Re: Question for Sylvia: Splitting AV output

felix_unger

unread,

May 12, 2013, 9:26:05 PM5/12/13

to

On 13-May-2013 10:45 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:

> On 13/05/2013 10:29 AM, felix_unger wrote:
>
>>
>> In that case you will need good quality audio leads. However no 'true'
>> audiophile would want anything less than digital audio I would suggest.
>
> True audiophiles recognise that digital is a quantised approximation
> to the true waveform, and that only analogue media are up to the task
> of faithful reproduction.

That's true of course for dedicated audio systems for music
reproduction. However, when it comes to Audio/Video systems (surround
sound 5.1, 6.1, 7.1) for watching movies there's no comparison in sound
quality, if only for the fact that analogue audio is only stereo.

>
> Sylvia.

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
"If Julia is the answer, then what was the stupid question!"

Trevor

unread,

May 13, 2013, 12:16:24 AM5/13/13

to

"felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:avatpf...@mid.individual.net...

> On 13-May-2013 10:45 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> In that case you will need good quality audio leads. However no 'true'
>>> audiophile would want anything less than digital audio I would suggest.
>>
>> True audiophiles recognise that digital is a quantised approximation to
>> the true waveform, and that only analogue media are up to the task of
>> faithful reproduction.
>
> That's true of course for dedicated audio systems for music reproduction.

Nope, not for any modern digital audio system that isn't broken.

>However, when it comes to Audio/Video systems (surround sound 5.1, 6.1,
>7.1) for watching movies there's no comparison in sound quality, if only
>for the fact that analogue audio is only stereo.

I'd still prefer two HiFi channels to 7.1 low fi channels. Fortunately both
can easily be HiFi, even if they often aren't.

Trevor.

felix_unger

unread,

May 13, 2013, 4:11:46 AM5/13/13

to

On 13-May-2013 2:16 PM, Trevor wrote:

> "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message
> news:avatpf...@mid.individual.net...
>> On 13-May-2013 10:45 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> In that case you will need good quality audio leads. However no 'true'
>>>> audiophile would want anything less than digital audio I would suggest.
>>> True audiophiles recognise that digital is a quantised approximation to
>>> the true waveform, and that only analogue media are up to the task of
>>> faithful reproduction.
>> That's true of course for dedicated audio systems for music reproduction.
> Nope, not for any modern digital audio system that isn't broken.

So why then do the most fastidious audiophiles prefer valve amplifiers?

>
>> However, when it comes to Audio/Video systems (surround sound 5.1, 6.1,
>> 7.1) for watching movies there's no comparison in sound quality, if only
>> for the fact that analogue audio is only stereo.
> I'd still prefer two HiFi channels to 7.1 low fi channels. Fortunately both
> can easily be HiFi, even if they often aren't.
>
> Trevor.
>
>
>
>
>

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
"If Julia is the answer, then what was the stupid question!"

ï¿½This election is about trust. The choice before the Australian people could not be clearer. Itï¿½s more tax or less. Itï¿½s more regulation or less. Itï¿½s less competence or more. Itï¿½s less freedom or moreï¿½ - Tony Abbott, Federal Opposition Leader

Sept 14th. is National Rubbish Collection day.. ausnet.info/pics/rubbish_collection.jpg

http://www.facebook.com/SupportTonyAbbott

Trevor

unread,

May 13, 2013, 5:07:39 AM5/13/13

to

"felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message

news:avbli5...@mid.individual.net...

> So why then do the most fastidious audiophiles prefer valve amplifiers?

They're commonly known as audiophools. What people *prefer* does not have to
bear any relationship to absolute performance, just their personal notion of
it.
Valve amps are preferred by many electric guitarists for their distortion
qualities of course, something you may choose to *produce* a certain musical
"sound", but not a good choice for musical *reproduction* of that sound, and
certainly not when you don't want that distortion at all.

Trevor.

Rod Speed

unread,

May 13, 2013, 6:30:56 AM5/13/13

to

"felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message

news:avbli5...@mid.individual.net...

