AudioAficionado.org  

Go Back   AudioAficionado.org > Manufacturers Forums > Shindo Laboratory

Shindo Laboratory Sound Create Producer

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #141  
Old 07-08-2012, 10:56 PM
Freestone Freestone is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,451
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PHC1
The thought of having vacuum tubes inside speakers as well (field coil) is one that is tough to resist though!
I have been told they are solid state inside. Which made me a bit sad as it feels like it should be tubes...but questions of maintenance etc enters into it.

I think it would be cool to have outboard tube power supplies!
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 07-12-2012, 01:24 PM
Freestone Freestone is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,451
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by metaphacts

What might be really interesting would be to bi amp with 2 pair of CCs.

The I don't listen very loud myth we should address in another non gear specific thread.
Does running a sub, like the REL g2, make it easier for lower powered SET amps?

I am curious about your "don't listen very loud myth" - do you mean we listen louder than we think or that headroom is important no matter how loud we listen?
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 07-12-2012, 01:34 PM
Jerome W's Avatar
Jerome W Jerome W is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 13,240
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freestone

Does running a sub, like the REL g2, make it easier for lower powered SET amps?

I am curious about your "don't listen very loud myth" - do you mean we listen louder than we think or that headroom is important no matter how loud we listen?
I think that you can listen to moderate levels 90 % of the time, but when you will desire to recreate the emotions of concert level and will be unable to do it, you will feel highly frustrated.

Sent from my iPhone using A.Aficionado
__________________
There are two means of refuge from the miseries of life: music and cats
Albert Schweitzer
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 10-16-2013, 10:42 PM
countingbackwards countingbackwards is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 102
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome W View Post
Hello folks,

My dealer just gor the information from Shindo.
The CCQ gives 17.4 W per channel on a 4 ohm load !
What a surprise ! from 70 W on 8 ohms to 17.4 on 4 ohms !
Electronics is a tough science for sure !
Very little power for my kind of speakers.
Now I understand why I got so many negative opinions on this project.

Never mind,
one day, when I won't have any passion for my system, I will buy the Tannoy Canterburys and a full Shindo set-up !
See you then !
I know this is a pretty old thread, but since this thread comes up when I did a google search on the CCQ, I wanted to let you know that I discussed this very issue with Jonathan, and he informed me that the 17.4 W per channel into 4 ohms is the spec for the CC80, not the CCQ. This makes sense of course, since the CC80 is 70 watts into 16 ohms and 35W into 8 ohms, so 17.4 would represent your typical halving of power into half the impedance on a tube amp.

He didn't specify exactly the output of the CCQ into 4 ohms, but said it would "do much better with the 4 ohm dip" that most speakers that would need 70 watts tend to have, as compared with the CC80's performance into those dips.

Just wanted to clear this up, so that the next guy who researches this will get the right info.
__________________
Verity Parsifal Encore-Shindo Corton Charlemagne Q-Shindo Monbrison-Michell Orbe SE Mk.2-Graham 2.2-Ortofon A90-Audience AU24 speaker cables-Shindo Silver interconnect-Wavelength Cosecant (Denominator)-Amarra-Audeze LCD3-Woo Audio WA6SE-Rock & Roll!
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 10-17-2013, 12:45 AM
Jerome W's Avatar
Jerome W Jerome W is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 13,240
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by countingbackwards View Post
I know this is a pretty old thread, but since this thread comes up when I did a google search on the CCQ, I wanted to let you know that I discussed this very issue with Jonathan, and he informed me that the 17.4 W per channel into 4 ohms is the spec for the CC80, not the CCQ. This makes sense of course, since the CC80 is 70 watts into 16 ohms and 35W into 8 ohms, so 17.4 would represent your typical halving of power into half the impedance on a tube amp.

He didn't specify exactly the output of the CCQ into 4 ohms, but said it would "do much better with the 4 ohm dip" that most speakers that would need 70 watts tend to have, as compared with the CC80's performance into those dips.

