Wait, in this case, if it distorts more, doesn’t that make it…better?!?lets be honest, it cant be any worse!
No surprises with the tube rolling. Whereas the CV2493 and 6922 are basically the same tube, they are not the same as a 6H30. Different gain, anode resistance for a start. A circuit designed for one is quite likely to behave differently with another. It isn’t anything to do with the intrinsic quality of the tube, just a matter of inappropriate use. It is remarkable how may tube enthusiasts miss this. Such is life.
Used as provided this buffer probably can successfully be used to add a little sparkle into the sound. At just the right drive level it will sit anonymously until a peak hits it that it can morph into something that sounds loud and dynamic. Not quite an Aphex Aural Exciter, but not a million miles away either.
Tortuga means 'tortoise.' Likely the port and buffer are both named for the animal rather than the buffer being named for the port.I know this is tangential but Disney has confirmed the wikipedia claim that . . .
Tortuga was a major center and haven of Caribbean piracy
Why would you name your product in this manner? I am coming around to acknowledging "audio piracy". In my defense, I am currently listening to The Allman Brothers "Stormy Monday"!
I know this is tangential but Disney has confirmed the wikipedia claim that . . .
Tortuga was a major center and haven of Caribbean piracy
Why would you name your product in this manner? I am coming around to acknowledging "audio piracy". In my defense, I am currently listening to The Allman Brothers "Stormy Monday"!
This is a $1700 hybrid buffer... but yeah.This is screaming "B+ is far too low." A common problem with cheap tube stuff.
There's good tube amps. There's cheap tube amps. There's no good cheap tube amps.
This is a $1700 hybrid buffer... but yeah.
No. Tubes were out in the 80’s. From the late 60’s onward, solid state dominated hi-if. It’s more like a yearning to create the 50’s-60’s sound.Aren't tube enthusiasts just old peeps trying to recreate that 80s sound?
Loxjie P20 does it balanced (probably way better in every way too) for $100... and it's a headphone amp.1) Sixteen hundred and ninety five freaking dollars?!? You can get one for thirty-forty bucks with a weird Chinese/English name on it (albeit sans the balanced I/O).
2) They couldn't get a neatly silk-screened back apron?!?!?
3) The high-mu 6922 is, IMO, an awful choice for a buffer. Why the fug 6922s?!?!?!?!?
(EDIT: Oh, it was designed for the 6h30pi -- yay... that's at least as silly, and, arguably, sillier, given the price and rarity nowadays of the "good" ones -- there are oh-so-many twin triodes that would be fine cathode followers and cost a few bucks a pop even today... why-oh-why ride the hifi bandwangon with a tube choice?)
Other than that, looks like a great product.
PS I really (really) don't like 6922s for "hifi" applications -- I really (really) don't understand why they have become so popular in "hifi".
I confess I didn't see the price. This is indeed incompetent and downright theft.
No surprises with the tube rolling. Whereas the CV2493 and 6922 are basically the same tube, they are not the same as a 6H30. Different gain, anode resistance for a start. A circuit designed for one is quite likely to behave differently with another. It isn’t anything to do with the intrinsic quality of the tube, just a matter of inappropriate use. It is remarkable how may tube enthusiasts miss this. Such is life.
Used as provided this buffer probably can successfully be used to add a little sparkle into the sound. At just the right drive level it will sit anonymously until a peak hits it that it can morph into something that sounds loud and dynamic. Not quite an Aphex Aural Exciter, but not a million miles away either.
We've concluded... so... rather than look at a copy of Radiotron Designer's Handbook or survey many, many decades (nigh on a century's worth) of competent and successful designs... what did they do? Try every B9A base tube in the junkbox and conclude which ones worked when one passed the smoke test, and then recommend the most expensive one?Designed around the excellent current production 6H30 tube, we’ve concluded that the TPB.V1 Tube Buffer is also compatible with the entire family of 9-pin 6DJ8 / ECC88 / 6922 / 7308 tubes which opens up a big wide world of tube rolling possibilities.
Are you thinking of the right tube? 6922 is basically equivalent to 6DJ8, and is not high mu. High gm, though, which is exactly what you want for a buffer.1) Sixteen hundred and ninety five freaking dollars?!? You can get one for thirty-forty bucks with a weird Chinese/English name on it (albeit sans the balanced I/O).
2) They couldn't get a neatly silk-screened back apron?!?!?
3) The high-mu 6922 is, IMO, an awful choice for a buffer. Why the fug 6922s?!?!?!?!?
(EDIT: Oh, it was designed for the 6h30pi -- yay... that's at least as silly, and, arguably, sillier, given the price and rarity nowadays of the "good" ones -- there are oh-so-many twin triodes that would be fine cathode followers and cost a few bucks a pop even today... why-oh-why ride the hifi bandwangon with a tube choice?)
Other than that, looks like a great product.
PS I really (really) don't like 6922s for "hifi" applications -- I really (really) don't understand why they have become so popular in "hifi".