> On 13-May-2013 2:16 PM, Trevor wrote:
>
>> "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message
>> news:avatpf...@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 13-May-2013 10:45 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>> In that case you will need good quality audio leads. However no 'true'
>>>>> audiophile would want anything less than digital audio I would
>>>>> suggest.
>>>> True audiophiles recognise that digital is a quantised approximation to
>>>> the true waveform, and that only analogue media are up to the task of
>>>> faithful reproduction.
>>> That's true of course for dedicated audio systems for music
>>> reproduction.
>> Nope, not for any modern digital audio system that isn't broken.

> So why then do the most fastidious audiophiles prefer valve amplifiers?

Because they are brain dead fools that have never
had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

felix_unger

unread,

May 13, 2013, 6:37:15 AM5/13/13

to

So let's see some distortion figures for Hi Fi valve amps vs
transistor/mosfet amps then

felix_unger

unread,

May 13, 2013, 6:41:18 AM5/13/13

to

On 13-May-2013 8:30 PM, Rod Speed wrote:

>
>
> "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message
> news:avbli5...@mid.individual.net...
>> On 13-May-2013 2:16 PM, Trevor wrote:
>>
>>> "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message
>>> news:avatpf...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> On 13-May-2013 10:45 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>> In that case you will need good quality audio leads. However no
>>>>>> 'true'
>>>>>> audiophile would want anything less than digital audio I would
>>>>>> suggest.
>>>>> True audiophiles recognise that digital is a quantised
>>>>> approximation to
>>>>> the true waveform, and that only analogue media are up to the task of
>>>>> faithful reproduction.
>>>> That's true of course for dedicated audio systems for music
>>>> reproduction.
>>> Nope, not for any modern digital audio system that isn't broken.
>
>> So why then do the most fastidious audiophiles prefer valve amplifiers?
>
> Because they are brain dead fools that have never
> had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

So you're willing to claim there's no difference between CD sound, and
vinyl, or valve amp and transistor? You won't get many HiFi enthusiasts
to agree then.

>
>>>
>>>> However, when it comes to Audio/Video systems (surround sound 5.1,
>>>> 6.1,
>>>> 7.1) for watching movies there's no comparison in sound quality, if
>>>> only
>>>> for the fact that analogue audio is only stereo.
>>> I'd still prefer two HiFi channels to 7.1 low fi channels.
>>> Fortunately both
>>> can easily be HiFi, even if they often aren't.
>
>

yaputya

unread,

May 13, 2013, 9:33:55 AM5/13/13

to

"felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message news:avbu2s...@mid.individual.net...

> On 13-May-2013 7:07 PM, Trevor wrote:
>
>> "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message
>> news:avbli5...@mid.individual.net...
>>> So why then do the most fastidious audiophiles prefer valve amplifiers?
>> They're commonly known as audiophools. What people *prefer* does not have to
>> bear any relationship to absolute performance, just their personal notion of
>> it.
>> Valve amps are preferred by many electric guitarists for their distortion
>> qualities of course, something you may choose to *produce* a certain musical
>> "sound", but not a good choice for musical *reproduction* of that sound, and
>> certainly not when you don't want that distortion at all.
>
> So let's see some distortion figures for Hi Fi valve amps vs transistor/mosfet amps then

from SC June 2008 Altitude 3500-SS Stereo Valve Amplifier (RRP $1899)
@32W THD < 0.63% at 1kHz

compare this to two of SCs power amp modules;
from SC January 2004 Studio 350 Audio Amplifier (transistor)
@180W THD < 0.002% at 1kHz

from SC August 2008 Ultra-LD Mk.2 200W Power Amplifier (transistor)
@100W THD < 0.001% at 1kHz

Also, valve amps have very poor damping factors which means the loudspeaker
cone excursions are not tightly controlled, especially in the 'piston' range
below about 500 Hz. (i.e. muddy bass).

