AKSA 100 watt stereo amp opinions.
Marky
"It produced the kind of sound you just cannot achieve with solid-state
amp's, not even with my 'once upon a time ME850'. The AKSA, with its modest
a-la cheap price tag blew me away. "
I'm not trying to start an amp war or anything like that but I just wanted
to hear other people's thoughts.
Trevor W, have you heard the Aksa kit amp?
Thanks.
Trevor Wilson
"Marky" <m...@c.com.au> wrote in message
news:a618l4$pr9$1...@perki.connect.com.au...
**No, I haven't. From what I can gather from the design, it is hardly
comparable with the ME850. The two products are fundamentally different.
*The ME850 utilises a MASSIVE power supply. The AKSA does not. In fact, the
AKSA documentation specifically warns against too much filter capacitance.
In this sense, very tough speaker loads (including full frequency spectrum
products) will likely be better served by an ME850. Small speaker may be
better served by the AKSA (or the ME200 for that matter).
*The ME850 (and, indeed all ME products) utilise Zero Global NFB techniques.
The AKSA uses very large amounts of Global NFB. Personally, I don't much
care for the sound of high Global NFB amplifiers, but some listeners do. The
absence of Global NFB allows the ME850 to outperform ALL high Global NFB
amplifiers, in several ways:
1)Current limiting can be implemented in a totally benign fashion. Not
possible with conventional amps (including the AKSA), where any current
limiting is performed within the feedback loop.
2) As above Voltage limiting (clipping) is performed outside the
feedback loop, in the ME850 (and all other ME amplifiers).
3) Stability (into ANY load) is complete and unconditional. It doesn't
matter if the ME850 is asked to drive 1000 Ohms, or 0.1 Ohms. It makes no
difference. It makes no difference if the ME850 is required to drive a pure
capacitance or a pure inductance. The result will always be a clean, stable
waveform. I have not tested the AKSA, but it is unlikely it could cope with
such treatment.
*The ME850 uses the unusual output device configuration, known as Common
Emitter. The AKSA uses the more usual, easier to implement, Common Collector
configuration. Common Emitter, though more difficult to implement correctly,
offers far more isolation from loudspeaker loads, than Common Collector.
does. This is particularly relevant, when using highly reactive speaker
loads.
*The ME850 (and all ME products) use fully balanced operation, using mirror
imaged differential pairs and current sources. Not only does this lead to
much lower measured distortion, but transient distortion (for which no
measurement system exists) is theoretically lower.
Now, since you asked about the AKSA, I have confined my response to that
product. My comments are applicable to 99% of all SS amps available today.
The AKSA is not a product for those who are not prepared to devote a fair
amount of time and money to completing the product. In my opinion, Silicon
Chip published details for a MUCH more interesting amplifier, several months
ago. It embodies several of the advantages displayed by the ME. Things like:
Current sources, decently balanced circuitry and Common Emitter operation,
are all standard to the Silicon Chip design. HOWEVER, I feel that some
attention to details would assist in the sonic performance of that
amplifier. It is attention to details, that the AKSA design is strong on.
Again, I am not 'bashing' the AKSA. It seems to be a good product, for those
with plenty of time and expertise on their hands. Comparing to the ME850, I
find slightly laughable. A more interesting comparison might be with the
ME200 or the ME550-II, as these products are less likely to cause problems
with frequency restricted loudspeakers.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Ball
Ben
"Marky" <m...@c.com.au> wrote in message
news:a618l4$pr9$1...@perki.connect.com.au...
Geoff
> amp's, not even with my 'once upon a time ME850'. The AKSA, with its
modest
> a-la cheap price tag blew me away. "
If you read the rest of the article, he has a strong bias towards valves.
Basically, he likes the AKSA because it sounds like a valve amp. Whether
that's right or wrong, depends on your opinion. I'm sure the ME850, given a
couple of lashings of second harmonic distortion, would sound like a valve
amp too :)
Oops! *ducks head and runs*
:)
I'd be curious to hear an AKSA, if anyone ever builds one. Likewise with
Silicon Chip's amp that Trevor mentioned. Can't afford either at the moment
unfortunately!!
Geoff
BB
How come you know so much about ME amps & other amps too?
Are you related to ME Sound at all? Or Peter?
As for the ME850 at 8W Class A, would it drive a 92dB SPL speaker
in class A for say listening at night, 3m from listening & relatively
quiet room?
Also, does the ME850 has unbalanced inputs & what are the impedances?
ME pre amps don't have balanced outputs so these ME850 balanced inputs
would be redundant unless used with other pre-amps (no no).
Could you place a picture of the back of the ME850 for us?
"Trevor Wilson" <rage...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:3c842fc3$0$18470$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Geoff
> in class A for say listening at night, 3m from listening & relatively
> quiet room?
A speaker with a sensitivity of 92dB SPL needs 1 watt RMS to drive it to a
volume of 92dB, measured at 1 metre from the speaker. You will lose some
loudness sitting further back, but I think the neighbours would start
complaining well before you moved into class B operation. 92dB is pretty
loud :)
Geoff
Trevor Wilson
"BB" <bb...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:newscache$3aghsg$q6p$1...@news.intrapower.com.au...
> Trevor,
> How come you know so much about ME amps & other amps too?
**My chosen profession, has been as an audio tech, for more than 30 years. I
am comfortable with most technical aspects of amplifier design.
> Are you related to ME Sound at all? Or Peter?
**Nope. I first met Peter Stein, back in 1975, or thereabouts. He seemed
like a smart guy, to me. I listened to his first amplifier (the ME100) and I
thought it sounded pretty good. I preferred my Marantz 500, though, as it
was more 'grunty', though not as clean as the ME100. Nevertheless, I became
interested in his stuff. He loaned me a preamp and I instantly disposed of
my (highly modified) Dynaco tube preamp. Then Peter released the ME75.
Fabulous product, at a great price. Soon after, I opened a retail outlet and
began stocking ME products. As a tech, I also provided (and still provide)
complete backup service, for all ME products.
> As for the ME850 at 8W Class A, would it drive a 92dB SPL speaker
> in class A for say listening at night, 3m from listening & relatively
> quiet room?
**The ME850 actually delivers nearer 16 Watts Class A. This is a huge amount
of power and more is unlikely to be required by most listeners.
> Also, does the ME850 has unbalanced inputs & what are the impedances?
**The ME850 employs balanced inputs. To convert to unbalanced, one needs
only to use the +ve input and ground the -ve input. Nice and easy. The input
impedance is a relatively low 2,000 Ohms. For this reason only high quality
preamps should be used. Typical Sony, or Yamaha surround sound preamps need
not apply. For low grade preamps, ME offers a service, whereby the input
impedance may be increased to 68,000 Ohms. Unfortunately, this will
compromise performance, slightly. It will still sound bloody amazing,
though.
> ME pre amps don't have balanced outputs so these ME850 balanced inputs
> would be redundant unless used with other pre-amps (no no).
**Nope. All ME power amps are inherently balanced designs. All could be
provided with balanced inputs, but for commercial reasons, only the ME850,
ME1400 and ME1500 amplifiers are so provided. Peter Stein is working on a
balanced output stage for the ME preamps, but, to date, performance is not
up to the standards of the unbalanced output stage, already in use. Don't
forget: In a balanced output stage, there are at least double the number of
active components, thus allowing for the possibility of double the
distortion.
> Could you place a picture of the back of the ME850 for us?
**There is one on the back of the ME850 brochure. Unfortunately, my scanner
refuses to work with WIN2k, so I cannot supply a scanned image. I can post a
brochure, via snail mail, if you require.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Rick Stadelmaier
>
> > Could you place a picture of the back of the ME850 for us?
>
> **There is one on the back of the ME850 brochure. Unfortunately, my scanner
> refuses to work with WIN2k, so I cannot supply a scanned image. I can post a
> brochure, via snail mail, if you require.
I just uploaded a rear shot of the ME850 on my site.
www.equinoxaudio.com.au
Take yourself to the ME section.
Rick.
--
Rick Stadelmaier
Equinox Audio
http://www.equinoxaudio.com.au
ri...@equinoxaudio.com.au
Sydney, Australia
BB
ME850 has a fixed cord, can't change it for something special you think.
Those multi-million dollar power cables :)
The speaker binders seem a bit small too, no bi-wire stuff (single output)
"Rick Stadelmaier" <ri...@equinoxaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:3C8466D6...@equinoxaudio.com.au...
Trevor Wilson
> Thanks for that.
> ME850 has a fixed cord, can't change it for something special you think.
> Those multi-million dollar power cables :)
**Old picture. ME850s have had detachable power cords for years. Of course
they make no difference, but it keeps the punters happy. Fancy power cords
are arguably the biggest con-job so far. Most are illegal in this country
too.
> The speaker binders seem a bit small too, no bi-wire stuff (single output)
>
**Nonsense. They're plenty big enough. Further, you could use bare wire (or
spades) AND banana plugs simultaneously.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
BB
"Trevor Wilson" <rage...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:3c846da8$0$18473$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Trevor Wilson
> What about internal photo of ME850.
>
**Geez. I'll post one tomorrow.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Rick Stadelmaier
>
> What about internal photo of ME850.
I just posted an internal shot and a rear shot of the ME1400, it's on
the Technical details section.
I can't give you an internal shot of the 850 as I don't have one here at
the moment.
Rick Stadelmaier
>
> Thanks for that.
No problem.
> ME850 has a fixed cord, can't change it for something special you think.
That is an older picture scanned from the back of a brochure. They all
have removable cords now.
> Those multi-million dollar power cables :)
Waste of money anyway.
> The speaker binders seem a bit small too,
The size of the amp just the posts look small :-) Seriously though, they
are quite big enough, in any case the newer ones have fancier looking
posts.
> no bi-wire stuff (single output)
It's easy to use 2 pairs of spades or tinned wire, or 1 pair of spades
and bananas.
I'll be bringing an ME850 (and others) with me in June (QLD), you can
check it right out then.
Hugh R. Dean
Geoff wrote this:
> If you read the rest of the article, he has a strong bias towards valves.
> Basically, he likes the AKSA because it sounds like a valve amp. Whether
> that's right or wrong, depends on your opinion. I'm sure the ME850, given
a
> couple of lashings of second harmonic distortion, would sound like a valve
> amp too :)
>
> Oops! *ducks head and runs*
I largely agree with this sentiment.
> I'd be curious to hear an AKSA, if anyone ever builds one. Likewise with
> Silicon Chip's amp that Trevor mentioned. Can't afford either at the
moment
> unfortunately!!
If you tell me where you live on ak...@optushome.com.au, I will direct you
to someone in your vicinity who owns an AKSA.
BTW, Trevor, your continuing dominance of this newsgroup and your sweeping
generalisations about issues you feel you know something about are merely
irritating. But when we see you use this forum for the shameless promotion
of the ME, which granted is a competent power amplifier of ingenious design,
it is unacceptable. Please, ease off.
If you feel so very strongly about one product, then why not set up a
website and devote your energies within the website, where people have the
option to visit?
Sincerely,
Hugh R. Dean
www.printedelectronics.com
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.325 / Virus Database: 182 - Release Date: 19/02/02
Geoff
valve
> > amp too :)
> >
> > Oops! *ducks head and runs*
>
> I largely agree with this sentiment.
Tongue in cheek Hugh, don't upset the valve boys :)
Geoff
Mal P
> If you feel so very strongly about one product, then why not set up a
> website and devote your energies within the website, where people have the
> option to visit?
But everyone has the option to ignore his, or any other posters content as
need be. If I were to become significantly irritated at a poster, then I
would have the option to kill-file that poster and be done with it.
Cheers,
Mal
Larry
> **No, I haven't. From what I can gather from the design, it is hardly
It is fundamentally flawed to evaluate (review, judge, ...) an audio amp
without listening. (I did not say design is not relevant.)
> comparable with the ME850. The two products are fundamentally different.
Fundamentally different products can not be compared at all.
>
> *The ME850 utilises a MASSIVE power supply. The AKSA does not. In fact,
the
So, will an amplifier with a MASSIVE x 2 power supply simply outperform any
amplifier with only a MASSIVE power supply?
> AKSA documentation specifically warns against too much filter capacitance.
That just means the AKSA designer has his design in his mind and knows what
he is doing.
> In this sense, very tough speaker loads (including full frequency spectrum
> products) will likely be better served by an ME850. Small speaker may be
> better served by the AKSA (or the ME200 for that matter).
>
No comments. But all products are designed with prefered working conditions.
The point is know what you are looking for.
> *The ME850 (and, indeed all ME products) utilise Zero Global NFB
techniques.
> The AKSA uses very large amounts of Global NFB. Personally, I don't much
> care for the sound of high Global NFB amplifiers, but some listeners do.
The
> absence of Global NFB allows the ME850 to outperform ALL high Global NFB
> amplifiers, in several ways:
> 1)Current limiting can be implemented in a totally benign fashion. Not
> possible with conventional amps (including the AKSA), where any current
> limiting is performed within the feedback loop.
> 2) As above Voltage limiting (clipping) is performed outside the
> feedback loop, in the ME850 (and all other ME amplifiers).
> 3) Stability (into ANY load) is complete and unconditional. It doesn't
> matter if the ME850 is asked to drive 1000 Ohms, or 0.1 Ohms. It makes no
> difference. It makes no difference if the ME850 is required to drive a
pure
> capacitance or a pure inductance. The result will always be a clean,
stable
> waveform. I have not tested the AKSA, but it is unlikely it could cope
with
> such treatment.
>
I may be well qualified to make comments on NFB with a PhD in Electronics
however I feel I am not up to the job when it comes to hi-fi audio. My
feeling is that some taste is involved regarding NFB.
> *The ME850 uses the unusual output device configuration, known as Common
> Emitter. The AKSA uses the more usual, easier to implement, Common
Collector
> configuration. Common Emitter, though more difficult to implement
correctly,
> offers far more isolation from loudspeaker loads, than Common Collector.
> does. This is particularly relevant, when using highly reactive speaker
> loads.
>
Three configurations of output devices can be found in all textbooks. If the
Common Emitter is the Holy Grail, idiots can copy. This is common sense.
> *The ME850 (and all ME products) use fully balanced operation, using
mirror
> imaged differential pairs and current sources. Not only does this lead to
> much lower measured distortion, but transient distortion (for which no
> measurement system exists) is theoretically lower.
>
I don't really understand what you mean. (You may absolutely correct)
However, AKSA is designed to introduce some desired distortion. Ok, agree or
disagree. This is just two camps.
> Now, since you asked about the AKSA, I have confined my response to that
> product. My comments are applicable to 99% of all SS amps available today.
> The AKSA is not a product for those who are not prepared to devote a fair
> amount of time and money to completing the product. In my opinion, Silicon
> Chip published details for a MUCH more interesting amplifier, several
months
> ago. It embodies several of the advantages displayed by the ME. Things
like:
> Current sources, decently balanced circuitry and Common Emitter operation,
> are all standard to the Silicon Chip design. HOWEVER, I feel that some
> attention to details would assist in the sonic performance of that
> amplifier. It is attention to details, that the AKSA design is strong on.
>
New technology does not automatically guarantee good performance. That's why
some recordings of decades ago without this and that sounds much better than
recent ones with these and those. Again, the subjective evaluation in audio
performance has the last say. (I was involved in ISO JPEG committee and the
subjective evaluation of all proposed techniques had a significant role in
selecting the candidates. We know how little we know about ourselves so that
we have to trust our eyes only.)
I just built an AKSA. I don't want to comment on AKSA as I have not done any
meaningful evaluation and lack sufficient experience with other comparable
products. So far, I am quite happy with AKSA.
Hope this would help the audience.
Larry
Patrick Turner
Hugh R. Dean wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> Geoff wrote this:
>
> > If you read the rest of the article, he has a strong bias towards valves.
> > Basically, he likes the AKSA because it sounds like a valve amp. Whether
> > that's right or wrong, depends on your opinion. I'm sure the ME850, given
> a
> > couple of lashings of second harmonic distortion, would sound like a valve
> > amp too :)
> >
> > Oops! *ducks head and runs*
>
> I largely agree with this sentiment.
But what sort of tube amp would any of these solid state concoctions sound
likeif they had lashings of second harmonic distortion?????
An SET, with zero NFB??? a PP, with lotsa FB, no FB????
SET has a lotta 2H, PP almost none, unless you have a preamp with lots.
There are the best SS amps, and then the best tube amps,
which sounds best?
Despite the advancements in SS audio, tube gear
holds a small but significant following, because it succeeds
where so much SS fails, and despite the labour content
for a tube amp is expensive, and the tubes wear out.
One would think tube gear would have faded
away like wind up gramophones, but no, some are
still cutting edge performers, and very difficult to improve on.
> > I'd be curious to hear an AKSA, if anyone ever builds one. Likewise with
> > Silicon Chip's amp that Trevor mentioned. Can't afford either at the
> moment
> > unfortunately!!
>
> If you tell me where you live on ak...@optushome.com.au, I will direct you
> to someone in your vicinity who owns an AKSA.
>
> BTW, Trevor, your continuing dominance of this newsgroup and your sweeping
> generalisations about issues you feel you know something about are merely
> irritating. But when we see you use this forum for the shameless promotion
> of the ME, which granted is a competent power amplifier of ingenious design,
> it is unacceptable. Please, ease off.
But Hugh, there are other SS amps just as competently designed,and certainly at
least one aussi brand, Halcro,
which sells for far more than ME.
Which sounds best, yours, ME, Halcro, one of mine?
Who indeed can answer that question.
Just because we hear so much about ME, especially from one source
on the news group does not mean that the product is superior to all others.
It just means one guy at least, thinks so.
Anyone who has frequented this NG for a few evenings
soon learns the ropes and sees that some discussions are thinly
veiled adds for ME.
But that's life today, just like universities being dominated by
commercial sponsors, throttling pure research and wisdom.
Many of the assertions about ME,
including the one about the benefit of having zero global feedback
and are so good because of this, are just pure bovine compost.
Plenty negative feedback in ME amps, that's for sure.
The same old tired amplifier arguments keep getting trotted out,
and it must drive a lot of folks well away.
Just believe your ears folks, if you are choosing an amp.
Almost nobody REALLY understands
the techno talk, and almost nobody, except you, and myself,
actually design and build amplifiers here on this group.
It sometimes gets frustrating to try to explain the intricasies of
circuit topology to people who couldn't build a one transitor line stage amp,
even if their life depended on it.
Most folks would not have any remote foggy idea
about how to set up an amplfier system with either
global or local feedback.
So preaching to the masses about the circuit topology
does almost nothing.
> If you feel so very strongly about one product, then why not set up a
> website and devote your energies within the website, where people have the
> option to visit?
> Sincerely,
>
> Hugh R. Dean
> www.printedelectronics.com
The funny thing is that you NEVER hear anyone proudly
claiming that they are building their tube amp to mimic the great sound
of solid state.
Which solid state would be meant????
ME??, Nelson Pass SE mosfet?, or one of mine?
For an alternative to solid struggle,
Patrick Turner.
Trevor Wilson
"Larry" <larr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bS3h8.4685$nC6....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
> > **No, I haven't. From what I can gather from the design, it is hardly
>
> It is fundamentally flawed to evaluate (review, judge, ...) an audio amp
> without listening. (I did not say design is not relevant.)
**Which is why I stated that I had not evaluated the product. To a point, I
agree. It is, however, not difficult to draw some conclusions, based on an
evaluation of the technology and topology used, in any given product.
>
> > comparable with the ME850. The two products are fundamentally different.
>
> Fundamentally different products can not be compared at all.
**That was what was asked of me. I replied, as requested. Having said that,
listeners often compare fundamentally different products, on a daily basis.
>
> >
> > *The ME850 utilises a MASSIVE power supply. The AKSA does not. In fact,
> the
>
> So, will an amplifier with a MASSIVE x 2 power supply simply outperform
any
> amplifier with only a MASSIVE power supply?
**The AKSA 55 Watt amp uses two 150VA (@ 7% regulation) power transformers.
The ME850 uses a single, split wound, 2,600VA (@ 4% regulation) power
transformer. The AKSA 55 Watt amp uses four 4,700uF filter caps. The ME850
uses fifty two 4,700uF filter caps. This is not MASSIVE X 2! This is MASSIVE
X 10. Does such a power supply automatically guarantee a better amplifier.
Of course not. Such a massive power supply does allow an amplifier to more
closely approximate a 'pure Voltage source', though. As such, all things
being equal, a massive power supply will allow an amplifier to be better
than the same amplifier, which uses a small power supply. The caveat (as I
stated before) is that when small, bass-limited loudseakers are used, a
small power supply may 'sound' better.
>
> > AKSA documentation specifically warns against too much filter
capacitance.
>
> That just means the AKSA designer has his design in his mind and knows
what
> he is doing.
**Possibly. Perhaps the designer is inflicting his/her own preferences too.
An amplifier which departs from the ideal, 'pure Voltage source' will, by
definition, be a poorer amplifier. Of course, if the listener is using
bass-limited loudspeakers, such an amplifier may be preferred.
>
> > In this sense, very tough speaker loads (including full frequency
spectrum
> > products) will likely be better served by an ME850. Small speaker may be
> > better served by the AKSA (or the ME200 for that matter).
> >
>
> No comments. But all products are designed with prefered working
conditions.
> The point is know what you are looking for.
**Of course. It seems that the person who wrote the comments about the
ME850, may have been better choosing one of MEs smaller products. The ME850
is a very fine amplifier. It may not be the ideal choice, for all
situations.
**Possibly. Please feel free to comment on my technical reasons for
preferring Zero Global NFB, if you wish.
>
>
> > *The ME850 uses the unusual output device configuration, known as Common
> > Emitter. The AKSA uses the more usual, easier to implement, Common
> Collector
> > configuration. Common Emitter, though more difficult to implement
> correctly,
> > offers far more isolation from loudspeaker loads, than Common Collector.
> > does. This is particularly relevant, when using highly reactive speaker
> > loads.
> >
>
> Three configurations of output devices can be found in all textbooks. If
the
> Common Emitter is the Holy Grail, idiots can copy. This is common sense.
**I never suggested that CE was the "Holy Grail". It offers a number of
advantages, over CC, which is more commonly used in audio amplifiers. It is
slightly more difficult to implement. Please feel free to comment on my
stated advantages peculiar to CE amplifiers.
>
> > *The ME850 (and all ME products) use fully balanced operation, using
> mirror
> > imaged differential pairs and current sources. Not only does this lead
to
> > much lower measured distortion, but transient distortion (for which no
> > measurement system exists) is theoretically lower.
> >
>
> I don't really understand what you mean. (You may absolutely correct)
> However, AKSA is designed to introduce some desired distortion. Ok, agree
or
> disagree. This is just two camps.
**Not really. Distortion is bad. Provided other, possibly more insidious,
forms of distortion are not created, then reduction of distortion is a
desirable goal. As a electronics PhD, you'll appreciate the advantages of
current sources and other distortion reduction systems.
>
> > Now, since you asked about the AKSA, I have confined my response to that
> > product. My comments are applicable to 99% of all SS amps available
today.
> > The AKSA is not a product for those who are not prepared to devote a
fair
> > amount of time and money to completing the product. In my opinion,
Silicon
> > Chip published details for a MUCH more interesting amplifier, several
> months
> > ago. It embodies several of the advantages displayed by the ME. Things
> like:
> > Current sources, decently balanced circuitry and Common Emitter
operation,
> > are all standard to the Silicon Chip design. HOWEVER, I feel that some
> > attention to details would assist in the sonic performance of that
> > amplifier. It is attention to details, that the AKSA design is strong
on.
> >
>
> New technology does not automatically guarantee good performance.
**And I never suggested otherwise. In point of fact, the core design of the
ME850 was developed in 1976. New technology has allowed ME to improve the
performance of their amplifiers, via the use of modern, low distortion
transistors and superior quality passives.
That's why
> some recordings of decades ago without this and that sounds much better
than
> recent ones with these and those. Again, the subjective evaluation in
audio
> performance has the last say. (I was involved in ISO JPEG committee and
the
> subjective evaluation of all proposed techniques had a significant role in
> selecting the candidates. We know how little we know about ourselves so
that
> we have to trust our eyes only.)
>
> I just built an AKSA. I don't want to comment on AKSA as I have not done
any
> meaningful evaluation and lack sufficient experience with other comparable
> products. So far, I am quite happy with AKSA.
**As well you should be. It appears to be a competent design. Have you
looked/listened to the recent Silicon Chip design. That appears to to me, to
be far more interesting.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Choky
--
Choky
Prodanovic Aleksandar
choky*remove*@eunet.yu
YU
remove *remove* to reply!!
===================
"Patrick Turner" <in...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:3C84E6F0...@turneraudio.com.au...
>
>
>
> But what sort of tube amp would any of these solid state concoctions sound
> likeif they had lashings of second harmonic distortion?????
> An SET, with zero NFB??? a PP, with lotsa FB, no FB????
>
> SET has a lotta 2H, PP almost none, unless you have a preamp with lots.
>
> There are the best SS amps, and then the best tube amps,
> which sounds best?
> Despite the advancements in SS audio, tube gear
> holds a small but significant following, because it succeeds
> where so much SS fails, and despite the labour content
> for a tube amp is expensive, and the tubes wear out.
>
> One would think tube gear would have faded
> away like wind up gramophones, but no, some are
> still cutting edge performers, and very difficult to improve on.
>
*************************************************************************************
Trevor Wilson
"Patrick Turner" <in...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:3C84E6F0...@turneraudio.com.au...
>
>
**I agree and disagree with this statement. Tubes succeed where POORLY
DESIGNED SS amps fail. Part of the reason why many listeners prefer tube
amps, is because they have yet to hear a properly designed and executed SS
amp.
>
> One would think tube gear would have faded
> away like wind up gramophones, but no, some are
> still cutting edge performers, and very difficult to improve on.
**I agree. A well designed and executed tube amp, can sound very good (ie:
Neutral) indeed.
**In case you had failed to notice, Patrick, there are quite a few comments
about ME amplifiers, from other people besides Trevor Wilson, on this NG.
And yes, just because the ME is well liked, by large numbers of audiophiles,
does not automatically mean that it is superior to all others.
> It just means one guy at least, thinks so.
**More than one, Patrick.
> Anyone who has frequented this NG for a few evenings
> soon learns the ropes and sees that some discussions are thinly
> veiled adds for ME.
**Pot, kettle, black, Patrick.
>
> But that's life today, just like universities being dominated by
> commercial sponsors, throttling pure research and wisdom.
>
> Many of the assertions about ME,
> including the one about the benefit of having zero global feedback
> and are so good because of this, are just pure bovine compost.
**Patrick, you are now becoming tiresome and just a little insulting. If you
can find fault with the logic of the ME design, then please feel free to
direct your comments at those issues. EXACTLY what is wron with ME's design
philosophy? When was the last time you sat down and did a proper A-B
comparison with a similarly configured high Global NFB amplifier and an ME?
> Plenty negative feedback in ME amps, that's for sure.
**It was never suggested otherwise. Further, there is is plenty of NFB in
ALL amplifiers. It HOW that NFB is implemented. That is the important thing.
ME keeps all it's NFB local, rather than Global.
> The same old tired amplifier arguments keep getting trotted out,
> and it must drive a lot of folks well away.
**Why wouldn' the "same old tired amplifier arguments" keep getting trotted
out? Nothing has changed. I have provided a number of compelling and logical
reasons WHY ME amplifiers outperform most others. All you say is: "bovine
compost". Sorry, Patrick. That ain't an argument. That is just an opinion.
>
> Just believe your ears folks, if you are choosing an amp.
> Almost nobody REALLY understands
> the techno talk, and almost nobody, except you, and myself,
> actually design and build amplifiers here on this group.
> It sometimes gets frustrating to try to explain the intricasies of
> circuit topology to people who couldn't build a one transitor line stage
amp,
> even if their life depended on it.
> Most folks would not have any remote foggy idea
> about how to set up an amplfier system with either
> global or local feedback.
> So preaching to the masses about the circuit topology
> does almost nothing.
**I see. So your opinion is that people are stupid and don't want to know?
Is that about it. I dunno about you Patrick, but when a client asks
questions, I try to answer them, with digrams and technical explanations, as
far as possible. Unlike you, Patrick, I treat all my clients as though they
have the ability to use their brains. In any case, there are a number of
technically capable people in this group. I have spoken with some of them
personally.
>
>
> > If you feel so very strongly about one product, then why not set up a
> > website and devote your energies within the website, where people have
the
> > option to visit?
>
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Hugh R. Dean
> > www.printedelectronics.com
>
> The funny thing is that you NEVER hear anyone proudly
> claiming that they are building their tube amp to mimic the great sound
> of solid state.
**And your claims about your SS amps are?
> Which solid state would be meant????
> ME??, Nelson Pass SE mosfet?, or one of mine?
>
> For an alternative to solid struggle,
>
> http://www.turneraudio.com.au
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
**Now Patrick! Enough of your disingenuos comments about my commercial
comments. Would you care to explain the above, in the same context?
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Trevor Wilson
"Hugh R. Dean" <ak...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:3c84a1ff$0$16638$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Hi Folks,
>
> Geoff wrote this:
>
> > If you read the rest of the article, he has a strong bias towards
valves.
> > Basically, he likes the AKSA because it sounds like a valve amp.
Whether
> > that's right or wrong, depends on your opinion. I'm sure the ME850,
given
> a
> > couple of lashings of second harmonic distortion, would sound like a
valve
> > amp too :)
> >
> > Oops! *ducks head and runs*
>
> I largely agree with this sentiment.
>
> > I'd be curious to hear an AKSA, if anyone ever builds one. Likewise
with
> > Silicon Chip's amp that Trevor mentioned. Can't afford either at the
> moment
> > unfortunately!!
>
> If you tell me where you live on ak...@optushome.com.au, I will direct you
> to someone in your vicinity who owns an AKSA.
>
> BTW, Trevor, your continuing dominance of this newsgroup and your sweeping
> generalisations about issues you feel you know something about are merely
> irritating.
**Then don't read my comments. Further, you may care to present facts and
figures to back up the above comment. Points:
But when we see you use this forum for the shameless promotion
> of the ME, which granted is a competent power amplifier of ingenious
design,
> it is unacceptable. Please, ease off.
**Why is it unacceptable? Because you say so? The initial post included a
question directed at Trevor Wilson. I responded, as requested, completely
on-topic. Further, I did not, nor have I so far, elected to launch a
personal attack on any person. You seem to have decided that this is an
appropriate forum to insult and denigrate. So be it. I will not stoop to
your level. I will continue to base my comments on facts.
>
> If you feel so very strongly about one product, then why not set up a
> website and devote your energies within the website, where people have the
> option to visit?
**Er, I have.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Marky
"Marky" <m...@c.com.au> wrote in message
news:a618l4$pr9$1...@perki.connect.com.au...
Geoff
Geoff
"Marky" <m...@c.com.au> wrote in message
news:a63fbg$3pp$1...@perki.connect.com.au...
Murray Dawson
<snip>
>
> Now, since you asked about the AKSA, I have confined my response to that
> product. My comments are applicable to 99% of all SS amps available today.
> The AKSA is not a product for those who are not prepared to devote a fair
> amount of time and money to completing the product. In my opinion, Silicon
> Chip published details for a MUCH more interesting amplifier, several
months
> ago. It embodies several of the advantages displayed by the ME. Things
like:
> Current sources, decently balanced circuitry and Common Emitter operation,
> are all standard to the Silicon Chip design. HOWEVER, I feel that some
> attention to details would assist in the sonic performance of that
> amplifier. It is attention to details, that the AKSA design is strong on.
>
I'll have to take you to task about your comments about the Silicon Chip
amp, Trevor.
- I wouldn't call it interesting - it's simply a rehash of an amp they've
called two other names with slight modifications (Plastic Power amp, 15w
Class A, and Ultra-Low distortion amp, that I know of).
- the SC amp does employ current sources and mirrors - I don't know about
the decently balanced part... the Vbe multiplier's thermal stability leaves
something to be desired... yet you do mention that some attention to detail
would assist in the sonic performance.
- It, however, does not employ common emmitter output stages. It uses a
complimentary feedback pair with doubled output trannies. This configuration
is acknowledged to offer the least distortion of all output stages,
including CE (ref Self's book).
- I don't know how much GNFB the AKSA uses - I haven't seen a schematic with
values on it, but the SC amp uses heaps. It seems odd that you rubbish one
amp for using heaps of GNFB, and yet promote an amp that probably uses as
much, if not more.
Having said all that, I have one of the SC amps at home that I built and I
am very happy with it... and I think the secret to its success is low noise,
THD, and very good channel separation, which are hard to achieve without
meticulous attention to detail. The AKSA looks interesting, and I'd like to
try it, but I'd at least like to see a full schematic before I did.
Murray Dawson
Trevor Wilson
"Murray Dawson" <Murray...@anu.edu.au> wrote in message
news:3c856477$1...@clarion.carno.net.au...
**And why does that not make it interesting? I approve of their decision to
couple Collectors to the load. IME, the best sounding amplifiers are
configured that way.
>
> - the SC amp does employ current sources and mirrors - I don't know about
> the decently balanced part... the Vbe multiplier's thermal stability
leaves
> something to be desired... yet you do mention that some attention to
detail
> would assist in the sonic performance.
**Of course. The amplifier is designed for ease of construction (nothing
wrong with that) and so has some compromises in component choice and
quality. These would be fairly simple to remedy, thus improving (possibly)
the sonics of the product.
>
> - It, however, does not employ common emmitter output stages. It uses a
> complimentary feedback pair with doubled output trannies. This
configuration
> is acknowledged to offer the least distortion of all output stages,
> including CE (ref Self's book).
**Yep. Let's call it Collectors to load, then.
>
> - I don't know how much GNFB the AKSA uses - I haven't seen a schematic
with
> values on it, but the SC amp uses heaps. It seems odd that you rubbish one
> amp for using heaps of GNFB, and yet promote an amp that probably uses as
> much, if not more.
**I rubbish nothing. My words:
"Personally, I don't much care for the sound of high Global NFB amplifiers,
but some listeners do."
I then went on to elucidate the advantages of a Zero Global NFB design.
Hardly "rubbishing" another design. I even acknowledged that it was MY
personal preference. In any case, the topology of the Silicon Chip amplifier
looks far more interesting and is undeniably more sophisticated than the
AKSA one. IMO.
>
> Having said all that, I have one of the SC amps at home that I built and I
> am very happy with it... and I think the secret to its success is low
noise,
> THD, and very good channel separation, which are hard to achieve without
> meticulous attention to detail.
**Agreed. A couple of the SC designs, I've heard, sound pretty good. The
catch is to ensure the correct parts are supplied by Jaycar, DSE, Altronics,
et al. As Phil Allison is happy to remind us, component substitution is
rife. This, of course, is one major advantage of the AKSA product. AKSA can
keep control of their own component suppliers. This is not a trivial issue.
Large(ish) manufacturers can deal direct with component importers and or
overseas suppliers. The rest of us are stuck with what DSE and Jaycar flog.
The AKSA looks interesting, and I'd like to
> try it, but I'd at least like to see a full schematic before I did.
**Good luck.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Marky
I didn't mean to start it, i swear. :)
"Geoff" <spamif...@cyberjunkie.com> wrote in message
news:3c856541$0$6217$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
BB
>
>
> > As for the ME850 at 8W Class A, would it drive a 92dB SPL speaker
> > in class A for say listening at night, 3m from listening & relatively
> > quiet room?
>
> **The ME850 actually delivers nearer 16 Watts Class A. This is a huge
amount
> of power and more is unlikely to be required by most listeners.
>
BTW: Some Brittish amps claim 150W pure class A, is this possible?
Trevor Wilson
>
> "Trevor Wilson" <rage...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3c8456da$0$18468$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> >
> >
> > > As for the ME850 at 8W Class A, would it drive a 92dB SPL speaker
> > > in class A for say listening at night, 3m from listening & relatively
> > > quiet room?
> >
> > **The ME850 actually delivers nearer 16 Watts Class A. This is a huge
> amount
> > of power and more is unlikely to be required by most listeners.
> >
> Website says up to 8Watts for ME850
**Very probably. I know that there is some out-of-date stuff on the ME site.
> BTW: Some Brittish amps claim 150W pure class A, is this possible?
**No. Well, not without serious forced air, or water cooling, anyway. The
only REAL Class A amps, of more than 100 Watts, I have ever seen are:
Gryphon DM100
Krell KSA100
Krell KMA100
Krell KMA200
ME1500
Many of the UK sourced amplifiers, which are claimed to possess Class A
powers in excess of 100 Watts, are more like 10 Watt. Which is a
considerable chunk of Class A power, BTW. I recall trading in a Musical
Fidelity P370. It was alleged to 185 Watts Class A. It was huge, hot and
heavy. It was also 13 Watts Class A.
Trade or be kicked.
Hugh R. Dean
If I might chime in with right of reply.....
First, the AKSA was designed on the basis of listening tests
and an obsession with simplicity. This is the reason it
appears unrefined, but nothing could be further from the
truth in either the sonic or the electronic sense.
Einstein once said, 'Everything should be kept as simple as
possible, but no simpler'. In the case of audio amplifiers,
a technology redolent with technology for its own sake, I
would rephrase this to read, 'Everything should be kept as
simple as possible, and no more complicated than necessary.'
The AKSA was inspired from a Nelson Pass design - the
Citation 12. This was a very good amplifier in its day, and
still sounds good. This was the basic engineering.
Keeping scrupulously to Ohms and Kirchoff's Laws, it was
built out in myriad configurations with much influence from
Bailey, Pass, Self, Linsley Hood, and Bongiorno (the
'Ampzilla'). Hiraga and Morrison were also influences. The
extremes of operation were figured out, then listening tests
began. Many people's ears were used. Tens, even hundreds,
and the Melbourne Audio Club as well.
I too was very attracted to current sources, current
mirrors, and complementary feedback pairs. I investigated
all these circuit tricks and loved them. But for reasons I
discuss on my website, www.printedelectronics.com, they
cause difficulties. For example, the CFP, the fabled
Sziklai pair which is dearly loved in the high fi world, is
not particularly stable, not too robust either, and has
thermal stability issues as well. It's fine in single
ended - I know this because I built a very competent SE amp
using this configuration called the Glass Harmony which some
say is my best amp - but in Class AB it is not sufficiently
stable to give high resolution at all frequencies, and much
of Doug Self's theoretical analysis of this configuration
looks great on paper but sounds lousy in real life.
The conventional double emitter follower is best in real
life. It delivers the smoothest performance with the most
robust output stage, and can be meshed with a simple Vbe
multiplier for highly accurate thermal bias control. I have
found no other configuration to compare with it overall, and
it sounds best to boot. By the time the CFP is tamed for
stability, all vocalists just seem to sound 'tired'. Not on
for audiophile use, of course.
The AKSA is my proprietary design and will not be published
in the public domain. People who buy the kitset get the
schematic, and are asked to keep it confidential. An
indicative schematic, without the refinements, has been
published for a time on Rod Elliot's ESP site in Sydney.
This is my living, and I do my best to protect it. A
moment's reflection reveals this is a fair approach; the
circuit is simple, but it is not unrefined by any stretch of
the imagination. It's worth some protection, at
least.......
On the issue of nfb, there is in truth no 'global negative
feedback' sound. It depends how the stability issues and
feedback voltage division is implemented. The AKSA is
unique in the way it handles nfb, and this is one of it's
strengths, since this means there is no intermodulation
distortion.
I do not choose to market my amplifier here in Australia.
The market is too small and rather cynical, and our dollar
undervalued, so for us, it seems expensive. My amplifier is
meeting with huge acceptance in the States, and these guys
consider it the best value kitset in their market, whopping
as it does a number of $US2000+ designs. I have just signed
a US royalty agreement to manufacture and market the AKSA as
a retail product in the US and Korea, and predictably, this
sort of offer is just not possible for our home market.
In closing, there are three important aspects to audio amp
designs; topology, which is obviously very important;
component choice, particularly capacitors; and layout,
which is MUCH more important than previously thought. The
whole is made up of these parts, and a great deal of design
iteration is necessary to optimise things. Of course, the
final aspect, hidden, but perhaps the most important, is
marketing. Marketing is fundamental.
Trevor, I bear you no ill will, but before making indirect
comments on the merits or otherwise of other people's
designs, it does behove you to listen and seek out, even if
you do have an impressive pedigree as a technician. My
sights are firmly set on the US kitset market, so
indifferent press in Australia is not too worrying, but
please, be aware that Australians are famous for seeking out
what they perceive to be the negative aspects, and a little
indulgence on your behalf about something you half know
about is probably the wisest course.
Sincerely,
Hugh R. Dean
Research/Technical Director
Aspen Amplifiers P/L
http://www.printedelectronics.com
Melbourne AUSTRALIA
Patrick Turner
Trevor Wilson wrote:
> "Patrick Turner" <in...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3C84E6F0...@turneraudio.com.au...
> >
> > Most folks would not have any remote foggy idea
> > about how to set up an amplfier system with either
> > global or local feedback.
> > So preaching to the masses about the circuit topology
> > does almost nothing.
>
> **I see. So your opinion is that people are stupid and don't want to know?
> Is that about it. I dunno about you Patrick, but when a client asks
> questions, I try to answer them, with digrams and technical explanations, as
> far as possible. Unlike you, Patrick, I treat all my clients as though they
> have the ability to use their brains. In any case, there are a number of
> technically capable people in this group. I have spoken with some of them
> personally.
99.5% of readers in the news group are technicallyincapable of any serious
design of the simplest amp,
and trying get my clients to see what I do under the bonnet
on my machines is a difficult challenge, becuase even the simplest
ideas about voltage, current, L, C, NFB, are very poorly understood.
Its like asking a sugeon to describe all the aspects of a new knew joint.
We are as consumers of medical expertise, quite untrained
medically, and only really know that the new knew joint will enable us
to walk and work free of pain, and have only a vague idea about the technical
aspects,
compared to the detailed knowledge
of the surgeon.
It is similar to a decent sound system, it enables us to hear
music more clearly, if the builders of that gear did their homework well.
I have always welcomed questions from anyone,
but many folk will never quite understand all there is to know about the
workings of electronic gear, and the differences about applied feedback
stability isues, and most of the other stuff "discussed" here
at aus hi-fi.
> > The funny thing is that you NEVER hear anyone proudly
> > claiming that they are building their tube amp to mimic the great sound
> > of solid state.
>
> **And your claims about your SS amps are?
>
> > Which solid state would be meant????
> > ME??, Nelson Pass SE mosfet?, or one of mine?
> >
> > For an alternative to solid struggle,
> >
> > http://www.turneraudio.com.au
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> **Now Patrick! Enough of your disingenuos comments about my commercial
> comments. Would you care to explain the above, in the same context?
It is all self explanatory, and needs no further explanation
Patrick Turner.
remarkabel
Patrick Turner <in...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote:
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
> > "Patrick Turner" <in...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:3C84E6F0...@turneraudio.com.au...
> > >
>
> > > Most folks would not have any remote foggy idea
> > > about how to set up an amplfier system with either
> > > global or local feedback.
> > > So preaching to the masses about the circuit topology
> > > does almost nothing.
> >
> > **I see. So your opinion is that people are stupid and don't want to know?
> > Is that about it. I dunno about you Patrick, but when a client asks
> > questions, I try to answer them, with digrams and technical explanations, as
> > far as possible. Unlike you, Patrick, I treat all my clients as though they
> > have the ability to use their brains. In any case, there are a number of
> > technically capable people in this group. I have spoken with some of them
> > personally.
>
> 99.5% of readers in the news group are technicallyincapable of any serious
> design of the simplest amp,
I had never considered you to be the arrogant type. Before this drivel I
had considered your input to very informative. I'm not sure how many
regular readers of this group there are but I'm quite sure that more
than 0.5% of them would be "technically capable" of designing a simple
amp. Whether they have the inclination to do it or whether they have the
experience and technical expertise to design a *good* amp is a different
issue. Clear and concise explanations of various circuit topologies and
the reasoning behind them can and may be beneficial to many who do not
have the inclination or knowhow to design amps such as your's or ME's.
Even those that lack the ability to undertake "any serious design of the
simplest amp" are not morons nor the blithering idiots you credit them
with being.
> and trying get my clients to see what I do under the bonnet
> on my machines is a difficult challenge, becuase even the simplest
> ideas about voltage, current, L, C, NFB, are very poorly understood.
> Its like asking a sugeon to describe all the aspects of a new knew joint.
