You're viewing an article in iPO's historic archive vault. Here, we've preserved the comments and how the site looked along with the article. Use this link to view the article on our current site: iTube

Review

Review - iTube

Chances are, you have never heard of Gini Systems. Just like you have probably never listened to music played through a vacuum tube speaker system. Such is the case with niche or high-end audio manufacturers who, thanks to the popularity and pricing of Apple's iPod and the marketing possibilities of the Internet, are able to deliver their products to a wider audience than ever before.

iTube
Gini Systems iTube

Gini's recently launched iTube is a three-piece speaker system with a $349 price tag, putting it towards the high-end of iPod speaker systems. Like the equally priced Audioengine 5 (A5) speakers before it (5 stars), the iTube is an "iPod speaker system" in name and design touches only—in reality, it will work equally well with any audio source, and lacks an integrated dock or any other iPod-specific functionality. Gini does sell its own iPod dock, the iConec, separately ($69) or with the iTube (for an extra $30), although beyond sporting a remote control that matches the iTube's, it offers no inherent advantages over other quality iPod docks. [Ed. note: A review of the iConec will appear shortly.]

Gini bills the iTube as the first vacuum tube speaker system geared towards iPod owners that retails for under $500. Of course, if you have never listened to a vacuum tube speaker system, this bit of marketing fodder is largely ineffective. Proponents of vacuum tubes claim the 80 year old technology is superior to modern transistors primarily because the tube enables a warmer, more natural tone to be reproduced. While vacuum tubes were relegated to niche status long ago, plenty of audiophiles still swear by them, keeping companies like Gini in business, even with price tags for such products easily topping five figures.

KuroDock

Despite the iTube's "budget" price tag, the aforementioned benefits associated with vacuum tubes are easily discernible with the iTube. Even upon first listen—prior to the recommended 50+ hour break-in period—it was apparent that the clarity of music coming from the iTube was a step up from other speakers we have listened to, including the A5. While the difference wasn't enough for us turn our nose up at other speakers and pitch them in favor of vacuum tubes, it is always a pleasant experience when a product lives up to its claims.

A couple other things stood out immediately concerning the iTube: it's not as loud as one would expect and, by default, it seems light on the bass. While there's ample power to fill a good-sized room with quality music, compared to the other speakers in this price range the iTube lacks the wattage to bring down the house, an inherent trade-off one must make with a vacuum tube amplifier compared to a solid-state amplifier. Specifically, the iTube's subwoofer puts out 18W, while the satellites are each rated at 16W; the A5's two channels, by comparison, are each rated at 45W. If you're in the market for speakers you can crank to 11, the iTube isn't it, but the iTube does do a commendable job of maintaining clarity even when-nearly maxed out.

Similarly, if your criteria for a subwoofer includes making the ground rumble, the iTube and its single 5.25" cone isn't for you. Bass is clean, tight, and perfectly balanced, but definitely lacking the punch that a larger diameter cone can produce. Bass is also decidedly light when you fire up the iTube, but reaches excellent levels when turned up all the way, without any unpleasant reverberations whatsoever. Unfortunately, the iTube forgets what settings you had it at when you turn it off, so you will have to adjust the bass level accordingly each time you power it on.

While only a minor shortcoming, the need to adjust the bass with each power cycle is but one of a few of the iTube's inconvenient design touches. The power switch is mounted on the rear of the subwoofer, for example, and the system cannot be powered down from the remote. While the obvious solution to both the bass level issue and power switch would be to simply leave the iTube powered on constantly, three bright white LEDs surrounding the visible portion of the vacuum tube remain on with the system. The LEDs are not an unpleasant design touch and certainly draw attention to the most unique part of the iTube, but the ability to turn them off if desired would be very convenient, especially for anyone planning on setting up the iTube in a room where minimal light is desired, like a bedroom.

iTube vs. A5
iTube compared to one of the A5's two speakers

The iTube also lacks any notable extra design touches to make up for these small shortcomings. The A5, by contrast, supports two audio inputs, includes a USB port for iPod cables and docks, and an extra power outlet is built-in to conveniently connect an AirPort Express, although to its credit the iTube features a remote control, while the A5 has none. Audiophiles will also note that the iTube features two RCA connectors, which reduces cross-interference compared to the 1/8" mini-jack connectors the A5 uses. Whether most users would be able to discern the difference is debatable, however.

iTube

The final point of consideration for potential iTube owners is the system's physical appearance. The satellite speakers are compact and discreet (some would call them plain), but the subwoofer's design is more questionable. While the giant faux click-wheel (it's really just five buttons—volume up/down, bass up/down, and mute) certainly makes a statement about the iTube's iPod intentions, it may not suit everyone's tastes, especially at these prices. We, however, had no qualms with the iTube's design.

The Bottom Line

Gini Systems has put forward an excellent speaker system with the iTube. Audio quality is truly exceptional, and the vacuum tube design will surely be a treat to listener's ears. On its own, the $350 price tag is justified; it's only when compared against other speakers in this price range, in particular the A5, that value and extras are called into question.

Based on audio quality alone, both the iTube and A5 are first-rate options and each has its place, the iTube with music enthusiasts who value audio reproduction above all else, and the A5 with those who like their music with a bit more volume or punch. Like the A5, iPod owners who invest in the iTube should not be disappointed in their purchase.

iTube vs. A5

Note: Vacuum tubes have a limited life-span, and Gini estimates the iTube's at about 10,000 hours. The particular vacuum tube it uses is a Svotek 6922, which can be purchased individually for $10-$20 when replacement is needed.

Just The Facts

iTube from Gini Systems

MSRP US$349.00

Pros: vacuum tube amplifer delivers exception sound quality in its most affordable application to date; incredibly clean, balanced audio; remote control included

Cons: lacks the power of similarly priced solid-state speaker systems, a trade-off not everyone will be willing to make

5 comments from the community.

You can post your own below.

+ show options

Your current settings, click to change: Sort Oldest First, Show Guest Posts, Hide Community Stats

WetcoastBob said:

member since 17 Aug 2006 with 83 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Real audiophiles will not be interested in the iTunes format due to it's truncated dynamic qualities. I have downloaded music from eMusic which was warbley and unlistenalble. It is understandable that there is a comprimise in quality as the file sizes are one tenth the size of an aiff file. I use the MP3 format when I am away from my home or shop stereo. I really will have to hear the above mentioned systems for my self to see if they are worth the bucks for what I see as a marginal music format.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Except iTunes/iPod is not mp3 format (by default) it is AAC (or, if you wish, lossless). both standards are from the same sanctioning body (Moving Picture Experts Group) but the AAC standard is newer and considerably better (sonically) given equal bit-rates. Qualifying iTunes playback, sonically, using low bit-rate mp3's from Emusic is not unlike plugging a $14 MP3 player into a AR amp and claiming the amp sounds grainy and constricted. While strictly correct it is not actually the case.

Quote this post ↓

Mikuro said:

member since 15 Jun 2002 with 457 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Well, real audiophiles even consider CD audio to be weak. It all depends on your standards. I'm not sure an iPod could possibly deliver better sound than that, even with its "lossless" formats. (But then again, I'm no expert on the matter. Personally, I think mp3s and $20 headphones sound just dandy...)

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Something I didn't notice being mentioned here is that it's only the preamp section that uses a tube. The power amp section is solid state (according to Gini's website). Therefore, the low power output can't be blamed on tubes. Also, this means that if you are hearing a 'warm tube sound', it's only the inherent coloration of a preamp tube getting pasted on top of a signal that is eventually driven by solid state components. On the one hand, I agree that analog and tubes can sound better for some things, but on the other hand I think 'audiophiles' should admit that the reason it sounds better is because the circuitry is introducing it's own color onto the signal it is fed, and the coloration just happens to be pleasing to the ear. Ironically, audiophiles tend to prefer a less pure signal.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Coloration from a tube circuit will only happen if that is the intent of the design. The "warmth" that is so often brought up when discussing this technology is actually even order harmonic distortion. This distortion only occurs when a tube reaches the upper limits of it being "cranked up". This characterisitc is mostly found in musical instrument amplification. When it comes to audiophile quality amp they generally design them with tons of headroom giving the signal lots of room and not causing the distortion. Tubes are more effecient when it comes to wattage, a 100 watt tube amp can make your ears bleed, while the equivalent in solid state does not come close. The design of a tube circuit is simple and tends to lead to a lot less degradation of the origianl source making it a more pure signal with no coloration, the solid state style has trouble reproducing mids and highs, they tend to be "harsh" wich is actually the solid state circuitry adding or emphasizing frequencies that are not part of the original signal. Solid state designs rely heavily on new transformer technology which is still trying to mimic tube technology in terms of effciency and ability to reproduce the original signal. When solid state transformer technology catches up with efeciency of tube based amp design then an even comparisson and debate can occur. as far as the itube is concerned hybrid amp design tends to gimmick based, and without knowing what kind of plate voltage is goin to that tube it is susupect.

Quote this post ↓

Post Your Comments

  Remember Me

Not a member? Register now. You can post comments without logging in, but they'll show up as a "guest" post.


Please enter the word exactly as you see it in the image above. Registered users aren't prompted for this. Having trouble reading the image get a new one.