Rod Speed

unread,

May 13, 2013, 2:39:32 PM5/13/13

to

"felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message

news:avbuaf...@mid.individual.net...

> On 13-May-2013 8:30 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message
>> news:avbli5...@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 13-May-2013 2:16 PM, Trevor wrote:
>>>
>>>> "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:avatpf...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> On 13-May-2013 10:45 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>>> In that case you will need good quality audio leads. However no
>>>>>>> 'true'
>>>>>>> audiophile would want anything less than digital audio I would
>>>>>>> suggest.
>>>>>> True audiophiles recognise that digital is a quantised approximation
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> the true waveform, and that only analogue media are up to the task of
>>>>>> faithful reproduction.
>>>>> That's true of course for dedicated audio systems for music
>>>>> reproduction.
>>>> Nope, not for any modern digital audio system that isn't broken.
>>
>>> So why then do the most fastidious audiophiles prefer valve amplifiers?
>>
>> Because they are brain dead fools that have never
>> had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

> So you're willing to claim there's no difference between CD sound, and
> vinyl, or valve amp and transistor?

No, there clearly is a difference.

But just because they like the sound of valve amps
more than the more accurately reproduced sound
with the best done digital systems doesnï¿½t say a
damned thing about how accurate the valve amp is.

> You won't get many HiFi enthusiasts to agree then.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

DavidW

unread,

May 13, 2013, 6:51:23 PM5/13/13

to

Trevor wrote:
> "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message

>> So why then do the most fastidious audiophiles prefer valve
>> amplifiers?
>
> They're commonly known as audiophools. What people *prefer* does not
> have to bear any relationship to absolute performance, just their
> personal notion of it.
> Valve amps are preferred by many electric guitarists for their
> distortion qualities of course, something you may choose to *produce*
> a certain musical "sound", but not a good choice for musical
> *reproduction* of that sound, and certainly not when you don't want
> that distortion at all.

Some people might prefer valve amps just because they "sound" better, not
because they reproduce better. There are so many factors that affect the sound
that gets in your ears - the speakers and the acoustics of the room being two
huge ones. It may be that valve amps in combination with other factors produce a
result that those people enjoy listening to the most.

felix_unger

unread,

May 13, 2013, 7:18:18 PM5/13/13

to

The tonal qualities and smoothness of valve amps is legendary

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
Two old guys on the golf course:
"I can't see where my ball went. Did you see?"
"Yes, but I don't remember"

Rod Speed

unread,

May 13, 2013, 8:33:16 PM5/13/13

to

"felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message

news:avdalv...@mid.individual.net...

> On 14-May-2013 8:51 AM, DavidW wrote:
>> Trevor wrote:
>>> "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message
>>>> So why then do the most fastidious audiophiles prefer valve
>>>> amplifiers?
>>> They're commonly known as audiophools. What people *prefer* does not
>>> have to bear any relationship to absolute performance, just their
>>> personal notion of it.
>>> Valve amps are preferred by many electric guitarists for their
>>> distortion qualities of course, something you may choose to *produce*
>>> a certain musical "sound", but not a good choice for musical
>>> *reproduction* of that sound, and certainly not when you don't want
>>> that distortion at all.

>> Some people might prefer valve amps just because they "sound" better, not
>> because they reproduce better. There are so many factors that affect the
>> sound
>> that gets in your ears - the speakers and the acoustics of the room being
>> two
>> huge ones. It may be that valve amps in combination with other factors
>> produce a
>> result that those people enjoy listening to the most.

> The tonal qualities and smoothness of valve amps is legendary

Doesn't mean that its an accurate reproduction of what was recorded.

Trevor Wilson

unread,

May 13, 2013, 8:56:23 PM5/13/13

to

On 13/05/2013 6:11 PM, felix_unger wrote:
> On 13-May-2013 2:16 PM, Trevor wrote:
>
>> "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message
>> news:avatpf...@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 13-May-2013 10:45 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>> In that case you will need good quality audio leads. However no 'true'
>>>>> audiophile would want anything less than digital audio I would
>>>>> suggest.
>>>> True audiophiles recognise that digital is a quantised approximation to
>>>> the true waveform, and that only analogue media are up to the task of
>>>> faithful reproduction.
>>> That's true of course for dedicated audio systems for music
>>> reproduction.
>> Nope, not for any modern digital audio system that isn't broken.
>
> So why then do the most fastidious audiophiles prefer valve amplifiers?

**For the same reason that some drivers prefer Model T Fords. They make
a statement about the person.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

felix_unger

unread,

May 13, 2013, 9:30:29 PM5/13/13

to

But 'at the end of the day' you have an audio system to listen to music.
What's the point of having a system you can pride yourself on as having
some incredibly low distortion figures if it doesn't sound good to you?
And everybody hears differently.

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
"I'm not young enough to know everything"

Rod Speed

unread,

May 13, 2013, 9:46:16 PM5/13/13

to

"felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message

news:avdidq...@mid.individual.net...

Yes.

> What's the point of having a system you can pride yourself on as having
> some incredibly low distortion figures if it doesn't sound good to you?

Using that line you can just mangle the music electronically
as much as you like so that it sounds even better to you.

And that is in fact precisely what some kids do.

> And everybody hears differently.

Nope.

Petzl

unread,

May 13, 2013, 11:55:24 PM5/13/13

to

On Tue, 14 May 2013 10:33:16 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>>> Some people might prefer valve amps just because they "sound" better, not
>>> because they reproduce better. There are so many factors that affect the
>>> sound
>>> that gets in your ears - the speakers and the acoustics of the room being
>>> two
>>> huge ones. It may be that valve amps in combination with other factors
>>> produce a
>>> result that those people enjoy listening to the most.
>
>> The tonal qualities and smoothness of valve amps is legendary
>
>Doesn't mean that its an accurate reproduction of what was recorded.

Yes, I went to a friends place to play an Album he had a Valve amp the
turn table (top of the line) and four Speakers (top of the line).
There seems to be a "feel" of music as well as audio excellence that
comes into effect. My own system was no slouch but this pleasant feel
of lows and highs can't be digitally shown (yet). Live concerts in
*proper* auditoriums are the way to hear and feel good music
--
Petzl
I started with nothing and I am proud to say I still have most of it left

felix_unger

unread,

May 14, 2013, 1:41:51 AM5/14/13

to

I still prefer component (analog) video to HDMI (digital). It looks
smoother more natural somehow, and better colour. Of course you need to
have good equipment.

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
"Somebody complimented me on my driving today. They
left a little note on the windscreen. It said, 'Parking Fine' "

Trevor

unread,

May 14, 2013, 2:00:53 AM5/14/13

to

"felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message

news:avbuaf...@mid.individual.net...

> On 13-May-2013 8:30 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>>> So why then do the most fastidious audiophiles prefer valve amplifiers?
>>
>> Because they are brain dead fools that have never
>> had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
>
> So you're willing to claim there's no difference between CD sound, and
> vinyl, or valve amp and transistor? You won't get many HiFi enthusiasts to
> agree then.

Of course there is a difference, thankfully technology has improved greatly,
and the problems with valve amps and vinyl records are not something we have
to put up with any more. That a minority still choose to do so is entirely
their choice, and they are welcome to it.

Trevor.

Trevor

unread,

May 14, 2013, 2:50:36 AM5/14/13

to

"DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message
news:kmrqpd$715$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> Trevor wrote:
>> "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message
>>> So why then do the most fastidious audiophiles prefer valve
>>> amplifiers?
>>
>> They're commonly known as audiophools. What people *prefer* does not
>> have to bear any relationship to absolute performance, just their
>> personal notion of it.
>> Valve amps are preferred by many electric guitarists for their
>> distortion qualities of course, something you may choose to *produce*
>> a certain musical "sound", but not a good choice for musical
>> *reproduction* of that sound, and certainly not when you don't want
>> that distortion at all.
>
> Some people might prefer valve amps just because they "sound" better, not
> because they reproduce better.

Right, "sounds better" is purely an opinion everyone gets to make for
themselves.

>There are so many factors that affect the sound that gets in your ears -
>the speakers and the acoustics of the room being two huge ones. It may be
>that valve amps in combination with other factors produce a result that
>those people enjoy listening to the most.

And I have no problem with that, only that they never admit is is purely
their subjective opinion, and find the need to argue some absolute
superiority when there demonstrably is none.

Trevor.

Trevor

unread,

May 14, 2013, 2:52:08 AM5/14/13

to

"felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message

news:avdalv...@mid.individual.net...
> The tonal qualities of valve amps is legendary

Sure is, that's why everyone uses solid state now :-)

Trevor.

Trevor

unread,

May 14, 2013, 3:00:19 AM5/14/13

to

"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:avdged...@mid.individual.net...

I'd be more charitable than that, they have an *opinion* it sounds better
*to them* and get to spend their money however they want.
Those who simply want to make a statement usually do it with an expensive
car (or a rare one like your example) expensive jewlery, expensive clothes
etc.

Trevor.

Trevor Wilson

unread,

May 14, 2013, 3:39:02 AM5/14/13

to

On 14/05/2013 5:00 PM, Trevor wrote:
> "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
> news:avdged...@mid.individual.net...
>> On 13/05/2013 6:11 PM, felix_unger wrote:
>>> So why then do the most fastidious audiophiles prefer valve amplifiers?
>>
>> **For the same reason that some drivers prefer Model T Fords. They make a
>> statement about the person.
>
> I'd be more charitable than that, they have an *opinion* it sounds better
> *to them* and get to spend their money however they want.

**I was being a little flippant. The vast majority own such products as
a statement. SOME listeners use such equipment for valid reasons. They
may include:

* The use of loudspeakers that have been 'voiced' to be used with
certain amplifiers.
* The use of loudspeakers whose impedance characteristic is such that
the vast majority of solid state amplifiers cannot deal with it. Like this:
http://www.rageaudio.com.au/modules/gallery/view.php?a=Accustat&image=091027105452_accu.jpg

> Those who simply want to make a statement usually do it with an expensive
> car (or a rare one like your example) expensive jewlery, expensive clothes
> etc.

**Or this:

http://www.audionote.co.jp/en/products/power_amplifier/ongaku.html

That POS costs a cool $250k and sounds about as good as the output stage
in my TV set. Not quite as much power though.

Or this POS:

http://www.sakurasystems.com/products/47amp.html

Same output stage that you can find in a TV set. It'll set you back
several grand.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

Trevor

unread,

May 14, 2013, 3:54:07 AM5/14/13

to

"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message

news:ave81e...@mid.individual.net...

> Or this POS:
>
> http://www.sakurasystems.com/products/47amp.html
>
> Same output stage that you can find in a TV set. It'll set you back
> several grand.

It won't set *me* back anything! I sure that buy that sort of crap.

Trevor.

F Murtz

unread,

May 14, 2013, 4:46:49 AM5/14/13

to

Silly argument, everyone uses solid state because it is cheaper, easier
to transport etc, nothing to do with tonal qualities, the vast majority
do not carry on about little nuances of reproduction,extremely few carry
on like wine snobs in their field.
>
> Trevor.
>
>

Trevor

unread,

May 14, 2013, 6:48:28 AM5/14/13

to

"F Murtz" <hag...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kmstes$v25$1...@dont-email.me...

> Trevor wrote:
>> "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message
>> news:avdalv...@mid.individual.net...
>>> The tonal qualities of valve amps is legendary
>>
>> Sure is, that's why everyone uses solid state now :-)
>
> Silly argument, everyone uses solid state because it is cheaper, easier to
> transport etc,

Yep, and a dozen other benefits.

>nothing to do with tonal qualities,

Yep, don't want to add any "tonal qualities"

>the vast majority do not carry on about little nuances of
>reproduction,extremely few carry on like wine snobs in their field.

Yep, happy to listen to the music, not (mass)debate endlessly about personal
preferences.

Trevor.

Frank Slootweg

unread,

May 14, 2013, 10:29:29 AM5/14/13

to

yaputya <yaputya....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message news:avbu2s...@mid.individual.net...
> > On 13-May-2013 7:07 PM, Trevor wrote:
> >
> >> "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message
> >> news:avbli5...@mid.individual.net...
> >>> So why then do the most fastidious audiophiles prefer valve amplifiers?
> >> They're commonly known as audiophools. What people *prefer* does not have to
> >> bear any relationship to absolute performance, just their personal notion of
> >> it.
> >> Valve amps are preferred by many electric guitarists for their distortion
> >> qualities of course, something you may choose to *produce* a certain musical
> >> "sound", but not a good choice for musical *reproduction* of that sound, and
> >> certainly not when you don't want that distortion at all.
> >
> > So let's see some distortion figures for Hi Fi valve amps vs transistor/mosfet amps then

Why would we? THD figures are rather meaningless. That they're easy to
measure and quote don't mean they're meaningfull.

DavidW

unread,

May 14, 2013, 6:13:26 PM5/14/13

to

Trevor Wilson wrote:
> * The use of loudspeakers whose impedance characteristic is such that
> the vast majority of solid state amplifiers cannot deal with it. Like
> this:
> http://www.rageaudio.com.au/modules/gallery/view.php?a=Accustat&image=091027105452_accu.jpg

That's a craaazy-looking impedance graph.

unread,

May 16, 2013, 3:42:40 PM5/16/13

to

Nope, it was a somewhat provocative response to a rather meaningless
specification. People who talk back to/at you aren't neccessarily
trolls. So why the ad Hominem? Don't you have a real argument?

BTW, do you think that a troll would have let Trevor Wilson get away
with his "**Utterly and completely untrue." statement?

yaputya

unread,

May 17, 2013, 7:12:28 AM5/17/13

to

"Frank Slootweg" <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in message news:avkr5g...@mid.individual.net...

Amplifier manufacturers nearly always quote the THD at 1kHz, it is a
perfectly valid way to compare amps as the other distortion measurements
will reflect the quality of the 1kHz result.
The manufacturers of the Altitude amp I quoted do the same:
http://www.fountek.net/products.asp?id=114
Note that is the only distortion measuement they mention.

SC measured and plotted the THD vs power and THD vs frequency for
the Altitude and their 200W amp module. Since this is not a binary NG
I cannot post them here, but they clearyly show that the valve amp is
vastly inferior in distortion at all frequencies and powers.

>
> BTW, do you think that a troll would have let Trevor Wilson get away
> with his "**Utterly and completely untrue." statement?

What's the difference between a provocative response and a troll, then?

felix_unger

unread,

May 17, 2013, 8:28:52 AM5/17/13

to

THD is only a reliable measure of amplifier quality and performance if
it is quoted as a maximum over the audio bandwidth at a reasonlble power
output level. eg. 0.01% max THD 20hz - 20Khs @ 40w RMS per channel both
channels driven

>> BTW, do you think that a troll would have let Trevor Wilson get away
>> with his "**Utterly and completely untrue." statement?
> What's the difference between a provocative response and a troll, then?
>
>

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
"If Julia is the answer, then what was the stupid question!"

Frank Slootweg

unread,

May 17, 2013, 2:41:18 PM5/17/13

to

Yes, I do know what manufacturers quote, but, as I said, that does
not make them particularly useful.

*If* it's a very good amp, the 1kHz at XXW THD number will be
representative for other frequencies and power levels.

The point is that most amps are *not* "very good amps", so it's silly
to trust some non-representative single THD number.

> The manufacturers of the Altitude amp I quoted do the same:
> http://www.fountek.net/products.asp?id=114
> Note that is the only distortion measuement they mention.
>
> SC measured and plotted the THD vs power and THD vs frequency for
> the Altitude and their 200W amp module.

