit too "smeary". And for my taste the overall sound a bit too heavy handed for my mastering chain. The Tung Sol will provide you a very differend flavor, a cleaner sound with slightly more definition, slightly better transient response and stereo image, and perhaps a lower noise floor. To avoid misunderstandings, the Michelangelo with original tubes sounds awesome, but the question is what the box is used for. I don´t use mine (2016 model) as a classical equalizer but more as a saturation box only with minimal boosts or cuts (sometimes even at zero), to give the music a slightly bigger and more organic sound (the MA is really hard to beat in that department). And for that purpose tubes like the Tung Sols make a better job in my opinion. There are probably a lot more tube options out there.. and I´m always thankful for any good suggestion. Of course, everything is highly subjective of and totally matter of taste, so don´t take this too serious..
Would you recommend the standard ECC83 or the low gain version (ECC83/5751) ?

I'm currently using a matched trio of balanced JJ's and I agree with you, it can be smeary sometimes.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #861
Gear Head
 
Sargon's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saxnscratch View Post
Would you recommend the standard ECC83 or the low gain version (ECC83/5751) ?

I'm currently using a matched trio of balanced JJ's and I agree with you, it can be smeary sometimes.
I think I only had the standard high gain versions in my unit. I´m certainly not a big tube expert but I wouldn`t expect much benefits with the low gain versions. But at least worth a try. For my next set of tubes I´ll try the Sovtek LPS, I just ordered a matched trio. These could be (hopefully) somewhere in middle between the Tung Sol and JJs. I`m not a huge fan of the JJ ECC83, to my ears they always sound a tiny bit compressed, dark and slow. The Tung Sol gives me a bit more dynamic, definition and high end sparkle. On the other side, the JJs have a certain smoothness which I like.. The good thing is that the Michelangelo reacts obviously very sensitive to tube changes, so if you get sick of its sound, just put in some different tubes, problem solved.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #862
Lives for gear
 
teebaum's Avatar
you should be aware that 90% of all tubes that are not old stock or china tubes come from the same factory - reflector in saratov.
the different names - sovtek, electro harmonix, svetlana, genalex, TAD etc. - these are only distribution names and/or selections.
JJ is an own company, more or less the rest are NOS - mullard, philips, telefunken - and also there it can be possible, that once a philips was actually made at telefunken or on machines, which used to work for as example amperex.

i like the jj in my michelanglo, but my michelangelo can't be compared to the newer ones and i use it only in parallel, because he's mainly responsible for mojo.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #863
Gear Head
 
Sargon's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by teebaum View Post
you should be aware that 90% of all tubes that are not old stock or china tubes come from the same factory - reflector in saratov.
the different names - sovtek, electro harmonix, svetlana, genalex, TAD etc. - these are only distribution names and/or selections.
JJ is an own company, more or less the rest are NOS - mullard, philips, telefunken - and also there it can be possible, that once a philips was actually made at telefunken or on machines, which used to work for as example amperex.

i like the jj in my michelanglo, but my michelangelo can't be compared to the newer ones and i use it only in parallel, because he's mainly responsible for mojo.
Yes, sure. I know that these are not real NOS tubes but re-issues made in Russia, and I don´t have a problem with that fact, as long as the tubes sound good. The problem with the ECC83/12AX7 NOS is that most of them are ridiculously overpriced. Of course, the old German, UK, Holland manufactured tubes usually have a better build quality and probably longer life span. But for the really good ECC83 NOS you have to pay around 100 Eur/tube, and with units like the MA its a bit like a lottery, and can end as an expensive adventure. So in my opinion, playing around with affordable and readily available tubes is the better (or less frustrating) option in that case.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #864
Gear Maniac
 
01010110's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sargon View Post
The Tung Sol will provide you a very differend flavor, a cleaner sound with slightly more definition, slightly better transient response and stereo image, and perhaps a lower noise floor.
This matches fairly good with my findings with the older unit I tried with. I ended up with a set of matched Tung Sol gold in that one. It sounded without a doubt a lot better with those tubes than with JJs. (This Michelangelo had some third party mods, which may or may not change how it reacts to different tubes)
Old 3 weeks ago
  #865
Lives for gear
 
