Luxman SQ-N150 Review (Tube Amplifier)

[Hooch500]

Luxman have made some good gear. Disappointing lab result even for an el84 amp, I built one with nice trannies that made over 15w with decent distortion figures for a lot less. Sounded pretty good with a pair of big Tannoy MG15 Golds. I would expect any low powered amp to start sounding poor with inefficient speakers so no surprises there. Oddly a Hypex based amp made them sound like the aural equivalant of drying paint.

 

[DanielT]

Oddly a Hypex based amp made them sound like the aural equivalant of drying paint.

Tip... I thought...

..The subjective and all that .

Welcome here to ASR by the way ..

 

[Hooch500]

What does the aural equivalent of drying paint sound like? Jim

Probably like listening to modern jazz with an ear infection.

 

[Madlop26]

So again, tube amplifiers will never meet the criteria by which components are judged here, so a blanket statement could be made and they could be removed from the queue.

So you imply there are properties in Tube amps that can not be measured, but those properties change the original sound (because not everybody wants the original sound, right? ) to a more likeable but artificial sound designed for some gifted ears who are immune to distortion but sensitive for that "something else" tube amps do, ...ok got it, lol. A true scientist could claim; if can not be measured how do you know it really exists?, but if there is data of existence there is always a way to get a measurement.

 

[welsh]

Every now and then I run across a man who insists on cutting his lawn with a manual push reel lawn mower. They can be kind of righteous about it. So be it.
And there is that group that likes to shoot black powder old timey rifles. These Luxman integrateds are popular with the Amish. You see them advertised in Amish Ways Magazine

What goes - clip clop clip clop clip clop BANG clipclopclipclopclipclop? An Amish driveby.

 

[welsh]

it's easy to see why this scores bad, they are pushing those EL84's far beyond their confortzone. EL84 in push pull should be 6 to 8w max output to be low distortion. So they are probally running the tubes to the maximum rated voltage which is asking for high distortion.

I have a guitar amplifier that uses EL84 tubes. I love the distortion, man…

 

[Bill Brown]

There is a difference between "subjective evaluation" on one hand and trained listeners on the other, who have proven records of abilities using those abilities to discern certain characteristics. Inserting the words "master" and "the leading" is neither productive nor civil. Neither does @amirm claim to be the only person who is trained in this manner, or who can discern these characteristics.

If you are one of the people who can take calibrated aural tests and consistently pass, please do so and post the results here. Jim

I wasn't the one that claimed advanced hearing perception (that's fine), but also say........."other reviewers because they simply are unqualified to evaluate such gear."

So he didn't say he was the only one who could discern these characteristics, but did that "other reviewers couldn't."

With his measurements being, apparently the ne' plus ultra (people here are confident enough in them to call a product measured S&#@ and garbage, decide the company is hoodwinking the public with a "cash grab," etc.), and possessing listening skills that no other reviewers have, I clearly think he has achieved mastery/is a master in his field.

Bill

 

[DonR]

Luxman have made some good gear. Disappointing lab result even for an el84 amp, I built one with nice trannies that made over 15w with decent distortion figures for a lot less. Sounded pretty good with a pair of big Tannoy MG15 Golds. I would expect any low powered amp to start sounding poor with inefficient speakers so no surprises there. Oddly a Hypex based amp made them sound like the aural equivalant of drying paint.

This is not the Luxman of years past.

 

[Hooch500]

This is not the Luxman of years past.

Indeed. As a BBC sound engineer back in the 70's and 80's I used to come across their kit, notably in Basing street studios where I used to repair and modify various analogue based equipment. I'm sure the newer stuff measures better these days. Just a pity few can make a decent recording with it. Fond memories of playing pool there with EC and a few other luminaries.

 

[Bill Brown]

So you imply there are properties in Tube amps that can not be measured, but those properties change the original sound (because not everybody wants the original sound, right? ) to a more likeable but artificial sound designed for some gifted ears who are immune to distortion but sensitive for that "something else" tube amps do, ...ok got it, lol. A true scientist could claim; if can not be measured how do you know it really exists?, but if there is data of existence there is always a way to get a measurement.

