Hello Gallant_diva, It's been a little quiet on the western front but I wanted to pop in for a minute just to hear how it's going with you, and to respond to Agear above. Last night I finished with the EH KT-88's and put the KT-150's back in the system. I'm letting them settle for a day or so before I start listening again (I've actually been busy serving jury duty as I postponed it so many times but finally had to 'do my civic duty').
I enjoyed the 88's quite a bit but want to listen to the 150's again before final comparisons...
Agear: It sounds like we're on the same wavelength so far with both the 120's sound and your [earlier] TRL connection; not to mention the Lampi's (your GG AND new room both look amazing: congrats!). I'll be updating my page soon...
G_d I am looking forward to hearing of your new developments/progress down the road.

lissnr September 17, 2015 09:46

Well, pretty much finished with my little tour of the tubes; in a nutshell I don't have any major revelations except that it was very ear-educational and I feel a bit more well rounded with regard to these particular tubes. Of course the big caveat is that obviously I'm only speaking for not only these particular tube types but these actual brands alone, and we all know how different brands will vary.

The KT120's ( Tung Sol of course) are a nice tube. In my system they had good extension, an especially potent bass and an essentially even ( though not especially rich) tone. I could certainly live comfortably with them and as a new production tube they are also a great value for the $$$. Their power reserves were not lost on the Apogees when they asked for dynamics and woofer control, a good match for each other.

Next into the TRL's were 8 of my 12 Ruby EL 34's straight out of my Cary V 12 ( actually they went into my BK Tube Tester first just to be sure they were all still healthy). The EL34's were what you'd expect: all about the mids. No surprise here, they were rich, full, and robust. Vocals were tangible, wonderfully present, and fully fleshed out in 3D space. On relatively simple/ non-complex passages they "pulsed" with the ebb and flow of the music. Highs weren't exactly sparkling but were sufficiently "exclaimed" such that they stayed connected to the midrange body as a whole. Unfortunately, bass wasn't so lucky when the tempo really picked up, and what a shame... Attack was sluggish and lackluster, extension was not impressive at all and notes had a softness that just couldn't strike a live sounding note. Loved what it did well but the caveats were too great IMHO to live with on a daily basis. In an ideal world there's a kick butt brand of this tube that can do all the goodness AND step up the bass? That would be a keeper... Could it be a Genalex or a NOS Mullard? IDK but would like to...

At this point I should mention a little more about the soundstage. Both the 120's and EL34's presented a broad lateral stage with well defined images in their own space. The 120's in comparison were of course slightly less meaty or naturally tangible but were perhaps a bit sharper and more edgy/ incisive which matches their overall description. As for the depth of image... I'm going to hold off on that aspect until I have seen ( heard?) all the cards on the table as I still have to finish up with the [remarkable!] KT88's and come back full circle again to the 150's. More to follow asap.
Happy Lissn'n

lissnr September 09, 2015 01:57

Hello Gallant_Diva, Just a quick update at the moment...I've been re-auditioning my monos with different power tubes. So far I've run KT 120's, EL 34's and currently KT 88's ( all of which I had on hand) as I make my way back to the KT 150's. Would have liked to try a set of '90's but I've never run that tube in any prior amps. I'll let you know my personal findings when I'm finished. Hope all is well.

lissnr August 25, 2015 20:59

Hi Gallant_Diva, A question about room requirements for your 40% speaker placement: After Sandy I literally rebuilt the bottom 4 feet of my room ( which had been flooded with approximately 10" of seawater). I physically measured 4' up, snapped a chalk line and took a sawzall horizontally around the room ( I also ripped the floor up, including the carpeting, floor laminate, and 'Dri-Core' floor squares until I was down to bare concrete again then repeated the exact configuration on the re-build after all the clean-up and dry out...).
When I replaced the [lower 4'] of wall I added additional layers of sheetrock and quietrock ( as mentioned in previous posts) [ to the lower 4' only] which added an additional " lip" around the room's entire perimeter varying in ' depth' from as little as 5/8" to as much as 1.25" upon which I screwed a small 2.5" moulding/ shelf upon which I place a few pictures and " nick-nacks" ... this done to obviously integrate the difference(s) in wall depth...
My big question is do you think this [ mid-point seam ] may effect the clean dipole wavefront that will be bouncing into it and which is so important to the longer traveling waves...Might it reduce or obscure the effectiveness of this layout more than how I have it now which is somewhat controlled to a certain extent with some carefully placed diffusors / treatments.
I know NOT to over- do these as we know Apogees generally prefer minimum or no front wall treatment...
Your opinions? Thanks.

lissnr August 15, 2015 16:45

A last note: I re-read your speaker placement article ( I had read it some years ago) and found it very interesting... The promises it makes are very
tempting...

lissnr August 12, 2015 12:37

Hello Gallant_Diva, I am looking forward to hearing about the progress and details of your new room. Not only am I always interested in these types of projects for obvious reasons but your links to and our common connection with both TRL and Apogee certainly pique my interest even more.
As for my room it began as approximately 13'6" w x 19'L x 7' H sidewalls peaking to a 9' centerline height. After multiple layers of alternating sheetrock and quietrock, etc. my final width was reduced to almost 13' exactly. For total length I decided to decrease potential sound transfer in/ out of the room as well as increasing rigidity even more by adding an additional interior heavily braced and insulated wall at both the fore and aft
ends so I gave up over a foot total length in doing so. Actual finished length is 17' 6" centerline { and 18' total length into 2 L/R "notches" in the rear corners}. It serves me and my Duetta Ultimates quite well ( though I tried Diva Ultimates once and I just couldn't get them to sing as the bass in
particular was overwhelming no matter what I tried...).
Thank you.

lissnr August 12, 2015 05:19

Hello Gallant_Diva,

"Also, mine will be an audio room which could also do home theater, and not vice versa. Two different things. My passion is pure audio."

I did my dedicated room with exactly the same mindset. It is designed for 2 channel but 'equipped' to accommodate home theater.
After all the multiple layers of sheetrock, quietrock, green glue,special insulation, dedicated sub-panel (with almost 2 dozen dedicated cryo-treated outlets and 10 individual circuits/breakers of mostly 20 amp each) separated by functions exclusive to lighting, HVAC, and audio-only (the majority of them)...
I... also designated a breaker and pre-wired [IN Wall] all my home theater speaker wires with their connecting "outlet plates" as well as all cable and computer connections 'pre-disposed' for a projection based home theater...
This was all done with one major theme always in mind: COMPLETE separation of ANY and EVERY home theater artifact(s) from the primary purpose of the room which IS 2 CHANNEL, thus permitting [as close to] an ideal listening environment as I possibly could construct and that also happens to support the makings of a formidable home theater environment IF I should ever decide to take the plunge (which so-far I haven't).
Remember: home theaters of every level, from a simple flat screen TV with a few add-on speakers all the way to some which are quite elaborate and spectacular, can be found in millions of homes and is a relatively easy task with gratifying results. But a truly sublime 2 channel audio system capable of "Transporting" the listener deceptively close to an actual re-enactment of a musical event is a difficult and astounding accomplishment which requires far more commitment and personal attention...It is, to so many of us, almost something of a 'Cult-like' commitment...
But I can only speak for myself really, we all have our own degree of passion for this 'hobby'.
As for a dedicated audio room...if you can make it happen somehow you will truly have the first AND MOST important ingredient towards your systems' great sound taken care of, the ROOM.
Go for it and good luck. AND Happy Lissn'n!

lissnr August 11, 2015 11:12

Great idea... The Room makes or breaks your final sound. It will take longer than you think but if the planning and execution are well managed it truly separates a " Room with great audio equipment in it" from a "Great listening room that brings out the best of audio equipment in it". Big Difference. Go for it.

lissnr August 05, 2015 02:42

Hello Gallant_Diva, So, my little visit to the KT 120's is over and I found it an interesting comparison. Before I get into too much description I will say both these tubes seem to reside somewhat hand-in-hand with each other in their own world of "hyper powerful" tubes that essentially bridge the once wide 'power gap' between tubes and SS amplifiers. That is to say that in a well designed amplifier capable of extracting their fullest potential ( our TRL's being perfect examples), I no longer see serious need for having to use big solid state amps anymore in what were once power hungry applications. Such applications include very large rooms, very inefficient speakers, or even a preference toward LOUD listening levels...these tubes bring Rocky Balboa punch and "Terminator toughness" to the table.
But I'm getting ahead of myself.

In an ideal world there would be more tube manufacturers developing "High output" variations of other tube series as well but in general we have a lot to be grateful for with the current diversity of tubes already out there...

Which leads me back to the 120 & 150. The good news is I found both of them truly capable of satisfying their owners based on his (or her) personal listening priorities. I'm going to cheat a little bit here for the sake of comparisons by making a couple of well known analogies:
Most of us are familiar with the different sonic virtues in a tube based system of a 'triode mode' listening session versus a 'regular' tetrode or ultralinear configuration of tube output. A solid state amp owner can similarly think of 'Pure class A' versus 'regular AB' (or perhaps A/AB).
Well the differences we speak of between the 120/150 are nowhere near as significant as these examples but they do help illustrate the 'camps' each tube seems to have its roots (or should I say "Pins")in? ha ha.

Essentially I found the 120's to flesh out a bit more mid or lower midrange body or texture which places it into a bit more of that warmER or full bodied camp...In my above analogies it would lean a hair more toward the triode/Class A camps but absolutely NOwhere near as obvious...as I said it simply 'leans' that way ever so slightly in comparison. This then, by definition, adds a bit more 'tube' to a tube based system and would help more readily define such system as such in a blind listening shootout. Bass punch is excellent [for a tube based system] and "Very good" overall compared to any system. 3D 'Spatiality' (if you can call it that) was very good also...this effect itself apparently being something of a hotly contested topic. I mention this because 2 friends I have known for several years through my local audio club were visiting my system for the first time by coincidence while the 120's were installed. Be aware these are true solid state system owners who are also electronic engineers as well as builders and [one is actually a designer of an all SS based product line] so our discussions about after-market power cables and speaker wires/IC's etc. are always quite fun! So, as we discussed my system's merits (a very good overall report card by the way...and essentially via very tough critics!) I mentioned how the soundstage depth they were experiencing was one of the many elusive characteristics I had spent much time working to capture in my system...Their response was rather tepid at best: after acknowledging it was undeniably there and quite obviously an integral part of a truly natural sounding presentation,they were equally as hasty to proclaim how soundstage depth is a relatively unsupported fallacy which is merely a recording engineer's manipulation of microphones and/or the actual volume of the performer's instrument into the associated microphone and therefore it was quite a low priority/essentially inconsequential aspect of system reproduction...

I said uh huh...and just smiled. I said to myself maybe it's something like the rather heavy set young lady who knows she couldn't possibly be seen in a skimpy bikini but rationalizes that she can still go swimming in some 'other' bathing suits...

But I digress..As for the 120/150 comparison the 120 was something of an ear opening reminder of how wonderful our options are as tube based amp owners! I almost said to myself "I may switch to these for a good long while instead of the 150's for now" and knew I would never sell my stash of them..but I had to put the 150's back in to conclude this story.

So I did, and here's the difference I found...[you can guess by now?]: The 150's didn't have that extra bit of tube warmth that helped define that extra body...that slightly undeniable personal aspect of presence that is an often welcoming aspect to many systems and will almost instantly define a tube based system from a 'typical' SS (No, we're not talking a pure Class A ss system as they do edge closer)but, you-know-what-I-mean... What the 150's do (in MY system,YMMV!) is stay remarkably neutral up through the mids and remain very clean and extended right out the top... And this is the premise I built my room around once I put them in, approximately 2 years ago. I had been running other amps and other tubes previously, so my room treatments and overall setup was different accordingly. Since the 150's I have made changes (mostly with diffusors vs abfusors vs absorption) that cater to the 150's strengths/character. But to add: the 150's still give me all the body and natural tone and timbre I could ever imagine and of course I am very choosy with types of cables I'm using, not to mention the caps! So,ironically;in comparison with the 120's: the 150's are more in the tetrode/ ultralinear and class AB SS camps!)but so be it for now...Do they give me that 3D Spatiality we discussed before? In my configuration of speaker placement and room treatments which caters heavily to that important aspect (IMHO)they do...
Oh, and there is just one more thing that completely threw me into the 150 and this is part of why I will ultimately stay with them too: remember how I said the 120's did a very very good job with bass overall...and an excellent job considering it is a 'tube based' system? Well the KT150's absolutely "rule the roost" when it comes to bass. In my TRL's these 150's simply STOMP BASS like a 747 overhead from a hundred feet. They turn your woofers into sledgehammers and rock your room like you wouldn't believe. Control and definition, extension and punch... The bass is superb compared to ANY type of system including and especially the high power SS world...bring em on...These babies are smokin.

OK, I'm getting a little carried away so I'll put it to rest for now. This was fun...there's always more/lots to continue with and talk about. Until then, Thanks and Happy Lissn'n!

lissnr August 01, 2015 12:54

Hello Gallant_diva, I am enjoying your history lessons about the brilliant work of Leo Spiegel and agree it seems absolutely appropriate that it took a NASA scientist to design the ultimate speaker. I believe the Full Range ( also referred to as simply ' The Original Apogee' for those unfamiliar)
was designed with no limitations or serious consideration to price points... and of course, their performance reflects this.

I just wanted to touch base briefly and let you know I have spent several hours doing some critical listening with the KT120's in place of the KT150's. My next step is to insert the 150's back into the GT200's once again and make a final assessment. No, I don't have any KT90's and I didn't want to try the 88's as the significant loss in output power I felt would be too unfair to the overall presentation... But I will hopefully be reporting back again asap with some type of personal reflections on them...
TTYS... Lissnr

lissnr July 29, 2015 03:44

Hello Gallant_diva, Thanks for your advice, I see you can get very busy here responding to visitors!
I agree your project with the FR's makes a lot of sense; anytime you reduce cabling/connectors, etc. the safer and more intact your signal will be. Sounds like you are experimenting with different resistor values (visible inside the gain switch or not???), then listening to each with the ultimate goal to obviously eliminate that rheostat/attenuator completely once you hear the values best for your room and system preference? A "Gallant" effort indeed! But also very time and patience consuming as well. Once you have your values you begin choosing between the Mundorfs and others... Well, free market competition is what keeps the globe spinning so you must look at your capacitor options from that perspective...it sure beats the alternative (no or minimal choices!).
I know the dude chassis is certainly bigger than most but we both know it can get pretty crowded in there nevertheless...Did Paul give you some suggestions about how or where you can implement a design? He's usually very helpful when it comes to such things but he has so much on his plate all the time it's amazing he finds any spare time at all.
I understand your aversion to 'hype' as we all must sort through loads of opinions and assessments both well founded and ... not so. This hobby seems to have more supposed 'experts' than most!
I think revealing systems can be the ultimate connection to the recording event but we all know it can be a double-edged sword as lesser quality recordings and all the care being taken OR not being taken during the process will be blatantly exposed. Apogees have a "Ruthlessly revealing" reputation so we both sort of live by that sword too but [when properly fed] there's pretty much nothing else that'll be more lifelike! Add TRL...
As for the KT150's vs the rest...I broke out my KT120's last night and swapped out the 150's then started listening. Once they're all warmed up and settled in a few days I'll report back (but they sounded remarkably better than I last remembered...).
Happy Lissn'n

lissnr July 21, 2015 11:27

Hello again Gallant_diva, It's a pleasure to speak with you again and I appreciate your support. As for the Duelund vs Jupiters I will be interested in reading your conclusions after the comparisons are done regardless of which order you choose...

Regarding the KT150's I will admit to finding your negative opinion a little curious. Please let me explain via my background tube experience..
Before I acquired the TRL GT 200's my power tube experiences were somewhat limited in variety though fairly long term in execution. In the world of tube amps I was initially "Raised on" EL 34's for many happy years... Their mids are almost legendary and I was completely hooked, line AND sinker with almost no incentive to wander away. Eventually amps and systems evolved and, after a brief stint with 300B's I moved into the world of KT 88's and some great sounding 6550's which were a more 'sophisticated' sound in as much as while losing the last degree of midrange bliss via the '34's, the 6550's added both [ top and bottom] frequency extensions so successfully ( and "evenly") that it simply became much more honest and real sounding...

Fortunately the amp brands were in fact just the right combo with these tubes. I can explain: picture the reputation of VTL amps: words such as punchy, fast, powerful, extended and yet spacious and often well detailed may come to mind... Notice the similarities to the description of many popular brands of KT 88's... Similar, yes?

Now picture a pair of beautiful Conrad Johnson mono blocs... Mine were not the very old/ early ultra rich loose and "Toobey" sounding ones from waaay back nor were they the very latest models who are much much more neutral and, as more and more tube products are striving to do, : sounding more and more like great SS amps yet trying to keep their best tube artifacts still in play. Mine were right in the middle and oh were they wonderful (Premier 12's if you must know) and think of CJ's sonic signature...words like " expressive, natural, relaxed, unforced, "gorgeous mids" and of course simply 'real'... all may come to mind. Reminds you of an EL34 a lotta bit?

Well here's the kicker: my VTL's (MB 125's BTW if you were curious) with all their [above] descriptors were NOT running the KT88/6550's... they were running the EL 34's! And guess what the CJ's were running? Not the " natural, easy, midrange magical EL 34's... they were running SED Winged C 6550's . Each amp's personality was being enacted by tubes you wouldn't have necessarily thought presented such a description...

Moral of the story is amps may have 'house/ brand' sound and tube types their own intrinsic characters too but sometimes even your best educated guess [about the way you expect it to sound..] may be off base.

As for the TRL GT 200's when I first heard them they were already loaded with KT 120's ( a tube I had NO experience with). Yes, I was running the Dude so the big, dynamic, spacious and full bodied expressiveness was already major factors of the soundscape but what the KT 120's were specifically contributing ( as compared to another tube type...) couldn't exactly tell. But it all sounded really really good. Very shortly thereafter I put in the 150's and found the added power addicting. I also noticed a bit more incisiveness and speed over the rather-sluggish - in- comparison 120's. KT 150 bass was faster, punchier and even more extended and always with effortless control...