JP__'s Avatar
 

Verified Member
I for now switched to some selected TAD labeled ECC83 (about 2x the price of the stock JJs, so no invest to really worry about) in the Pollock, in the MA I will stay with those (unfortunately very expensive) german NOS. The tendency of the JJs to sound a bit loose and smeary (or smooth and creamy, like others might describe it) is there with both in comparison.
The TAD seem to need some burn in time as I wasnt that happy with them at the beginning..?
Curious to compare the Mullard CV4004 reissues, the TungSol and the NOS to them at a time.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #866
Gear Addict
 
B Elgin's Avatar
 

I'm still enjoying some 60s NOS tubes in mine, happily using the Michelangelo in serial now at the end of my chain again.
Their improved headroom and less creamy/smeary texture works well here and I can add extra harmonics via the G23 in tube mode or some Handcrafted Labs compression. With the JJs in, all three devices together would be a bit too much for most material (probably lacking tightness and transient integrity).

In the months I've now had these tubes installed, I've only needed to adjust the calibration screws twice (0.1 - 0.2dB) to keep very stable channel matching (measured after 30 min warmup of course). I expect (hope for) them to have a nice long lifespan too, and the JJs are sitting here as a backup or alternative flavor still.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #867
I tried TAD tube (RT001) today instead of the JJ and I didn't really like it.
It felt like I lost transient definition so a lack of punch on the low low-mid and High didn't feel natural.
Also the sound was colder with flat settings but it could be corrected by pushing the mid (flat) a lil bit.

To sum up, the TAD tube felt less rich and warm than the JJ with a slight loss of depth.
My unit is a REV B 1/3 Mod (PCB)
Old 2 weeks ago
  #868
Lives for gear
 
JP__'s Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saxnscratch View Post
I tried TAD tube (RT001) today instead of the JJ and I didn't really like it.
It felt like I lost transient definition so a lack of punch on the low low-mid and High didn't feel natural.
Also the sound was colder with flat settings but it could be corrected by pushing the mid (flat) a lil bit.

To sum up, the TAD tube felt less rich and warm than the JJ with a slight loss of depth.
My unit is a REV B 1/3 Mod (PCB)
Interesting. I uses the TAD RT010 (which should be different). Transient definition is definitly much better than the JJs, especially in mid and highs to me. May sound less warm due to this, but this warmth of the JJ comes with some smearing effect in my ears. Highs could feel a bit harder in comparissons, but especially with Esses it becomes clear to me that this is just due to that smearing effect of the JJs. The TAD feels more precise to me, tighter attack and decay.
How long did you burn in? Mine needs minimum a full day or so. Depth was indeed bad before this with annoying pushy mids.
RevB here too.
I drive my tube gear pretty low for max transparency.

We can share some audio if you like?
Old 2 weeks ago
  #869
Quote:
Originally Posted by JP__ View Post
Interesting. I uses the TAD RT010 (which should be different). Transient definition is definitly much better than the JJs, especially in mid and highs to me. May sound less warm due to this, but this warmth of the JJ comes with some smearing effect in my ears. Highs could feel a bit harder in comparissons, but especially with Esses it becomes clear to me that this is just due to that smearing effect of the JJs. The TAD feels more precise to me, tighter attack and decay.
How long did you burn in? Mine needs minimum a full day or so. Depth was indeed bad before this with annoying pushy mids.
RevB here too.
I drive my tube gear pretty low for max transparency.

We can share some audio if you like?
Interesting !
Not so long, just a couple of hours with music playing at moderate level (I don't push my chain hard either)

Of course we could share files !
Old 2 weeks ago
  #870
Lives for gear
 
JP__'s Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by JP__ View Post
Interesting. I uses the TAD RT010 (which should be different). Transient definition is definitly much better than the JJs, especially in mid and highs to me. May sound less warm due to this, but this warmth of the JJ comes with some smearing effect in my ears. Highs could feel a bit harder in comparissons, but especially with Esses it becomes clear to me that this is just due to that smearing effect of the JJs. The TAD feels more precise to me, tighter attack and decay.
How long did you burn in? Mine needs minimum a full day or so. Depth was indeed bad before this with annoying pushy mids.
RevB here too.
I drive my tube gear pretty low for max transparency.
Still the not extremly cheap TADs have no chance compared to my well selected pair of NOS unfortunately, which has much less smear and better transients while not being pushy like the TADS. Impressive how colored (and not in any good way to me) modern tubes sound in comparison still...

PS: unfortunately most NOS businesses seem to be a kind of big fraud often, so just buying something labelled as "NOS" can lead to high dissatisfaction and high wastage of money easily.

Last edited by JP__; 2 weeks ago at 01:10 PM..
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump