Preamp Deal of the Century

Jaded?? Who me? Nah! I'm still waiting for Mick to provide information about the "new" Supratek upgrades he announced to this thread - on October 23. And... getting tired of the selfrighteous BS which has been posted to this thread lately...

I want to talk Supratek's and tubes man! Enough with the bickering - mine's bigger than yours kinda stuff!

Along those lines - a little bird told me Mick will be introducing a NEW entry level preamp very soon... Forgot what its called exactly but... I know its another wine (one I've never heard of)

Other than that, I'm cycling through various rectifiers and regulator tubes in the Cortese. I've got about 15 more rectifiers on the way as well as some GEC KT77 and Mullard EL37's to try.

The Cortese is massively sensitive to these tubes.

With my current Mullard GZ37 and Genalex Gold Lion KT66's the sound is super involving but a wee bit too rich and/or muddy to be natural. With Mullard GZ37 and Sylvania 5932 - (black single plate with holes variety) the sound of the system is reminiscent of an SME30 - very precise - very neutral - natural - and very boring. ;)

I'm trying to get somewhere in-between.

I've been through a lot of rectifiers lately and I keep coming back to the GZ37 in my system because it seems to synergize best.

**I'm still looking for some killer 350b's.

Other than that? Hmmm... Oh... get yourself a Meitner (Museatex) Bidat if you bother listening to digital & have it upgraded by John Wright. Its the "DAC Deal Of The Century!" no joke.

Worse than the classic definition of ignorance[ lack of knowledge] is one possessing a shut down mind. Reminds me of dampening devices such as lead or rubber, materials that slow , alter and destroy the natural dynamics of music. Thats all about friction and thats not what this is about...Tom

Signal current pressures in a can,
expelled compositly through a diaphragm.
Does not equate to natural sound,
but supports the squawk that goes around.
If all knew sound through the same ear,
would there be reason to be hear? :-)

Appliances of variable acoustical physics, and ears as diverse as finger prints.

Reference is a variable.

This is what I have learned today!

Sorry all, I have no wine or wisdom. Even NASA Design Engineers aren't perfect...however, it is fun to BS about the aim of perfection.

Tom instead of your bits of bites why don't you serve us up a meal. What do you like, what works and why and furthermore, have you heard a Supratek product and if not, nor are interested, why are you driving in this neck of the woods with your nebulous comments? Ok so you've got 30 years and you've listened to a lot of gear and your a dealer and you are presumably here to enlighten us, so enlighen. This is no place for cynics that haven't heard, no one here is interested, no offense but make a point beyond methodogy man.

Rcn: nice on the...poetry (I liked it, actually, quite smart!), but are you trying to say you are a relativist, ie. that all fingerprints are equal? Haven't met many scientists that feel that way...Really though, I'd be interested.

Question to start you off, if you choose to start there: What is "natural"? If sound is defined, as a scientist would, as a materialist phenomenon, then all sound is in nature; in that all sound you hear is in "nature," as that all sound is in reality. Ergo, the stereo sound is as "natural" as any other sound.

So, assuming, arguendo, that all sounds are, um, real, then there must be some other "reference" that you are using than merely the materialist objective. Which, of course, leaves the subjective. Or, more precisely, the mind's relationship with the objective. Which necessarliy implies, that the difference you are citing between stereo sound and, um, "natural" sound, is one of perception by the mind. On the other hand, maybe you mean that a stereo will never replicate the objective sound propogation of an orchestra, which seems to be an obvious given, so it couldn't be that. Which then makes one assume that, again, you must mean the subjective, and...well, maybe you should say what you mean clearer. You can leave in the fun too.

Tom: disappointed that you can't seem to come in out of the cold. Consider this: the root of the word "ignorance" is to ignore...

bwhite: you are a scrappy guy, no doubt. Just be careful, though, don't get lost in that forest of rectifiers (like I've done in the forest of Toms!)

Yea, tubegoover: I never understand these guys: give 'em a bit-o-knowledge or socio-economic leverage - I'm a physicist, I'm a rich guy, I'm a dealer, I, I, I - and they think that the world falls away. Credentials don't answer the question, WHY DO YOU FEEL THAT WAY AND WHAT ARE YOUR LOGICAL/EXPERIENTIAL REASONS FOR SAYING SO?

It seems pretty simple, doesn't it? Or, is this just a small white guy sword fight with no faces/answers?