Just wanted to clear this up, so that the next guy who researches this will get the right info.
Good to know but the CCQ is also given for 70 W into 16 ohms if I remember correctly. So I don't see why the power available on 4 ohms would be different from the CC80.
Typically you need almost 4 x EL34 ( the correct figure would be a bit more than 3 ) to get the same power of 2 x KT88, no matter if you are in class AB or B. So yes, the CCQ might be a bit more easy on 4 ohms than the CC80.

Indeed the CCQ have no trouble at all driving my Wilsons.
Even in the bass area, they perform much better than my huge McIntosh MC2301's monoblocks !
__________________
There are two means of refuge from the miseries of life: music and cats
Albert Schweitzer
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 10-17-2013, 11:35 AM
countingbackwards countingbackwards is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 102
Default

As per Jonathan, the CCQ is 70 watts into 8 ohms and the CC80 is 70 watts into 16 ohms. While both amps are capable of similar output based on the tubes in use, the way the amps are designed, in practice you get double the power into low impedances (defined as "below 16 ohms" in the Shindo world) with the CCQ compared to the CC80.

IMHO this is valuable info, since you wouldn't presume that an amp with 4 EL34's per side would be much more powerful than one with 2 KT88's per side, but in this application and into low impedances, that is exactly the case with these 2 amps.

BTW...the CCQ is spec'd on the Shindo Labs website as 70 watts into 8 ohms, whereas the CC80 is just spec'd as 70 watts (no impedance is indicated).

Jerome - i really enjoyed the audition of CC80s with my speakers, but am considering the CCQ for the reasons mentioned here. Does it share the open, detailed, refined quality of the CC80 despite being based on EL34 tubes which can be a bit darker sounding (when in other amp designer's hands) than KT88's?
__________________
Verity Parsifal Encore-Shindo Corton Charlemagne Q-Shindo Monbrison-Michell Orbe SE Mk.2-Graham 2.2-Ortofon A90-Audience AU24 speaker cables-Shindo Silver interconnect-Wavelength Cosecant (Denominator)-Amarra-Audeze LCD3-Woo Audio WA6SE-Rock & Roll!
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 10-17-2013, 12:09 PM
Jerome W's Avatar
Jerome W Jerome W is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 13,240
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by countingbackwards View Post
As per Jonathan, the CCQ is 70 watts into 8 ohms and the CC80 is 70 watts into 16 ohms. While both amps are capable of similar output based on the tubes in use, the way the amps are designed, in practice you get double the power into low impedances (defined as "below 16 ohms" in the Shindo world) with the CCQ compared to the CC80.

IMHO this is valuable info, since you wouldn't presume that an amp with 4 EL34's per side would be much more powerful than one with 2 KT88's per side, but in this application and into low impedances, that is exactly the case with these 2 amps.

BTW...the CCQ is spec'd on the Shindo Labs website as 70 watts into 8 ohms, whereas the CC80 is just spec'd as 70 watts (no impedance is indicated).

Jerome - i really enjoyed the audition of CC80s with my speakers, but am considering the CCQ for the reasons mentioned here. Does it share the open, detailed, refined quality of the CC80 despite being based on EL34 tubes which can be a bit darker sounding (when in other amp designer's hands) than KT88's?
Great input !
I stand corrected now and I understand better why I'm not crazy ( neither all the people who listened to my system ) when I say that the CCQ have the ability to drive the WP8's easily.
I'm in the street.
Will reply to your question about sound of the CCQ in one hour.
__________________
There are two means of refuge from the miseries of life: music and cats
Albert Schweitzer
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 10-17-2013, 01:42 PM
Jerome W's Avatar
Jerome W Jerome W is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 13,240
Default

Ok, here we go.

I never heard the CC80 so I cannot tell you wether the CCQ is darker or brighter.
What I can say is that imho, the overall character of a tube amp, does not depend on the tubes used when it has been designed by a great designer .

The overall character of the EL34 tube, as accepted by rich, sweet and powerful mids, a clean bass but without the most strength in impacts, and a sweet and polite treble, does not apply to the CCQ. It applies to common EL34 amps. Not exceptionnal ones like the Corton Charlemagne.

I have had 2 tube amps based on KT88's : the 275 and the 2301's. They sounded very different. The 275 was much warmer and colored. The 2301's were much brighter. They sounded extremely neutral, especially compared to the very dark sounding 501's SS amps I had just before them. When I switched to the 2301's from the 501's, the sound became faster and it seemed to me that a very thick wool cover had been removed from the speakers.

Now, when I got the CCQ, after the 2301's, I got the same feeling ! the CCQ were much more refined but also more dynamic, faster, and more extended at both extreme frequencies. So not darker at all all than the KT88's 2301's : much much clearer and they seem to be much more neutral. ( Seem because no audio component is perfectly neutral imho ).

But my Snappers based on EL34's were clearly darker than the 2301's. Still, they give me more excitement, more involvement in the music, and they sounded also more forgiving than the 2301's. Although their definition was less extended than the 2301's, I preferred to keep the Snappers and sold the big Mcs.

So you see, really no definitive conclusion here.
The Snappers, EL34 based, are darker than the 2301's with their 16x KT88's, which are themselves darker than the CCQ with their EL34's ! The Snappers are actually very close in sound to the 275, but with more drive and "oomph" factor.

The CCQ is the best amplifier I ever heard. Both on neutrality and on musicality. The McIntosh 225 is very close to them, but lacks their bass authority on most speakers. With high eff speakers, the match would be very tough between the 225 and the CCQ.

I hope this helps.

I have heard the Verity Parsifal Encore : fabulous speakers. And I have great respect for your VTL amps.
My guess is that the CCQ will shine on speakers with the finesse of the Parsifal. They have an extreme refinement combined with ease and power that most amps can only approach. They will kick the ...ss of the VTLs as they kicked the one of my 2301's.
90 % of the Shindo magic is in the preamp.
But when you get the last 10 % with the power amp, the sky opens above your head !
__________________
There are two means of refuge from the miseries of life: music and cats
Albert Schweitzer

Last edited by Jerome W; 10-17-2013 at 01:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 10-18-2013, 03:39 PM
countingbackwards countingbackwards is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 102
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome W View Post
What I can say is that imho, the overall character of a tube amp, does not depend on the tubes used when it has been designed by a great designer .


Thanks for the detailed description Jerome - it is helpful to me as much as I expect it'll be helpful to others that will have similar questions, because the number of people who have heard the CC80 and CCQ on the same speakers is not very big, that's for sure!

One thing I thought that I'd point out, is that I'm not sure I *completely* agree with your bolded statement. While I agree that just knowing the tube type does not necessarily tell you what an amp will sound like, I see there being lots of different ways to skin a cat. A great designer might opt to make similarly designed amps, whose main sonic differences will be based on the tubes in use. This is akin to a car that's offered with a 4 cylinder or 6 cylinder engine...while the basic design is the same, the 2 cars will feel different, and that difference will be mostly (if not wholly) attributable to the different engines. The same can be said for tubes used in tube amps - sometimes a designer would *want* to display a tube's sonic attributes. My point - those might be great designers just as much as the one whose amp doesn't sound typical for the tube type, it's just a different approach.

However - your post clearly demonstrates that this is not the Shindo way - and I didn't expect it to be. I fully expect a Shindo-designed EL34 amp to have more liveliness and "swing" than any VTL amp, my concern is more for the differences between the Shindo EL34 sound and the Shindo KT88 sound, which if I get the CCQ I suppose I'll be well-placed to comment on. But as Jonathan pointed out and you are further supporting, Shindo's amps are designed far more intricately than most others, so knowing a single part in the chain won't tell you what to expect. For all I know, the CCQ might not share much at all in the way of design with the CC80 (they certainly don't look at all alike), so the tube question becomes poorly founded.
__________________
Verity Parsifal Encore-Shindo Corton Charlemagne Q-Shindo Monbrison-Michell Orbe SE Mk.2-Graham 2.2-Ortofon A90-Audience AU24 speaker cables-Shindo Silver interconnect-Wavelength Cosecant (Denominator)-Amarra-Audeze LCD3-Woo Audio WA6SE-Rock & Roll!
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 10-19-2013, 12:42 AM
Jerome W's Avatar
Jerome W Jerome W is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 13,240
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by countingbackwards View Post