I never said what you wrote nor implied it. You have chosen an opportunity to bring up and ascribe to me the "not everything that can be heard can be measured" concept and project it onto me, and its weak. Every single thing I wrote that could pertain to your comment above was posed as questions without answers given (except re. euphony), meaning, i.e. people have posed these questions as hypotheticals, here they are, but I didn't give my opinion. So I will:

If we could hear it, how would it sound? Probably euphonic. I still think this, it has been demonstrated frequently

Is that why when reviewed purely subjectively it is praised? Maybe. I think this occurs in certain situations

Or is it tube amplifier's non-finite output impedance interacting with a typical loudspeaker's impedance curve? This definitely happens with low global feedback tube amps, the resulting FR response aberrations easily demonstrated, and these aberrations in bandwidth and magnitude have been shown to be audible. So yes, I think this contributes to subjective listening impressions.

Maybe this is the one you picked up on out of the many others:

Or is it the simple (compared to SS) circuitry like some think (though this amp is a bit more complex than some)? I didn't say "like I think." Do you not realize that some people think this? Does it not make sense that I can refer to the hypothesis without endorsing it, especially when its done so clearly. Where is my "implication?"

Or is it because of sighted listening and the fantastic looks of the amplifier and the glowing tubes where you can imagine seeing electrons jump from the cathode to the plate (it's actually the opposite, but no matter)? I suspect this is a real effect also.

Bill

 

[DonR]

Indeed. As a BBC sound engineer back in the 70's and 80's I used to come across their kit, notably in Basing street studios where I used to repair and modify various analogue based equipment. I'm sure the newer stuff measures better these days. Just a pity few can make a decent recording with it. Fond memories of playing pool there with EC and a few other luminaries.

It's all made in Shenzen these days. Make of that what you will. I think it is still designed in the West or at least partly. Mechanically looks incredibly well-engineered and the build quality still seems robust.

 

[Hooch500]

It's all made in Shenzen these days. Make of that what you will. I think it is still designed in the West or at least partly. Mechanically looks incredibly well-engineered and the build quality still seems robust.

No doubt Don, just saying it's not hard to make a decent amp from EL84's as long as they are decent and you don't push then too hard. Makes no sense dressing one up in a fancy chassis and charging silly money. A bit like re-boxing a class D amp, adding a few features and pretending you have re-invented the wheel...

 

[DonR]

No doubt Don, just saying it's not hard to make a decent amp from EL84's as long as they are decent and you don't push then too hard. Makes no sense dressing one up in a fancy chassis and charging silly money. A bit like re-boxing a class D amp, adding a few features and pretending you have re-invented the wheel...

Yes indeed, the only thing I will add is that while we see $3000 as silly money, the Luxman amps of old probably cost the same in today's dollars.

 

[Hooch500]

Yes indeed, the only thing I will add is that while we see $3000 as silly money, the Luxman amps of old probably cost the same in today's dollars.

Some of their tube gear was pretty good, yes it wasn't cheap but they would not have dared to have made an EL 84 based amp and charged premium money back then. Of course transistor amps of the time were of variable quality, just to add fuel to fire, although they measured better many sounded very ho hum in practice. FET based amps of that era were generally better sounding. Same goes for early digital gear which certainly never lived up to it's promise until much later, particularly in the professional field.

 

[DSJR]

I love my glorious toned rebuilt Quad II amps to bits, but I'm aware of the sonic processing they put in to get that glorious sound. Heard dispassionately, the solid state 303 amp does it too, but without the heat and glowing bottles... Would I use these as daily drivers? No I wouldn't and in any case original GEC KT66's are a kings ransom if you could find them. I think Quad service dept use a not as nice looking but I'm sure perfectly serviceable alternative (can't remember the number).

Heck, in the 80's, Martin Colloms was all but wetting himself over distortion figures in the 40's - that's midband not extremes - and giving all the now audiophool excuses...

 

[MAB]

I understand how you can reach that conclusion, and don't necessarily disagree (I bought a different amp in a similar price bracket). And yes, we are, though I thought the added context of speaker sensitivity, distortion spectra, etc. was reasonable.

Re. the first, Amir mentioned a typical speaker being 82db sensitive. Let's contrast that with a horn-loaded system with a sensitivity of 102db (yes, they exist). Next, let's pick a listening level, say 105db (arbitrary, but there are frequent discussions on DIY tube forums re. power needed to produce reasonable volume in systems of "x" sensitivity, and in the world of limited output power, 105db at max amp power is reasonable- though not for all, and there are good reasons that might be true).

To produce our 105db per speaker, the horn system needs 2 watts (and will almost always be operating off the chart to the left (X axis) of Amir's curves on the distortion measurement he added (300mW) at normal listening levels). The "typical" (though I would never buy one that sensitive) would require 200 watts. If you wanted, on huge transients, to hit 116db, it would be 25 W and 2510 W, respectfully. When choosing amplifiers to pair with speakers, it really is "horses for courses."

BTW, you might be shocked re. how inefficient speakers are in converting electrical power from the amplifier into acoustic power. For the 82 db speaker it is 0.1%. For the very, very sensitive horn speaker it is 10%. For speakers that I would consider more typical and consider purchasing, say 89 db, it is 0.5%.

Bill

Yes, and I appreciate the discussion on efficiency and can do the calcs too, and it has a certainly has a bearing on how this gets amp is used. But this is beside the point because the amp fails some basic performance criteria. It is a distortion at 1W that is in high, and it falls apart rapidly above that. Understand your comment about how efficient speakers are at converting electrical to acoustical power, and while that is a fact it isn't the problem here. And it isn't cover for the bad performance of this amp. I want speakers to be converting a music signal with below-audible distortion into music across a reasonable operating-window (just like your Benchmark amps do with the FPGA). The Luxman isn't doing that. But we seem to be going in a bit of circles all of the auxiliary topics.

 

[Hooch500]

I love my glorious toned rebuilt Quad II amps to bits, but I'm aware of the sonic processing they put in to get that glorious sound. Heard dispassionately, the solid state 303 amp does it too, but without the heat and glowing bottles... Would I use these as daily drivers? No I wouldn't and in any case original GEC KT66's are a kings ransom if you could find them. I think Quad service dept use a not as nice looking but I'm sure perfectly serviceable alternative (can't remember the number).

Heck, in the 80's, Martin Colloms was all but wetting himself over distortion figures in the 40's - that's midband not extremes - and giving all the now audiophool excuses...

I think the 303 is a very average sounding amp at best, despite the fact they were actually used as monitor amps in some studios ( no guarantee of anything ) Hold onto those 11's !

 

[DonR]

Some of their tube gear was pretty good, yes it wasn't cheap but they would not have dared to have made an EL 84 based amp and charged premium money back then. Of course transistor amps of the time were of variable quality, just to add fuel to fire, although they measured better many sounded very ho hum in practice. FET based amps of that era were generally better sounding. Same goes for early digital gear which certainly never lived up to it's promise until much later, particularly in the professional field.

New owners, new approach to Hi Fi.

 

[amirm]

I wasn't the one that claimed advanced hearing perception (that's fine), but also say........."other reviewers because they simply are unqualified to evaluate such gear."

So he didn't say he was the only one who could discern these characteristics, but did that "other reviewers couldn't."

That's right. Your reviewers do not have critical listening skills. I do because it became part of my job. Watch this video on that:

Then this one, specifically around 30 minute mark:

There you see how poorly your favorite audio reviewers are doing.

I have post numerous times the double blind tests results of very difficult to hear impairments. So my record here is clear. I suggest not continuing to post here without above knowledge.

 

[amirm]

If we could hear it, how would it sound? Probably euphonic. I still think this, it has been demonstrated frequently

It has not. It is a hypothesis but no formal study has ever been done that demonstrates distortion is euphonic to people in controlled listening tests.

Anecdotal information with everyone influenced by glow of tubes and such, does not count. Suggest watching this video on that: