Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
EEV blog nonsense ?
917 views
Skip to first unread message
Phil Allison
Aug 25, 2016, 3:20:15 AM8/25/16
to
Hi,
most of you know former regular on this NG, David L Jones, who reinvented himself as a video star with his EEVblog site. I stumbled on one of his many hundreds of blogs recently - please take a look.
https://www.eevblog.com/2014/04/10/eevblog-601-why-digital-oscilloscopes-appear-noisy/
The blog attempts to explode a "myth" about analogue and digital scopes in relation to display noise - particularly that DSOs are inherently noisier.
While I am not sure just what Dave is trying to prove, some of his assertions are very dubious.
The facts are that an analogue scope normally has a sharp trace revealing a great more detail of waveform being viewed. This is also a direct result of having:
1. Constant bandwidth ( 20,50,100MHz ) plus the same rise time at all sweep speeds.
2. Continuous vertical screen resolution of around 1 part in a thousand.
3. Absence of any artefacts due to sampling or quantising.
All this results in an accurate display of any continuous signal, including random noise. The clean trace shown on an analogue scope with no input is because there is no noise to be seen.
FYI: This might seem at odds with an input impedance of 1Mohm and bandwidth of 50MHz which has a calculated thermal noise of almost 1mV rms - with regular peaks over 4mV. The simple answer is that 1Mohm is in parallel with 20pF, so the impedance falls steadily from 8kHz onwards down to 160 ohms at 50MHz. Thermal noise is reduced by this to about 15uV rms.
The random noise spiking seen in the traces of the DSOs in the blog is mainly due to quantising errors plus the discontinuous, vertical screen resolution of only 200 pixels in case of two of them. When the sampled value falls between pixels, random toggling occurs.
Lastly, when Dave turns up the brightness on his Tek 2225, you see the trace thicken ( due to mutual repulsion between electrons in the beam ) and also some background pattern appears.
The background pattern is in the CRT's anti glare screen, which lights up when you do that revealing any imperfections in the plastic. He should have detached it.
Also when he uses the digital camera, the image becomes over exposed which again results in trace thickening. The story about "revealing missing noise" is a furphy.
BTW:
In the first few second of this blog on the Tek 2225, Dave seems to contradict himself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GR_6QH3uZk
.... Phil
most of you know former regular on this NG, David L Jones, who reinvented himself as a video star with his EEVblog site. I stumbled on one of his many hundreds of blogs recently - please take a look.
https://www.eevblog.com/2014/04/10/eevblog-601-why-digital-oscilloscopes-appear-noisy/
The blog attempts to explode a "myth" about analogue and digital scopes in relation to display noise - particularly that DSOs are inherently noisier.
While I am not sure just what Dave is trying to prove, some of his assertions are very dubious.
The facts are that an analogue scope normally has a sharp trace revealing a great more detail of waveform being viewed. This is also a direct result of having:
1. Constant bandwidth ( 20,50,100MHz ) plus the same rise time at all sweep speeds.
2. Continuous vertical screen resolution of around 1 part in a thousand.
3. Absence of any artefacts due to sampling or quantising.
All this results in an accurate display of any continuous signal, including random noise. The clean trace shown on an analogue scope with no input is because there is no noise to be seen.
FYI: This might seem at odds with an input impedance of 1Mohm and bandwidth of 50MHz which has a calculated thermal noise of almost 1mV rms - with regular peaks over 4mV. The simple answer is that 1Mohm is in parallel with 20pF, so the impedance falls steadily from 8kHz onwards down to 160 ohms at 50MHz. Thermal noise is reduced by this to about 15uV rms.
The random noise spiking seen in the traces of the DSOs in the blog is mainly due to quantising errors plus the discontinuous, vertical screen resolution of only 200 pixels in case of two of them. When the sampled value falls between pixels, random toggling occurs.
Lastly, when Dave turns up the brightness on his Tek 2225, you see the trace thicken ( due to mutual repulsion between electrons in the beam ) and also some background pattern appears.
The background pattern is in the CRT's anti glare screen, which lights up when you do that revealing any imperfections in the plastic. He should have detached it.
Also when he uses the digital camera, the image becomes over exposed which again results in trace thickening. The story about "revealing missing noise" is a furphy.
BTW:
In the first few second of this blog on the Tek 2225, Dave seems to contradict himself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GR_6QH3uZk
.... Phil
~misfit~
Aug 25, 2016, 10:42:43 PM8/25/16
to
Once upon a time on usenet Phil Allison wrote:
> Hi,
>
> most of you know former regular on this NG, David L Jones, who
> reinvented himself as a video star with his EEVblog site. I stumbled
> on one of his many hundreds of blogs recently - please take a look.
>
> https://www.eevblog.com/2014/04/10/eevblog-601-why-digital-oscilloscopes-appear-noisy/
>
> The blog attempts to explode a "myth" about analogue and digital
> scopes in relation to display noise - particularly that DSOs are
> inherently noisier.
>
> While I am not sure just what Dave is trying to prove, some of his
> assertions are very dubious.
Indeed. For a while I managed to put up with his really annoying voice and
> Hi,
>
> most of you know former regular on this NG, David L Jones, who
> reinvented himself as a video star with his EEVblog site. I stumbled
> on one of his many hundreds of blogs recently - please take a look.
>
> https://www.eevblog.com/2014/04/10/eevblog-601-why-digital-oscilloscopes-appear-noisy/
>
> The blog attempts to explode a "myth" about analogue and digital
> scopes in relation to display noise - particularly that DSOs are
> inherently noisier.
>
> While I am not sure just what Dave is trying to prove, some of his
> assertions are very dubious.
watched several of his videos trying to educate myself further. However he
talks so much shite and makes so many mistakes (sometimes fixing them with
text overlays afterwards or conceeding points in the comments section) that
I decided not to carry on torturing myself with his whine.
can't bring myself to listen to him long enough to check.
--
Shaun.
"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
Phil Allison
Aug 25, 2016, 11:53:41 PM8/25/16
to
~misfit~ wrote:
> >
> > While I am not sure just what Dave is trying to prove, some of his
> > assertions are very dubious.
>
>
> Indeed. For a while I managed to put up with his really annoying voice and
> watched several of his videos trying to educate myself further. However he
> talks so much shite and makes so many mistakes (sometimes fixing them with
> text overlays afterwards or conceeding points in the comments section) that
> I decided not to carry on torturing myself with his whine.
>
** Yes - unscripted presentations on video are usually tedious and often painful to watch. In that respect, Dave is not much worse than many others.
> >
> > While I am not sure just what Dave is trying to prove, some of his
> > assertions are very dubious.
>
>
> Indeed. For a while I managed to put up with his really annoying voice and
> watched several of his videos trying to educate myself further. However he
> talks so much shite and makes so many mistakes (sometimes fixing them with
> text overlays afterwards or conceeding points in the comments section) that
> I decided not to carry on torturing myself with his whine.
>
Thanks for the vote of confidence, but in the case of this vid Dave almost had me believing him for a few minutes. So much so, I experimented with my Rigol and BWD scopes to see if any of it was for real - finally convincing myself that it wasn't.
In any case, how unlikely would it be for Dave or anyone to come up with a fundamental truth about analogue scopes that has gone unnoticed for so long by millions of others ?
BTW:
Far as I can tell, no-one is manufacturing analogue scopes any more despite the fact that most agree they have unique capabilities when it comes to viewing analogue signals.
So I assume the manufacture of suitable CRTs and other essential parts has stopped too. Keeping the old ones going will become near impossible in the future.
This is not a good thing.
.... Phil
axolotyl
Aug 26, 2016, 1:27:42 AM8/26/16
to
give him credit he's build a large following and has probably
contributed quite a bit to folk learning more and doing more around
electronics. His forum is very active, aus.electronics is dead. :(
It seems odd that one would find fault and start a post on Usenet about it.
Clocky
Aug 26, 2016, 4:15:29 AM8/26/16
to
~misfit~
Aug 26, 2016, 4:50:01 AM8/26/16
to
his take on things first. Dave can be a bit OTT.
Phil Allison
Aug 26, 2016, 5:06:41 AM8/26/16
to
axolotyl wrote:
> , Phil Allison wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > most of you know former regular on this NG, David L Jones, who reinvented himself as a video star with his EEVblog site. I stumbled on one of his many hundreds of blogs recently - please take a look.
> >
> > https://www.eevblog.com/2014/04/10/eevblog-601-why-digital-oscilloscopes-appear-noisy/
> >
> > The blog attempts to explode a "myth" about analogue and digital scopes in relation to display noise - particularly that DSOs are inherently noisier.
> >
> > While I am not sure just what Dave is trying to prove, some of his assertions are very dubious.
> >
> > The facts are that an analogue scope normally has a sharp trace revealing a great more detail of waveform being viewed. This is also a direct result of having:
> >
> > 1. Constant bandwidth ( 20,50,100MHz ) plus the same rise time at all sweep speeds.
> >
> > 2. Continuous vertical screen resolution of around 1 part in a thousand.
> >
> > 3. Absence of any artefacts due to sampling or quantising.
> >
> >
> > All this results in an accurate display of any continuous signal, including random noise. The clean trace shown on an analogue scope with no input is because there is no noise to be seen.
> >
> > FYI: This might seem at odds with an input impedance of 1Mohm and bandwidth of 50MHz which has a calculated thermal noise of almost 1mV rms - with regular peaks over 4mV. The simple answer is that 1Mohm is in parallel with 20pF, so the impedance falls steadily from 8kHz onwards down to 160 ohms at 50MHz. Thermal noise is reduced by this to about 15uV rms.
> >
> > The random noise spiking seen in the traces of the DSOs in the blog is mainly due to quantising errors plus the discontinuous, vertical screen resolution of only 200 pixels in case of two of them. When the sampled value falls between pixels, random toggling occurs.
> >
> > Lastly, when Dave turns up the brightness on his Tek 2225, you see the trace thicken ( due to mutual repulsion between electrons in the beam ) and also some background pattern appears.
> >
> > The background pattern is in the CRT's anti glare screen, which lights up when you do that revealing any imperfections in the plastic. He should have detached it.
> >
> > Also when he uses the digital camera, the image becomes over exposed which again results in trace thickening. The story about "revealing missing noise" is a furphy.
> >
> > BTW:
> >
> > In the first few second of this blog on the Tek 2225, Dave seems to contradict himself.
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GR_6QH3uZk
> >
> >
>
>
> , Phil Allison wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > most of you know former regular on this NG, David L Jones, who reinvented himself as a video star with his EEVblog site. I stumbled on one of his many hundreds of blogs recently - please take a look.
> >
> > https://www.eevblog.com/2014/04/10/eevblog-601-why-digital-oscilloscopes-appear-noisy/
> >
> > The blog attempts to explode a "myth" about analogue and digital scopes in relation to display noise - particularly that DSOs are inherently noisier.
> >
> > While I am not sure just what Dave is trying to prove, some of his assertions are very dubious.
> >
> > The facts are that an analogue scope normally has a sharp trace revealing a great more detail of waveform being viewed. This is also a direct result of having:
> >
> > 1. Constant bandwidth ( 20,50,100MHz ) plus the same rise time at all sweep speeds.
> >
> > 2. Continuous vertical screen resolution of around 1 part in a thousand.
> >
> > 3. Absence of any artefacts due to sampling or quantising.
> >
> >
> > All this results in an accurate display of any continuous signal, including random noise. The clean trace shown on an analogue scope with no input is because there is no noise to be seen.
> >
> > FYI: This might seem at odds with an input impedance of 1Mohm and bandwidth of 50MHz which has a calculated thermal noise of almost 1mV rms - with regular peaks over 4mV. The simple answer is that 1Mohm is in parallel with 20pF, so the impedance falls steadily from 8kHz onwards down to 160 ohms at 50MHz. Thermal noise is reduced by this to about 15uV rms.
> >
> > The random noise spiking seen in the traces of the DSOs in the blog is mainly due to quantising errors plus the discontinuous, vertical screen resolution of only 200 pixels in case of two of them. When the sampled value falls between pixels, random toggling occurs.
> >
> > Lastly, when Dave turns up the brightness on his Tek 2225, you see the trace thicken ( due to mutual repulsion between electrons in the beam ) and also some background pattern appears.
> >
> > The background pattern is in the CRT's anti glare screen, which lights up when you do that revealing any imperfections in the plastic. He should have detached it.
> >
> > Also when he uses the digital camera, the image becomes over exposed which again results in trace thickening. The story about "revealing missing noise" is a furphy.
> >
> > BTW:
> >
> > In the first few second of this blog on the Tek 2225, Dave seems to contradict himself.
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GR_6QH3uZk
> >
> >
>
>
> At the end of the day he may make some mistakes (who doesn't) but to
> give him credit he's build a large following and has probably
> contributed quite a bit to folk learning more and doing more around
> electronics. His forum is very active, aus.electronics is dead. :(
>
** AFAIK, EEVblog Forum posters are predominately Yanks and it's moderated by Dave himself as the "administrator".
> give him credit he's build a large following and has probably
> contributed quite a bit to folk learning more and doing more around
> electronics. His forum is very active, aus.electronics is dead. :(
>
At the moment, I have no great wish to join up and suspect I might even be barred anyhow. OTOH, David L. Jones can appear here any time he cares to.
> It seems odd that one would find fault and start a post on Usenet about it.
BTW
Do I detect a hint of " I *heart* Dave " going on ??
.... Phil
JW
Aug 26, 2016, 5:20:30 AM8/26/16
to
On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 20:53:38 -0700 (PDT) Phil Allison
<palli...@gmail.com> wrote in Message id:
<cce8dac8-d669-49bf...@googlegroups.com>:
>Far as I can tell, no-one is manufacturing analogue scopes any more despite the fact that most agree they have unique capabilities when it comes to viewing analogue signals.
These guys still do.
http://www.gwinstek.com/en-global/products/Oscilloscopes/Analog_Oscilloscopes/1
<palli...@gmail.com> wrote in Message id:
<cce8dac8-d669-49bf...@googlegroups.com>:
>Far as I can tell, no-one is manufacturing analogue scopes any more despite the fact that most agree they have unique capabilities when it comes to viewing analogue signals.
http://www.gwinstek.com/en-global/products/Oscilloscopes/Analog_Oscilloscopes/1
axolotyl
Aug 26, 2016, 7:01:17 AM8/26/16
to
Aussies.
> At the moment, I have no great wish to join up and suspect I might even be barred anyhow. OTOH, David L. Jones can appear here any time he cares to.
>
>> It seems odd that one would find fault and start a post on Usenet about it.
>
> ** Not odd at all, the topic itself is very interesting - Analogue V. Digital scope performance is red hot, debatable stuff these days.
>
> BTW
>
> Do I detect a hint of " I *heart* Dave " going on ??
My voice is like his, hence me not doing videos....
>
> .... Phil
>
Clocky
Aug 26, 2016, 10:19:11 AM8/26/16
to
just making the point that Dave is open to discussion unlike some people.
Dave can be a bit OTT.
>
apologies for it nor does he have to given his success.
Computer Nerd Kev
Aug 26, 2016, 9:09:15 PM8/26/16
to
Phil Allison <palli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ~misfit~ wrote:
>
>> >
>> > While I am not sure just what Dave is trying to prove, some of his
>> > assertions are very dubious.
>>
>> Indeed. For a while I managed to put up with his really annoying voice and
>> watched several of his videos trying to educate myself further. However he
>> talks so much shite and makes so many mistakes (sometimes fixing them with
>> text overlays afterwards or conceeding points in the comments section) that
>> I decided not to carry on torturing myself with his whine.
>>
>
> ** Yes - unscripted presentations on video are usually tedious and often
painful to watch. In that respect, Dave is not much worse than many others.
It's simply that his presentation style is more love or hate than most. I always
> ~misfit~ wrote:
>
>> >
>> > While I am not sure just what Dave is trying to prove, some of his
>> > assertions are very dubious.
>>
>> Indeed. For a while I managed to put up with his really annoying voice and
>> watched several of his videos trying to educate myself further. However he
>> talks so much shite and makes so many mistakes (sometimes fixing them with
>> text overlays afterwards or conceeding points in the comments section) that
>> I decided not to carry on torturing myself with his whine.
>>
>
> ** Yes - unscripted presentations on video are usually tedious and often
painful to watch. In that respect, Dave is not much worse than many others.
suspected that it appealed more to Americans, as they more often tend towards
exaggeration more than other major English speaking cultures. For me the result
is that I can quite enjoy similar videos by Mike Harrison (mikes electric stuff),
but I just can't hang in there with D. Jones.
It's similar to that American show on 7two called "Mysteries of the Underworld"
or something equally ridiculous. The places shown are often (though not always)
very interesting and historically informative, but the hyped up presentation
is so bad that I've never been able to sit through a whole one. At the same time
it's been going for a while now, so obviously a lot of people are drawn in by the
hype.
Give it a calm monotone commentary and excessively long cuts and I'd find it most
enjoyable, while 90% of the audience falls asleep.
> BTW:
>
> Far as I can tell, no-one is manufacturing analogue scopes any more despite
> the fact that most agree they have unique capabilities when it comes to
> viewing analogue signals.
>
> So I assume the manufacture of suitable CRTs and other essential parts has
> stopped too. Keeping the old ones going will become near impossible in the
> future.
will continue along the eternal upgrade ritual and consider anything with a
deflection coil to be just lump of old junk. Hopefully the result will be that
lots of old CROs will be circulating for the same sort of price that would have
bought a replacement part back when they were available, and will do so for a
good few decades.
Consider how vintage television restorers still manage to find parts like CRTs
for their old 50s TVs.
--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#
Computer Nerd Kev
Aug 26, 2016, 9:12:21 PM8/26/16
to
They even have some Australian distributers:
http://www.rapid-tech.com.au/gwinstek_oscilloscopes.htm
http://www.ledaelectronics.com.au/gwinstek_oscilloscopes.htm
Phil Allison
Aug 26, 2016, 10:30:37 PM8/26/16
to
Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Far as I can tell, no-one is manufacturing analogue scopes any more despite
> > the fact that most agree they have unique capabilities when it comes to
> > viewing analogue signals.
> >
> > So I assume the manufacture of suitable CRTs and other essential parts has
> > stopped too. Keeping the old ones going will become near impossible in the
> > future.
>
> I wouldn't be too worried. While a few will deliberately stick with CRTs,
> most will continue along the eternal upgrade ritual and consider anything
> with a deflection coil to be just lump of old junk.
>
** Huh ??
>
>
> >
> > Far as I can tell, no-one is manufacturing analogue scopes any more despite
> > the fact that most agree they have unique capabilities when it comes to
> > viewing analogue signals.
> >
> > So I assume the manufacture of suitable CRTs and other essential parts has
> > stopped too. Keeping the old ones going will become near impossible in the
> > future.
>
> I wouldn't be too worried. While a few will deliberately stick with CRTs,
> most will continue along the eternal upgrade ritual and consider anything
> with a deflection coil to be just lump of old junk.
>
There are no deflection coils inside an analogue scope - beam focusing and deflection is completely electrostatic.
FYI:
I can well understand colour LCD screens taking over for TV receivers - as there are almost no draw backs involved, only advantages.
The situation with scopes however is quite different, analogue and DSO instruments are not equivalent to each other.
All that has changed is that entry level DSOs, bristling with wiz-bang features, have recently dropped to a price less than that of a typical 20MHz analogue scope. Such DSOs are now easily the cheapest option and sales of analogue scopes has fallen to almost nil.
One of the biggest markets for new scopes is in education where the low price and extra measurement capabilities of DSOs mean they win the purchase contracts every time. The poor students get no say.
Do Tafes and Universities even teach analogue electronics any more ?
It hasn't gone away you know.
.... Phil
Computer Nerd Kev
Aug 26, 2016, 11:43:05 PM8/26/16
to
Phil Allison <palli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Far as I can tell, no-one is manufacturing analogue scopes any more despite
>> > the fact that most agree they have unique capabilities when it comes to
>> > viewing analogue signals.
>> >
>> > So I assume the manufacture of suitable CRTs and other essential parts has
>> > stopped too. Keeping the old ones going will become near impossible in the
>> > future.
>>
>> I wouldn't be too worried. While a few will deliberately stick with CRTs,
>> most will continue along the eternal upgrade ritual and consider anything
>> with a deflection coil to be just lump of old junk.
>>
> ** Huh ??
>
> There are no deflection coils inside an analogue scope - beam focusing and
> deflection is completely electrostatic.
Sorry, I've spent more time looking at TV circuitry than CRO. Pretend I said
> Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Far as I can tell, no-one is manufacturing analogue scopes any more despite
>> > the fact that most agree they have unique capabilities when it comes to
>> > viewing analogue signals.
>> >
>> > So I assume the manufacture of suitable CRTs and other essential parts has
>> > stopped too. Keeping the old ones going will become near impossible in the
>> > future.
>>
>> I wouldn't be too worried. While a few will deliberately stick with CRTs,
>> most will continue along the eternal upgrade ritual and consider anything
>> with a deflection coil to be just lump of old junk.
>>
> ** Huh ??
>
> There are no deflection coils inside an analogue scope - beam focusing and
> deflection is completely electrostatic.
"anything that uses flying electrons".
> FYI:
>
> I can well understand colour LCD screens taking over for TV receivers - as
> there are almost no draw backs involved, only advantages.
>
> The situation with scopes however is quite different, analogue and DSO
> instruments are not equivalent to each other.
>
> All that has changed is that entry level DSOs, bristling with wiz-bang features,
> have recently dropped to a price less than that of a typical 20MHz analogue scope.
> Such DSOs are now easily the cheapest option and sales of analogue scopes has
> fallen to almost nil.
>
> One of the biggest markets for new scopes is in education where the low price
> and extra measurement capabilities of DSOs mean they win the purchase contracts
> every time. The poor students get no say.
>
> Do Tafes and Universities even teach analogue electronics any more ?
many courses where it's now thought that all you need to know is how to
program a microcontroller.
~misfit~
Aug 27, 2016, 2:01:55 AM8/27/16
to
~misfit~
Aug 27, 2016, 2:04:04 AM8/27/16
to
<g>
~misfit~
Aug 27, 2016, 2:07:41 AM8/27/16
to
that. Thanks for the heads up on Mike's Electric Stuff, I'm heading off to
check him out now.
Phil Allison
Aug 27, 2016, 8:37:39 AM8/27/16
to
Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>
>
> > ** Yes - unscripted presentations on video are usually tedious and often
> > painful to watch. In that respect, Dave is not much worse than many
> > others.
>
>
> It's simply that his presentation style is more love or hate than most.
> I always suspected that it appealed more to Americans, as they more often
> tend towards exaggeration more than other major English speaking cultures.
> For me the result
> is that I can quite enjoy similar videos by Mike Harrison (mikes electric
> stuff), but I just can't hang in there with D. Jones.
>
>
** Maybe you would prefer John Ward:
>
>
> > ** Yes - unscripted presentations on video are usually tedious and often
> > painful to watch. In that respect, Dave is not much worse than many
> > others.
>
>
> It's simply that his presentation style is more love or hate than most.
> I always suspected that it appealed more to Americans, as they more often
> tend towards exaggeration more than other major English speaking cultures.
> For me the result
> is that I can quite enjoy similar videos by Mike Harrison (mikes electric
> stuff), but I just can't hang in there with D. Jones.
>
>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib7Dd92mGRQ&list=PLVsHvs2Suqmr7z65w-5AbUSUctHmC4IQO&index=2
.... Phil
Chris Jones
Aug 27, 2016, 9:30:35 AM8/27/16
to
Computer Nerd Kev
Aug 27, 2016, 6:55:34 PM8/27/16
to
videos go I really only check for new videos once a month or longer,
and by then Mike H. has usually put up another one or two, which is
all I need. In fact we're surprisingly in sync, often after a month
or more I'll check his videos and he's uploaded some just a few
hours ago, and after not checking for a couple of months (when I
got his last videos fresh off the press) I notice now that he's
put up a new one only six days ago.
In any case I've got quite a collection of obscure junk to play
with, pull apart, and reverse engineer in real life. Watching
videos about it instead is really just pathetic lazynes. :)
F Murtz
Aug 27, 2016, 10:59:50 PM8/27/16
to
~misfit~
Aug 28, 2016, 6:35:49 AM8/28/16
to
peeve of mine.
Oh well.
Computer Nerd Kev
Aug 28, 2016, 6:37:58 PM8/28/16
to
axolotyl
Aug 28, 2016, 11:13:53 PM8/28/16
to
F Murtz
Aug 28, 2016, 11:52:26 PM8/28/16
to
She seems to like that soddering.
I have only watched 10 minute so far but will get back to it.
Jeßus
Aug 29, 2016, 12:16:42 AM8/29/16
to
Clocky
Aug 29, 2016, 5:56:58 PM8/29/16
to
axolotyl
Aug 29, 2016, 9:20:42 PM8/29/16
to
check out his other videos, he's a very clued up bloke.
~misfit~
Aug 29, 2016, 10:58:33 PM8/29/16
to
then I realised ... ;)
~misfit~
Aug 29, 2016, 11:00:16 PM8/29/16
to
upgraded the amplification on my stereo. Funny how an improvement in sound
quality makes you want to listen to old favourites.
~misfit~
Aug 29, 2016, 11:06:51 PM8/29/16
to
Once upon a time on usenet F Murtz wrote:
> axolotyl wrote:
>> On 27-Aug-16 8:37 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
>>> Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ** Yes - unscripted presentations on video are usually tedious and
>>>>> often
>>>>> painful to watch. In that respect, Dave is not much worse than
>>>>> many others.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's simply that his presentation style is more love or hate than
>>>> most. I always suspected that it appealed more to Americans, as
>>>> they more often
>>>> tend towards exaggeration more than other major English speaking
>>>> cultures.
>>>> For me the result
>>>> is that I can quite enjoy similar videos by Mike Harrison (mikes
>>>> electric
>>>> stuff), but I just can't hang in there with D. Jones.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ** Maybe you would prefer John Ward:
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib7Dd92mGRQ&list=PLVsHvs2Suqmr7z65w-5AbUSUctHmC4IQO&index=2
>>
> axolotyl wrote:
>> On 27-Aug-16 8:37 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
>>> Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ** Yes - unscripted presentations on video are usually tedious and
>>>>> often
>>>>> painful to watch. In that respect, Dave is not much worse than
>>>>> many others.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's simply that his presentation style is more love or hate than
>>>> most. I always suspected that it appealed more to Americans, as
>>>> they more often
>>>> tend towards exaggeration more than other major English speaking
>>>> cultures.
>>>> For me the result
>>>> is that I can quite enjoy similar videos by Mike Harrison (mikes
>>>> electric
>>>> stuff), but I just can't hang in there with D. Jones.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ** Maybe you would prefer John Ward:
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib7Dd92mGRQ&list=PLVsHvs2Suqmr7z65w-5AbUSUctHmC4IQO&index=2
>>
>> Perhaps this guy
>>
>> http://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/restoring-a-1949-tv-set/
>>
> Thought she was going to wear the table and the bottom of the radio
> out. She seems to like that soddering.
> I have only watched 10 minute so far but will get back to it.
After hearing about him talking about the 'toob' and 'tooner' I knew it was
>>
>> http://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/restoring-a-1949-tv-set/
>>
> Thought she was going to wear the table and the bottom of the radio
> out. She seems to like that soddering.
> I have only watched 10 minute so far but will get back to it.
only a matter of time until he got to 'soddering'. :-/
Chris
Aug 29, 2016, 11:38:57 PM8/29/16
to
Trevor Wilson
Aug 30, 2016, 12:33:46 AM8/30/16
to
On 30/08/2016 1:00 PM, ~misfit~ wrote:
> Once upon a time on usenet Jeßus wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 22:37:55 +0000 (UTC), n...@telling.you.invalid
>> (Computer Nerd Kev) wrote:
>>> ~misfit~ <shaun.at...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Once upon a time on usenet ~misfit~ wrote:
>>>> Mike's vids seem quite good. Shame though, saying 'leds' for LEDs
>>>> is a pet peeve of mine.
>>>
>>> I'm pretty sure we've been here before. :)
>>
>> I'm off to listen to some L.E.D Zeppelin.
>
> Was just thinking about finding my Zepplin CDs last night actually when I
> upgraded the amplification on my stereo. Funny how an improvement in sound
> quality makes you want to listen to old favourites.
>
**Depends. Many older recordings were so badly mastered, that
> Once upon a time on usenet Jeßus wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 22:37:55 +0000 (UTC), n...@telling.you.invalid
>> (Computer Nerd Kev) wrote:
>>> ~misfit~ <shaun.at...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Once upon a time on usenet ~misfit~ wrote:
>>>> Mike's vids seem quite good. Shame though, saying 'leds' for LEDs
>>>> is a pet peeve of mine.
>>>
>>> I'm pretty sure we've been here before. :)
>>
>> I'm off to listen to some L.E.D Zeppelin.
>
> Was just thinking about finding my Zepplin CDs last night actually when I
> upgraded the amplification on my stereo. Funny how an improvement in sound
> quality makes you want to listen to old favourites.
>
improvements in playback equipment reveals more flaws. Almost any
pop/rock recordings fall into this category. Things improved in the
1970s. Particularly with bands like Toto, Supertramp, ELO, Pink Floyd
and others, where much care was taken with mastering.
[Anecdote] Back in the early 1980s, I was asked to supply an amplifier
to CBS for their cassette tape duplicating plant. Rather unwisely, they
purchased a pair of these for their QC lab:
http://bobbyshred.baberuthband.co.uk/infinity/rs1.5.html
A very nice speaker for it's time, but with a sting in the tail. The
impedance at bass frequencies fell below 2 Ohms. I supplied a suitable
amplifier that could deal with the speaker (which I knew very well) for
evaluation. It was rejected. Apparently, their system revealed far too
many flaws in their cassette tapes. A month later, I had a call
requesting that I supply CBS with the amplifier. They had tried a dozen
of so amps and none could deal with the Infinity speakers.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Rheilly Phoull
Aug 30, 2016, 1:12:39 AM8/30/16
to
axolotyl
Aug 30, 2016, 4:57:09 AM8/30/16
to
Clocky
Aug 30, 2016, 10:18:31 AM8/30/16
to
Jeßus
Aug 30, 2016, 6:14:53 PM8/30/16
to
On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 15:00:13 +1200, "~misfit~"
never particularly impressed with the sound quality of Led Zepp's
recordings though, TBH. Page's guitar in particular sounds thin and
reedy. OTOH, my go-to LZ album is Physical Graffiti... love it.
What gives me the shits with many modern recordings is that they're so
bass-heavy, which on my system has me running for the tone controls
because the house is about to shake apart... a lot of music (new and
old) actually sucks on a good system.
<shaun.at...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Once upon a time on usenet Jeßus wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 22:37:55 +0000 (UTC), n...@telling.you.invalid
>> (Computer Nerd Kev) wrote:
>>> ~misfit~ <shaun.at...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Once upon a time on usenet ~misfit~ wrote:
>>>> Mike's vids seem quite good. Shame though, saying 'leds' for LEDs
>>>> is a pet peeve of mine.
>>>
>>> I'm pretty sure we've been here before. :)
>>
>> I'm off to listen to some L.E.D Zeppelin.
>
>Was just thinking about finding my Zepplin CDs last night actually when I
>upgraded the amplification on my stereo. Funny how an improvement in sound
>quality makes you want to listen to old favourites.
There are pros and cons to doing that, but I generally agree. I was
>Once upon a time on usenet Jeßus wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 22:37:55 +0000 (UTC), n...@telling.you.invalid
>> (Computer Nerd Kev) wrote:
>>> ~misfit~ <shaun.at...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Once upon a time on usenet ~misfit~ wrote:
>>>> Mike's vids seem quite good. Shame though, saying 'leds' for LEDs
>>>> is a pet peeve of mine.
>>>
>>> I'm pretty sure we've been here before. :)
>>
>> I'm off to listen to some L.E.D Zeppelin.
>
>Was just thinking about finding my Zepplin CDs last night actually when I
>upgraded the amplification on my stereo. Funny how an improvement in sound
>quality makes you want to listen to old favourites.
never particularly impressed with the sound quality of Led Zepp's
recordings though, TBH. Page's guitar in particular sounds thin and
reedy. OTOH, my go-to LZ album is Physical Graffiti... love it.
What gives me the shits with many modern recordings is that they're so
bass-heavy, which on my system has me running for the tone controls
because the house is about to shake apart... a lot of music (new and
old) actually sucks on a good system.
Chris Jones
Aug 30, 2016, 9:31:07 PM8/30/16
to
"flux".
Clocky
Aug 31, 2016, 11:40:52 AM8/31/16
to
language he uses at times (I think anyway).
https://www.youtube.com/user/arduinoversusevil
~misfit~
Aug 31, 2016, 9:38:08 PM8/31/16
to
Once upon a time on usenet Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 30/08/2016 1:00 PM, ~misfit~ wrote:
>> Once upon a time on usenet Jeßus wrote:
>>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 22:37:55 +0000 (UTC), n...@telling.you.invalid
>>> (Computer Nerd Kev) wrote:
>>>> ~misfit~ <shaun.at...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Once upon a time on usenet ~misfit~ wrote:
>>>>> Mike's vids seem quite good. Shame though, saying 'leds' for LEDs
>>>>> is a pet peeve of mine.
>>>>
>>>> I'm pretty sure we've been here before. :)
>>>
>>> I'm off to listen to some L.E.D Zeppelin.
>>
>> Was just thinking about finding my Zepplin CDs last night actually
>> when I upgraded the amplification on my stereo. Funny how an
>> improvement in sound quality makes you want to listen to old
>> favourites.
>
> **Depends. Many older recordings were so badly mastered, that
> improvements in playback equipment reveals more flaws. Almost any
> pop/rock recordings fall into this category. Things improved in the
> 1970s. Particularly with bands like Toto, Supertramp, ELO, Pink Floyd
> and others, where much care was taken with mastering.
You're right. Increasingly I'm finding that I'm listening to well-mastered
> On 30/08/2016 1:00 PM, ~misfit~ wrote:
>> Once upon a time on usenet Jeßus wrote:
>>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 22:37:55 +0000 (UTC), n...@telling.you.invalid
>>> (Computer Nerd Kev) wrote:
>>>> ~misfit~ <shaun.at...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Once upon a time on usenet ~misfit~ wrote:
>>>>> Mike's vids seem quite good. Shame though, saying 'leds' for LEDs
>>>>> is a pet peeve of mine.
>>>>
>>>> I'm pretty sure we've been here before. :)
>>>
>>> I'm off to listen to some L.E.D Zeppelin.
>>
>> Was just thinking about finding my Zepplin CDs last night actually
>> when I upgraded the amplification on my stereo. Funny how an
>> improvement in sound quality makes you want to listen to old
>> favourites.
>
> **Depends. Many older recordings were so badly mastered, that
> improvements in playback equipment reveals more flaws. Almost any
> pop/rock recordings fall into this category. Things improved in the
> 1970s. Particularly with bands like Toto, Supertramp, ELO, Pink Floyd
> and others, where much care was taken with mastering.
and produced music over (some) old favourites. I was just explaining this to
a friend the other day, saying that the improvements I've made to the stereo
don't translate equally across all CDs. Some are still great music but they
actually sound worse (comparatively) with a better system.
> [Anecdote] Back in the early 1980s, I was asked to supply an amplifier
> to CBS for their cassette tape duplicating plant. Rather unwisely,
> they purchased a pair of these for their QC lab:
>
> http://bobbyshred.baberuthband.co.uk/infinity/rs1.5.html
>
> A very nice speaker for it's time, but with a sting in the tail. The
> impedance at bass frequencies fell below 2 Ohms. I supplied a suitable
> amplifier that could deal with the speaker (which I knew very well)
> for evaluation. It was rejected. Apparently, their system revealed
> far too many flaws in their cassette tapes. A month later, I had a
> call requesting that I supply CBS with the amplifier. They had tried
> a dozen of so amps and none could deal with the Infinity speakers.
Speaking of quasi-ribbon tweeters a couple of years back I picked up a small
Philips home theatre setup (LX700
https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=philips+LX700 ). Not because I wanted a
small home theatre but for the price I paid (~NZ$50) I got five dipole
'ribbon' tweeters out of it. Since then I've bought a couple more of the
speaker sets from people who blew up the amplifier (it suffers from
inadequate heatsinking on a couple of parts, mainly in its SMPS).
The tweeters sound great - rare earth magnets have got so much more powerful
since those EMIT tweeters were made) but I didn't finish any project with
them - yet! (Never say never.) My biggest issue is with the woodwork for
home made speakers. My cheap home handyman rip tablesaw isn't accurate
enough for cutting larger panels square. Also I recently bought the first
pair of floorstanders I've ever owned that I think sound better than any I
could make.
However I have a bookshelf speaker project I want to finish using those
tweeters and four 50w 3" Philips mid-bass units a side. I've always liked
the idea of spreading the cone area across multiple drivers to increase
response times and minimise frontal area / baffle step diffraction. That
should be doable as the woodwork will all be small pieces. I still haven't
decided if I'm going to use the tweeters as dipoles or close the backs, or
how many tweeters to use on each side.
Cheers,
~misfit~
Aug 31, 2016, 9:51:40 PM8/31/16
to
Once upon a time on usenet Jeßus wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 15:00:13 +1200, "~misfit~"
> <shaun.at...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Once upon a time on usenet Jeßus wrote:
>>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 22:37:55 +0000 (UTC), n...@telling.you.invalid
>>> (Computer Nerd Kev) wrote:
>>>> ~misfit~ <shaun.at...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Once upon a time on usenet ~misfit~ wrote:
>>>>> Mike's vids seem quite good. Shame though, saying 'leds' for LEDs
>>>>> is a pet peeve of mine.
>>>>
>>>> I'm pretty sure we've been here before. :)
>>>
>>> I'm off to listen to some L.E.D Zeppelin.
>>
>> Was just thinking about finding my Zepplin CDs last night actually
>> when I upgraded the amplification on my stereo. Funny how an
>> improvement in sound quality makes you want to listen to old
>> favourites.
>
> There are pros and cons to doing that,
Yeah, see my previous reply in this thread. I've been dissapointed with a
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 15:00:13 +1200, "~misfit~"
> <shaun.at...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Once upon a time on usenet Jeßus wrote:
>>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 22:37:55 +0000 (UTC), n...@telling.you.invalid
>>> (Computer Nerd Kev) wrote:
>>>> ~misfit~ <shaun.at...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Once upon a time on usenet ~misfit~ wrote:
>>>>> Mike's vids seem quite good. Shame though, saying 'leds' for LEDs
>>>>> is a pet peeve of mine.
>>>>
>>>> I'm pretty sure we've been here before. :)
>>>
>>> I'm off to listen to some L.E.D Zeppelin.
>>
>> Was just thinking about finding my Zepplin CDs last night actually
>> when I upgraded the amplification on my stereo. Funny how an
>> improvement in sound quality makes you want to listen to old
>> favourites.
>
> There are pros and cons to doing that,
couple of CDs lately that I've always really liked but, with mostly
transapent playback gear and plenty of power sound lacking.
> but I generally agree. I was
> never particularly impressed with the sound quality of Led Zepp's
> recordings though, TBH. Page's guitar in particular sounds thin and
> reedy. OTOH, my go-to LZ album is Physical Graffiti... love it.
and have a listen. ;-) )
> What gives me the shits with many modern recordings is that they're so
> bass-heavy, which on my system has me running for the tone controls
> because the house is about to shake apart... a lot of music (new and
> old) actually sucks on a good system.
'new' amplification using a very basic preamp that only has a volume
control. Luckilly there are very few albums that I like that were made later
than the early 90s so I've just been ignoring those for now.
I'm pleased though that at least now it *is* the house and wondows that
suffer rather than my speakers. I recently bought a pair of Sony SSK70EDs
that handle pretty much everything I can throw at them, sound clean and
clear and image like nothing I've heard costing under $10K. Now I just wish
I'd managed to get some SSK90EDs. These are very under-rated speakers. Sony
made them in a vain effort to illustrate to the public the improvements that
SACDs bought to the table over standard CDs. Unfortunately for Sony the
public were moving in the opposite direction, going for pocket-sized music
and 'fidelity' so the speakers were discontinued (except in Japan where they
still make a piano finish version of the SSK range).
Cheers,
~misfit~
Aug 31, 2016, 9:52:16 PM8/31/16
to
~misfit~
Aug 31, 2016, 9:53:35 PM8/31/16
to
Looks good so far.
Trevor Wilson
Aug 31, 2016, 10:06:58 PM8/31/16
to
>
>> [Anecdote] Back in the early 1980s, I was asked to supply an amplifier
>> to CBS for their cassette tape duplicating plant. Rather unwisely,
>> they purchased a pair of these for their QC lab:
>>
>> http://bobbyshred.baberuthband.co.uk/infinity/rs1.5.html
>>
>> A very nice speaker for it's time, but with a sting in the tail. The
>> impedance at bass frequencies fell below 2 Ohms. I supplied a suitable
>> amplifier that could deal with the speaker (which I knew very well)
>> for evaluation. It was rejected. Apparently, their system revealed
>> far too many flaws in their cassette tapes. A month later, I had a
>> call requesting that I supply CBS with the amplifier. They had tried
>> a dozen of so amps and none could deal with the Infinity speakers.
>
> Heh! That's a nasty characteristic for a speaker.
http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/579infinity/#pfhmtdcHbCDP1KkH.97
>
> Speaking of quasi-ribbon tweeters a couple of years back I picked up a small
> Philips home theatre setup (LX700
> https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=philips+LX700 ). Not because I wanted a
> small home theatre but for the price I paid (~NZ$50) I got five dipole
> 'ribbon' tweeters out of it. Since then I've bought a couple more of the
> speaker sets from people who blew up the amplifier (it suffers from
> inadequate heatsinking on a couple of parts, mainly in its SMPS).
>
> The tweeters sound great - rare earth magnets have got so much more powerful
> since those EMIT tweeters were made)
magnets. Early EMITs used samarium cobalt magnets, front and back. Later
variants used samarium cobalt on the front and moulded ceramic magnets
on the rear.
but I didn't finish any project with
> them - yet! (Never say never.) My biggest issue is with the woodwork for
> home made speakers. My cheap home handyman rip tablesaw isn't accurate
> enough for cutting larger panels square. Also I recently bought the first
> pair of floorstanders I've ever owned that I think sound better than any I
> could make.
>
> However I have a bookshelf speaker project I want to finish using those
> tweeters and four 50w 3" Philips mid-bass units a side. I've always liked
> the idea of spreading the cone area across multiple drivers to increase
> response times and minimise frontal area / baffle step diffraction. That
> should be doable as the woodwork will all be small pieces. I still haven't
> decided if I'm going to use the tweeters as dipoles or close the backs, or
> how many tweeters to use on each side.
>
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
~misfit~
Sep 1, 2016, 3:55:55 AM9/1/16
to
thank the gods.
>>> [Anecdote] Back in the early 1980s, I was asked to supply an
>>> amplifier to CBS for their cassette tape duplicating plant. Rather
>>> unwisely, they purchased a pair of these for their QC lab:
>>>
>>> http://bobbyshred.baberuthband.co.uk/infinity/rs1.5.html
>>>
>>> A very nice speaker for it's time, but with a sting in the tail. The
>>> impedance at bass frequencies fell below 2 Ohms. I supplied a
>>> suitable amplifier that could deal with the speaker (which I knew
>>> very well) for evaluation. It was rejected. Apparently, their
>>> system revealed far too many flaws in their cassette tapes. A month
>>> later, I had a call requesting that I supply CBS with the
>>> amplifier. They had tried a dozen of so amps and none could deal
>>> with the Infinity speakers.
>>
>> Heh! That's a nasty characteristic for a speaker.
>
> **It's big brother dipped to around 0.7 Ohms:
> http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/579infinity/#pfhmtdcHbCDP1KkH.97
>
>>
>> Speaking of quasi-ribbon tweeters a couple of years back I picked up
>> a small Philips home theatre setup (LX700
>> https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=philips+LX700 ). Not because I
>> wanted a small home theatre but for the price I paid (~NZ$50) I got
>> five dipole 'ribbon' tweeters out of it. Since then I've bought a
>> couple more of the speaker sets from people who blew up the
>> amplifier (it suffers from inadequate heatsinking on a couple of
>> parts, mainly in its SMPS). The tweeters sound great - rare earth magnets
>> have got so much more
>> powerful since those EMIT tweeters were made)
>
> **I hate to burst your bubble, but the EMITs have ALWAYS used rare
> earth magnets. Early EMITs used samarium cobalt magnets, front and
> back. Later variants used samarium cobalt on the front and moulded
> ceramic magnets on the rear.
quickly in the last couple of decades and the neodymium bar magnets used in
these Philips tweeters are crazy powerful (and this is coming from someone
who's familiar with strong magnets, having pulled quite a few HDDs apart and
had the blood-blisters to prove it). They're only about 5mm square and one
of them ripped a small screwdriver out of my hand from 5cm away. I thought
it must have gone through the Kapton-esque membrane but was surprised to see
that the magnet decellerated the screwdriver even faster than it accelerated
it. and it hadn't touched the diaphragm.
> but I didn't finish any project with
>> them - yet! (Never say never.) My biggest issue is with the woodwork
>> for home made speakers. My cheap home handyman rip tablesaw isn't
>> accurate enough for cutting larger panels square. Also I recently
>> bought the first pair of floorstanders I've ever owned that I think
>> sound better than any I could make.
>>
>> However I have a bookshelf speaker project I want to finish using
>> those tweeters and four 50w 3" Philips mid-bass units a side. I've
>> always liked the idea of spreading the cone area across multiple
>> drivers to increase response times and minimise frontal area /
>> baffle step diffraction. That should be doable as the woodwork will
>> all be small pieces. I still haven't decided if I'm going to use the
>> tweeters as dipoles or close the backs, or how many tweeters to use
>> on each side.
>
> **Dipoles are a PITA in most rooms.
kitchen where I'm currently sitting two of the LX700 centre speakers on end
(as psuedo-MTM boxes) as a stop-gap measure and they sound quite good in
both rooms. Obviously the mids are less loud in the kitchen but just having
dipole tweeters makes the music quite listenable to from behind - if you
know what I mean. Also there are few reflections in the dining room as the
speakers aren't near walls. I'm considering custom building speakers to go
there.
Jeßus
Sep 6, 2016, 6:28:05 PM9/6/16
to
On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 13:51:36 +1200, "~misfit~"
I'm overdue for a listen too, maybe later this arvo...
>> What gives me the shits with many modern recordings is that they're so
>> bass-heavy, which on my system has me running for the tone controls
>> because the house is about to shake apart... a lot of music (new and
>> old) actually sucks on a good system.
>
>I freakin' hate that too! Especially as I've been mostly listening using my
>'new' amplification using a very basic preamp that only has a volume
>control. Luckilly there are very few albums that I like that were made later
>than the early 90s so I've just been ignoring those for now.
>
>I'm pleased though that at least now it *is* the house and wondows that
>suffer rather than my speakers. I recently bought a pair of Sony SSK70EDs
>that handle pretty much everything I can throw at them, sound clean and
>clear and image like nothing I've heard costing under $10K.
Nice, I am not familiar with those but they look the goods and have
positive reviews.
>Now I just wish
>I'd managed to get some SSK90EDs. These are very under-rated speakers. Sony
>made them in a vain effort to illustrate to the public the improvements that
>SACDs bought to the table over standard CDs. Unfortunately for Sony the
>public were moving in the opposite direction, going for pocket-sized music
>and 'fidelity' so the speakers were discontinued (except in Japan where they
>still make a piano finish version of the SSK range).
The stuff available only in Japan is mind blowing, both new and old
gear.
>> What gives me the shits with many modern recordings is that they're so
>> bass-heavy, which on my system has me running for the tone controls
>> because the house is about to shake apart... a lot of music (new and
>> old) actually sucks on a good system.
>
>I freakin' hate that too! Especially as I've been mostly listening using my
>'new' amplification using a very basic preamp that only has a volume
>control. Luckilly there are very few albums that I like that were made later
>than the early 90s so I've just been ignoring those for now.
>
>I'm pleased though that at least now it *is* the house and wondows that
>suffer rather than my speakers. I recently bought a pair of Sony SSK70EDs
>that handle pretty much everything I can throw at them, sound clean and
>clear and image like nothing I've heard costing under $10K.
positive reviews.
>Now I just wish
>I'd managed to get some SSK90EDs. These are very under-rated speakers. Sony
>made them in a vain effort to illustrate to the public the improvements that
>SACDs bought to the table over standard CDs. Unfortunately for Sony the
>public were moving in the opposite direction, going for pocket-sized music
>and 'fidelity' so the speakers were discontinued (except in Japan where they
>still make a piano finish version of the SSK range).
gear.
~misfit~
Sep 7, 2016, 4:35:39 AM9/7/16
to
as, before I became an invalid I was reasonably well off and audio was my
passion.
I had a good look indside them when I turned the drivers 180º after I bought
them (second-hand). They're very thick MDF with the interior coated in a
black rubberised sealant stuff.. Also there are shaped braces inside a bit
like the frames you'd see in a boat only cut from 25mm MDF.
They're basically two speakers using the same cabinet. The top is a ~25l
acoustic suspension enclosure with the (sealed back) 25mm carbon dome
tweeter and one brace above the 160mm kevlar cone mid / bass driver filled
with dacron 'wool'. There's a thick MDF seperator then the bottom chamber is
bass reflex system for the 160mm kevlar reinforced paper cone woofer. The 18
dB / octave cross-over is mounted on the bottom of the partition and there
are three braces in the lower part and it's lined with 40mm thick foam (as
well as the black coating). They're almost like a large 2-way and integrated
subwooferand they're *very* well made.
I saw a set of 2 x K90EDs, 2 x K30EDs and another CNK10ED listed for auction
last week with a start price of $1K. The 90s are the same as the 70s only
taller with a second (sub)woofer and go down a few Hz lower. The numbers
[70, 90 etc.] are volume in litres. It didn't make it's reserve but if they
weren't ~600km away I would have been sorely tempted to get my credit card
out, then if the 90s are as good as I think they will be, selling my 70s to
recoup some of the cost.
Heh! That said I'm quite happy with the SS-K70EDs.
>> Now I just wish
>> I'd managed to get some SSK90EDs. These are very under-rated
>> speakers. Sony made them in a vain effort to illustrate to the
>> public the improvements that SACDs bought to the table over standard
>> CDs. Unfortunately for Sony the public were moving in the opposite
>> direction, going for pocket-sized music and 'fidelity' so the
>> speakers were discontinued (except in Japan where they still make a
>> piano finish version of the SSK range).
>
> The stuff available only in Japan is mind blowing, both new and old
> gear.
that's for sure.
0 new messages