*That* is the kind of distortion data I'm referring to, for the
complete frequency and power range.

And then we haven't even touched on crossover distortion and clipping
distortion, nor on the issue that the equal weighing of all harmonics in
THD is a matter of debate.

> Since this is not a binary NG
> I cannot post them here, but they clearyly show that the valve amp is
> vastly inferior in distortion at all frequencies and powers.
>
> > BTW, do you think that a troll would have let Trevor Wilson get
> > away with his "**Utterly and completely untrue." statement?
>
> What's the difference between a provocative response and a troll,
> then?

(IMO (and in my case)) A provocative response is on-topic and intended
to trigger an on-topic response. A troll is just intended to trigger
heated responses, anger, etc., i.e. just the emotions matter, not the
content.

Thanks for your response.

Trevor

unread,

May 18, 2013, 1:00:09 AM5/18/13

to

"Frank Slootweg" <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in message

news:avnbue...@mid.individual.net...

>> SC measured and plotted the THD vs power and THD vs frequency for
>> the Altitude and their 200W amp module.
>
> *That* is the kind of distortion data I'm referring to, for the
> complete frequency and power range.
>
> And then we haven't even touched on crossover distortion

Crossover distortion will clearly be shown in THD specs at low power, and is
just as bad (or worse) for any Vacuum tube amp as solid state using the same
amplification class.
Easier and cheaper to build a decent class A solid state amp of the same (or
more) power as a similar VT one these days if low power distortion is your
prime consideration.

>and clipping distortion,

No need to go anywhere near clipping with a modern solid state amp of
course, unlike low power VT amps, since you can get about ten times the
power output for less money.

> nor on the issue that the equal weighing of all harmonics in
> THD is a matter of debate.

If *ALL* harmonics (individually and in total) are below the threshold of
human hearing, as with any good modern solid state amp, (but not with VT
amps) what does it matter?
Why in hell put up with increased even order distortion, just so it makes
the odd order distortion figures look relatively lower, even when they are
actually far higher is absolute terms for example? Only nutbags think like
that. Plenty of those of course :-(
There are plenty of effects processors to digitally add even order
distortion these days if that is what you prefer to clean audio, no need to
buy a valve amp to do it any more.

Trevor.

yaputya

unread,

May 18, 2013, 4:14:41 AM5/18/13

to

"felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message news:avmm4i...@mid.individual.net...

It is preferable to display the data as a graph which shows THD over the frequency range
for a given power, and THD over the power range for a given frequency, usually 1kHz.
Creating a 3-D plot showing all combinations would be even better, but would require automated testing.
AFAIK nobody does this, since the 2D plots are adequate.
.
SC published 2D graphs for both the Altitude valve amp and their 200W module.

yaputya

unread,

May 22, 2013, 7:32:20 PM5/22/13

to

"Frank Slootweg" <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in message news:avnbue...@mid.individual.net...

> yaputya <yaputya....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Amplifier manufacturers nearly always quote the THD at 1kHz, it is a
>> perfectly valid way to compare amps as the other distortion
>> measurements will reflect the quality of the 1kHz result.
>
> Yes, I do know what manufacturers quote, but, as I said, that does
> not make them particularly useful.
>
> *If* it's a very good amp, the 1kHz at XXW THD number will be
> representative for other frequencies and power levels.
>
> The point is that most amps are *not* "very good amps", so it's silly
> to trust some non-representative single THD number.
>
>> The manufacturers of the Altitude amp I quoted do the same:
>> http://www.fountek.net/products.asp?id=114
>> Note that is the only distortion measuement they mention.
>>
>> SC measured and plotted the THD vs power and THD vs frequency for
>> the Altitude and their 200W amp module.
>
> *That* is the kind of distortion data I'm referring to, for the
> complete frequency and power range.

You should be able to see the SC measurements here (zoom in)
http://imageshack.us/a/img198/3375/distortionvalvevstransi.jpg

These are scanned from SC who hold all copyright etc.