I'm finishing a 6SN7, line-level preamp. I used Takman REY, metal film resistors in the signal path. A friend listened and suggested that using Takman REX carbon film might enhance the sound: make it less clinical, more tubey.
I respect his ear but, who knows? (Sure: the Shadow knows.)
Any thoughts or experiences worth sharing?
I respect his ear but, who knows? (Sure: the Shadow knows.)
Any thoughts or experiences worth sharing?
Last edited by a moderator:
You want to add distortion, go for it, but you wont make it better. But if you don't want High Fidelity the world is your oyster and a whole industry out there to sell you things to make matters worse. I'd get the friend back in a week and tell them that you have replaced all the R's and to listen again. see what he says 🙂
I'm inclined to your point of view; seems like a no-brainrt; but I've read reviews favoring carbon film resistors in tube preamps. Thought somebody might have tried both.
Also, there is a strong following for carbon film resistors in higher end, stepped attenuators. Maybe just a fad.
Also, there is a strong following for carbon film resistors in higher end, stepped attenuators. Maybe just a fad.
Do you dislike the sound now?
There might be an audible difference - (Everything makes a difference, the thing is, can you hear it , and if you can, do you care.) - but if you're liking what you hear now I wouldn't go out of my way to try them unless a shop up the street stocks them and you're not paying shipping. In my view a common mistake is to ignore what you hear in deference to what somebody else says they do, even if they're "an expert". One thing I've learned about tweaking is that it can be a bad use of time to change something you're currently enjoying. If there's something wrong with the sound you will naturally begin to hear it at some point and then you'll have a defined complaint/problem to solve and thus have a place to reference the cure.
In short, Unless you're on a decided path of exploring those particular possibilities I'd say as long as you're enjoying it it ain't broke and if it ain't broke . . . . . .
I hope this is useful.
There might be an audible difference - (Everything makes a difference, the thing is, can you hear it , and if you can, do you care.) - but if you're liking what you hear now I wouldn't go out of my way to try them unless a shop up the street stocks them and you're not paying shipping. In my view a common mistake is to ignore what you hear in deference to what somebody else says they do, even if they're "an expert". One thing I've learned about tweaking is that it can be a bad use of time to change something you're currently enjoying. If there's something wrong with the sound you will naturally begin to hear it at some point and then you'll have a defined complaint/problem to solve and thus have a place to reference the cure.
In short, Unless you're on a decided path of exploring those particular possibilities I'd say as long as you're enjoying it it ain't broke and if it ain't broke . . . . . .
I hope this is useful.
The way to sell a premium priced audio 'upgrade' is a good story. Carbon resistors is one of those stories. Also as resistors are easy to change people like to change them and then intently listen for changes. It's a slippery slope and best avoided if you can. If you have good quality metal film there now I would say you are good to get on and enjoy the music 🙂.
If you're into diy (that what we're here for, no?), changing resistors is a pretty simple thing to try, slippery slope or not, and if you don't mind spending a few $s on them instead of an extra beer on the weekend, go for it and you'll learn something and have more confidence in your own 'hearing' preference
I would first start with the gate stopper resistors (those 300R ones) and next, the anode power resistors and if you're using the Glassware boards, you can just // up some 1 watt resistors for wider choice
Some people think there's no difference between the sound quality of different resistors, and for them this may well be true, but plenty of other people think there is a quite noticeable change and you might be one of them
I would first start with the gate stopper resistors (those 300R ones) and next, the anode power resistors and if you're using the Glassware boards, you can just // up some 1 watt resistors for wider choice
Some people think there's no difference between the sound quality of different resistors, and for them this may well be true, but plenty of other people think there is a quite noticeable change and you might be one of them
????
Not to 'pull rank' by way of years of experience, but over decades I have yet to find some proper evidence of any sonic effect of either metal film or carbon resistors (the modern kind). As said above 'anecdotal evidence' can often be misleading - I do not need to repeat the factors involved.
Not to re-activate a previous discussion, but influence of anything on the 'sound' of equipment is measurable with modern digital analysers. (I am not dissing listening experiences, but for how long does one have to listen to what kind of music before a particular effect will manifest itself?) From what I have seen, there is distinctly no audible effect depending on use of either carbon or metal film resistors. Yes, carbon resistors generate more noise - but again to what audible level?
(In this kind of topic one can also include inductivity of resistors and the audible effect of different types of coupling capacitors. But I promised not to re-open old debates!)
Not to 'pull rank' by way of years of experience, but over decades I have yet to find some proper evidence of any sonic effect of either metal film or carbon resistors (the modern kind). As said above 'anecdotal evidence' can often be misleading - I do not need to repeat the factors involved.
Not to re-activate a previous discussion, but influence of anything on the 'sound' of equipment is measurable with modern digital analysers. (I am not dissing listening experiences, but for how long does one have to listen to what kind of music before a particular effect will manifest itself?) From what I have seen, there is distinctly no audible effect depending on use of either carbon or metal film resistors. Yes, carbon resistors generate more noise - but again to what audible level?
(In this kind of topic one can also include inductivity of resistors and the audible effect of different types of coupling capacitors. But I promised not to re-open old debates!)
What I said isn't unreasonable. Learning does take place in the listening world as well as in any other sensory sphere and what sounds great on first listen can turn out to have problems that one didn't notice at first. Once tuned in to the existence of a particular phenomenon one will (hopefully) notice it sooner the next time, however sometimes it takes quite a while before certain issues are recognized. Please don't try to say you could distinguish as many qualities of recorded sound on the first day of your hobby as you can now!