Thanks for the detailed description Jerome - it is helpful to me as much as I expect it'll be helpful to others that will have similar questions, because the number of people who have heard the CC80 and CCQ on the same speakers is not very big, that's for sure!

One thing I thought that I'd point out, is that I'm not sure I *completely* agree with your bolded statement. While I agree that just knowing the tube type does not necessarily tell you what an amp will sound like, I see there being lots of different ways to skin a cat. A great designer might opt to make similarly designed amps, whose main sonic differences will be based on the tubes in use. This is akin to a car that's offered with a 4 cylinder or 6 cylinder engine...while the basic design is the same, the 2 cars will feel different, and that difference will be mostly (if not wholly) attributable to the different engines. The same can be said for tubes used in tube amps - sometimes a designer would *want* to display a tube's sonic attributes. My point - those might be great designers just as much as the one whose amp doesn't sound typical for the tube type, it's just a different approach.

However - your post clearly demonstrates that this is not the Shindo way - and I didn't expect it to be. I fully expect a Shindo-designed EL34 amp to have more liveliness and "swing" than any VTL amp, my concern is more for the differences between the Shindo EL34 sound and the Shindo KT88 sound, which if I get the CCQ I suppose I'll be well-placed to comment on. But as Jonathan pointed out and you are further supporting, Shindo's amps are designed far more intricately than most others, so knowing a single part in the chain won't tell you what to expect. For all I know, the CCQ might not share much at all in the way of design with the CC80 (they certainly don't look at all alike), so the tube question becomes poorly founded.
All good points.
I never heard the CC80 so I have no idea how it sounds compared to most KT88 power amps.
The KT88 is a very popular tube in Asia. Maybe that the CC80 was made with market in mind more than the other amps but as I said already, no matter the tubes used, a Shindo amp is a Shindo amp : musical and well designed.
Shindo designs more amplifiers around the EL34 : Montrachet, CC and CCQ.
The fact that the CCQ is able to drive the WP8 with a 4 ohm nominal impedance and with a dip near 2 ohms in the bass, says a lot about it.
Of course I will not try to reach insane SPLs with them. ( But honestly the WP8s can play very loud with them ). And this is also why I kept the Snappers. They can drive the WP8s to ear pain levels without distortion.
Plus I use them for non serious listenings, preserving the precious Shindo gear.
__________________
There are two means of refuge from the miseries of life: music and cats
Albert Schweitzer
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Audioaficionado.org tested by Norton Internet Security

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:05 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©Copyright 2009-2021 AudioAficionado.org.Privately owned, All Rights Reserved.
Audio Aficionado Sponsors
AudioAficionado Subscriber
AudioAficionado Subscriber
Inspire By Dennis Had
Inspire By Dennis Had
Harmonic Resolution Systems
Harmonic Resolution Systems
Wyred4Sound
Wyred4Sound
Dragonfire Acoustics
Dragonfire Acoustics
GIK Acoustics
GIK Acoustics
Esoteric
Esoteric
AC Infinity
AC Infinity
JL Audio
JL Audio
Add Powr
Add Powr
Legend Audio & Video
Legend Audio & Video
Audio by E
Audio by E
Canton
Canton
Bryston
Bryston
WireWorld Cables
WireWorld Cables
Stillpoints
Stillpoints
Bricasti Design
Bricasti Design
Furutech
Furutech
Shunyata Research
Shunyata Research
Accuphase
Accuphase