I'm wondering if I'm hearing an excellent "house sound" amp 'in spite of' these particular tubes and therefore can imply it could be even better with better sounding tubes....?
Maybe. The loss in power will be instantly felt if I dropped back to 88's or 90's but maybe the mids would be worth it? Very interesting. So, food for thought.... Maybe I'll shop around for a couple of matched quads,maybe even some 6550's.
Thank you for the heads up... It might just be fun doing some more experimenting.
Thanks again and Happy Lissn'n!

lissnr July 16, 2015 04:45

Hello Gallant_diva: I have been a huge fan of yours ever since I first laid eyes on your system as I too have been both an Apogee and TRL fan for many years (first the Apogees with various electronics, then I discovered TRL).

I currently have True Sound Works Duetta Ultimates driven by GT200's (Duelund cast coppers) driven by a Dude with either [the same] Duelund casts as amps, OR another Dude I now have which is using the new Jupiters instead. I like them both for different reasons.

Duelunds still generate a bigger airiness and space with very good imaging and natural character... Jupiters improve a bit more in the exact imaging specificity but may give up a trace of room spaciousness... Neither characteristic/comparisons would be noticeable without a direct A/B of each however.

All in all my assessment has to be taken with a grain of salt as one Dude is relatively 'stock' (w/ the Duelunds) and the other has been HIGHLY modified, including the new Jupiters... So, it's almost silly for me to make such comparisons.

FWIW I also run Jupiters in my Lampizator Big 7 (my system hasn't been updated on Agon in awhile and is still showing my earler Big 6 and my first pr of refurbished TSW Duettas before I went for the Ultimates..).

Last note: I had heard all the new buzz about the Jupiters so thought I might try them out in my monos one day and I bought a complete set to do so. Ironically, I had cause to recently need to change out one set of caps in my right mono... when I had to decide whether to use the Jupiters and of course replace both amps with them, I didn't have the heart/courage to make the swap as I was so pleased with the sound of my system using the Duelunds; not to mention I already had the Jupiters upstream in the new Dude and Dac. I decided I'd stick with the [pricier!] Duelunds...which is what I did. No regrets at this point at all...

Maybe if you own the Duelunds already you should try them and live with them first... Jupiters could be something to play with down the line? Let us know what you decide.

PS Great seeing a picture of Paul, especially inside such a fitting setting!

Good luck and happy Lissn'n!

lissnr May 19, 2015 20:29

"The Duelund effect is cumulative because their contribution is in the direction of natural sound, how can a system sound " too" natural? They are exemplary is this fashion. They don't result in analytical-etched nor do they go the other way with redundant warmth. Natural and realism is what distinguishes their contribution."
Exactly the point.

lissnr February 17, 2014 14:28

Gallant_diva and all, There's one other aspect of the Duelunds that needs to be brought up again. I have generally read over the years that mixing different capacitor brands, each with their own distinct qualities can result in a positive blending of many of their attributes... Until recently I have quite honestly not been into this aspect of improving my system. Like many others I have been chasing components and/or cables and/or room treatments or whatever other path(s) in my quest for better sound.Dealing with capacitor upgrades only recently came into my view and I decided about a year ago to jump into the Duelund vs the whatever-else-was-already-in-it arena.
There are some excellent points being made here about cost vs value of improvement in sound quality, and the common sense answer as we all know, [as has been stated already], is performance return for the $$$ spent. I feel it is quite safe to say that considering the average expense invested into most of the systems of those reading this thread, that the Duelunds cost/performance ratio is a no-brainer and easily justifies itself... "and then some"....
What I do want to mention as well is that this effect IS cumulative. Perhaps flying in the face of the long established "mix and match" capacitor theory as above, I have found that so far, 3 components in succession, all Duelund equipped, is NOT too much of a good thing. It IS MORE of a great thing becoming greater. I speak of Dac feeding pre-amp feeding amps...all Duelund Cast and each one bringing the system farther along in the goal of hearing "Natural", "Lifelike" in-your-room music.
Honestly I have really nothing else that obviously lends itself for 'Duelund Insertion' but if I did, I'd roll the dice and give it a try because so far, "Too much???" Isn't; it's still better.
My only regret is not having stock in this company...(I have NO ties to it at all) I'm just a happy customer.
Go figure.
My point is: based on my experience, I doubt Your Mileage May Vary...
Just my 2 cents ...Happy Lissn'n!

lissnr February 17, 2014 12:49