As for carbon resistor noise and audibility. Well, perhaps it's what one doesn't hear that makes people like them.
I could swap out all the important metal resistors for carbon for about ten bucks and an hour or so work. I'm just wondering why people are drawn to carbon. Not everybody who prefers them is an audiophool; though some probably are.
People are drawn to tubes for a sound preference which is held to be, technically, inferior to solid state.
People are drawn to tubes for a sound preference which is held to be, technically, inferior to solid state.
Try sticking the carbon resistors in your ears. Better yet, stick them in your friend's ears and see if he makes a more mellow and tube-y sound.
Yikes...
Hearinspace,
Perhaps I expressed myself poorly. Everything you said in your former post is in order with me. I was prematurely defending the use of measuring viz-a-viz listening, without you attacking the same! If so please pardon; one gets sensitive because of the defense of listening for something compared to measuring!
Yes, one definitely gets sensitised to hearing certain artifacts with time, if one listens for that. On the other hand one can overlook ("over-hear"?) such if one listens mainly for/to the music. I actually meant that, depending on what one is playing, it might not immediately be the sort of musical structure so to speak, to show up flaws. I might just have sufficed with simply saying that I have never seen anything even close to proof that m.f. resistors or carbon ones generates anything to be concerned about.
But I also know some swear by it. OT, but one can list many other things which people take for gospel, while the main reason tuns out to be simply seeds planted by others.
Perhaps I expressed myself poorly. Everything you said in your former post is in order with me. I was prematurely defending the use of measuring viz-a-viz listening, without you attacking the same! If so please pardon; one gets sensitive because of the defense of listening for something compared to measuring!
Yes, one definitely gets sensitised to hearing certain artifacts with time, if one listens for that. On the other hand one can overlook ("over-hear"?) such if one listens mainly for/to the music. I actually meant that, depending on what one is playing, it might not immediately be the sort of musical structure so to speak, to show up flaws. I might just have sufficed with simply saying that I have never seen anything even close to proof that m.f. resistors or carbon ones generates anything to be concerned about.
But I also know some swear by it. OT, but one can list many other things which people take for gospel, while the main reason tuns out to be simply seeds planted by others.
Hi Johan,
No, it's fine. I figured we weren't at opposite ends of the spectrum, but I took the opportunity because I've seen so many threads where the OP gets turned away from a perfectly legitimate question because the rest of us get into an argument over the validity of asking it.
I agree that many go where they are led, but hey, if they can actually ask some good questions and get answers on the way there then why not!
I'd be willing to bet that a good number of the people on both sides of any of these audio arguments haven't actually tried the experiments they're backing the results of.
No, it's fine. I figured we weren't at opposite ends of the spectrum, but I took the opportunity because I've seen so many threads where the OP gets turned away from a perfectly legitimate question because the rest of us get into an argument over the validity of asking it.
I agree that many go where they are led, but hey, if they can actually ask some good questions and get answers on the way there then why not!
I'd be willing to bet that a good number of the people on both sides of any of these audio arguments haven't actually tried the experiments they're backing the results of.
^ this.
Within normal range of use, there is really only one location where a carbon resistor would be preferred over any other, and that's as a grid (or other) stopper.
Anyone who claims they can "hear" a difference is deluded, or selling you a carbon resistor.
Within normal range of use, there is really only one location where a carbon resistor would be preferred over any other, and that's as a grid (or other) stopper.
Anyone who claims they can "hear" a difference is deluded, or selling you a carbon resistor.
If the amplifier has issues with certain nodes being instable or on the edge of it, a change of parasitics might change the oscillation which might make "the sound more tubey".
If the device is well engineered and well built and doesn't oscillate or have a tendency towards it the type of R doesn't matter.
It was noted above that "... carbon - sounds less ringey and metallic". That statement goes into that direction. If there is something "ringey" going on it might be time to get out your oscilloscope.
If the device is well engineered and well built and doesn't oscillate or have a tendency towards it the type of R doesn't matter.
It was noted above that "... carbon - sounds less ringey and metallic". That statement goes into that direction. If there is something "ringey" going on it might be time to get out your oscilloscope.
That's a very good analysis. If small/tiny changes make a difference to a circuit's performance, it's not a good design or construction, though a few exceptions might apply.
When I started in electronics the standard tolerance for resistors was + - 20%; 10% was regarded as close tolerance. The resistors of that time were carbon composition who's value drifted with time, temperature and applied voltage. But equipment was produced that worked and most of it worked very well.
There are a few occasions where a carbon resistor improves a circuit. You may check the following thread: AKSA's Lender Preamp with 40Vpp Output
Search for "R10" and right in the first post of it you will find a link, leading you to some interesting measurements comparing metal film against carbon composition resistors in the feedback path.
But I doubt that a general exchange of resistors from metal to carbon types is beneficial to the performance of a line level tube amp.
Search for "R10" and right in the first post of it you will find a link, leading you to some interesting measurements comparing metal film against carbon composition resistors in the feedback path.
But I doubt that a general exchange of resistors from metal to carbon types is beneficial to the performance of a line level tube amp.
The discussion about Lender feedback resistor is very interesting. Up till then I always believe feedback path should be as accurate as possible hence resistor with tight tolerance and low tempco.
Now not so sure after reading the discussion.
Regards,