Not exactly. It is however like asking a surgeon what the differences
are between procedure "A" and procedure "B" and then asking about the
benefits and risks associated with.
> We are as consumers of medical expertise, quite untrained
> medically,
Absolutely. But if we ask we can become better informed. A surgeon who
declines to explain a procedure to me is a surgeon who won't be cutting
in to me.
and only really know that the new knew joint will enable us
> to walk and work free of pain, and have only a vague idea about the technical
> aspects,
> compared to the detailed knowledge
> of the surgeon.
Sure, but what is wrong with wanting to understand more and better? We
do not need to aspire to the detailed knowledge of the surgeon nor the
amp designer but we can sure hope to learn a little along the way.
> It is similar to a decent sound system, it enables us to hear
> music more clearly, if the builders of that gear did their homework well.
> I have always welcomed questions from anyone,
> but many folk will never quite understand all there is to know about the
> workings of electronic gear, and the differences about applied feedback
> stability isues, and most of the other stuff "discussed" here
> at aus hi-fi.
And the amp designer who wants to keep all of his secrets risks being
branded a vendor of snake oil.
>
> > > The funny thing is that you NEVER hear anyone proudly
> > > claiming that they are building their tube amp to mimic the great sound
> > > of solid state.
> >
> > **And your claims about your SS amps are?
> >
> > > Which solid state would be meant????
> > > ME??, Nelson Pass SE mosfet?, or one of mine?
> > >
> > > For an alternative to solid struggle,
> > >
> > > http://www.turneraudio.com.au
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > **Now Patrick! Enough of your disingenuos comments about my commercial
> > comments. Would you care to explain the above, in the same context?
>
> It is all self explanatory, and needs no further explanation
Well treat us like the simple idiots you seem to consider us to be and
make it clear as glass
>
> Patrick Turner.
>
> http://www.turneraudio.com.au
>
>
>
Geoff
> Almost nobody REALLY understands
> the techno talk, and almost nobody, except you, and myself,
> actually design and build amplifiers here on this group.
That doesn't mean the rest of us aren't interested in amplifier concepts.
> It sometimes gets frustrating to try to explain the intricasies of
> circuit topology to people who couldn't build a one transitor line stage
amp,
> even if their life depended on it.
Don't do it then. Just say it uses the latest school of thought in regards
to doing this or preventing that... and be done with it. When you are
talking to someone whose eyes WON'T glaze over, then bring forth the
details.
> Most folks would not have any remote foggy idea
> about how to set up an amplfier system with either
> global or local feedback.
> So preaching to the masses about the circuit topology
> does almost nothing.
Wastes your time... don't preach to the masses. I don't consider this ng to
be "the masses" though.
> The funny thing is that you NEVER hear anyone proudly
> claiming that they are building their tube amp to mimic the great sound
> of solid state.
There'd be no market for it. The clueless newbies think solid state is the
way forward, so that's what they buy. People who consider valve amps to be
a niche market may be tempted by a transistor amp that "sounds like" a valve
amp at less cost. Then you get people who are into valves, and they
certainly wouldn't buy one that sounds like a transistor amp. Why go to all
the trouble of using valves only to make it sound like something you could
buy for half the price?
Geoff
Geoff
serious
> > design of the simplest amp,
>
> I had never considered you to be the arrogant type. Before this drivel I
> had considered your input to very informative. I'm not sure how many
> regular readers of this group there are but I'm quite sure that more
> than 0.5% of them would be "technically capable" of designing a simple
> amp. Whether they have the inclination to do it or whether they have the
> experience and technical expertise to design a *good* amp is a different
> issue. Clear and concise explanations of various circuit topologies and
> the reasoning behind them can and may be beneficial to many who do not
> have the inclination or knowhow to design amps such as your's or ME's.
> Even those that lack the ability to undertake "any serious design of the
> simplest amp" are not morons nor the blithering idiots you credit them
> with being.
well said.
Patrick Turner
remarkabel wrote:
> In article <3C85812B...@turneraudio.com.au>,
> Patrick Turner <in...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >
> > > "Patrick Turner" <in...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote in message
> > > news:3C84E6F0...@turneraudio.com.au...
> > > >
> >
> > > > Most folks would not have any remote foggy idea
> > > > about how to set up an amplfier system with either
> > > > global or local feedback.
> > > > So preaching to the masses about the circuit topology
> > > > does almost nothing.
> > >
> > > **I see. So your opinion is that people are stupid and don't want to know?
> > > Is that about it. I dunno about you Patrick, but when a client asks
> > > questions, I try to answer them, with digrams and technical explanations, as
> > > far as possible. Unlike you, Patrick, I treat all my clients as though they
> > > have the ability to use their brains. In any case, there are a number of
> > > technically capable people in this group. I have spoken with some of them
> > > personally.
> >
> > 99.5% of readers in the news group are technicallyincapable of any serious
> > design of the simplest amp,
>
> I had never considered you to be the arrogant type. Before this drivel I
> had considered your input to very informative.
And I will continue to try to be informative, whilst also realisingthat not
everybody designs new amps, builds new amps, or repairs
old ones for a living, in between time spent answering emails about it all.
I'm not sure how many
> regular readers of this group there are but I'm quite sure that more
> than 0.5% of them would be "technically capable" of designing a simple
> amp. Whether they have the inclination to do it or whether they have the
> experience and technical expertise to design a *good* amp is a different
> issue. Clear and concise explanations of various circuit topologies and
> the reasoning behind them can and may be beneficial to many who do not
> have the inclination or knowhow to design amps such as your's or ME's.
> Even those that lack the ability to undertake "any serious design of the
> simplest amp" are not morons nor the blithering idiots you credit them
> with being.
Never did I suggest that any of my clients are what you call"blithering idiots" -
that's your incorrect interpretation that
I was simply suggesting that most clients of mine,
and most people hear on the news group are not savvy with
deep circuit analysis.
This is a fact of life.
I am pretty dumb when it comes to farnarcling around with
computers.
I am left to guess who seems to be telling the truth about these machines,
and I have to guess who makes sense when they give reasons for
a purchase I am about to make.
Not all dealers in PC things are reputable, they try to swan about being impressive,
and knowledgeable, but sometimes it just leads to a rip off,
when you find out later that they could have advised and explained better.
With audio matters, I spent years learning so I could be independant
to the purveyors of the status quo in audio, and know myself
what seems to be good design.
I am not by any means very well informed about digital.
So when I see the arguments about digital issues,
I just yawn, because how the heck do I know who is telling the truth?
I most certainly have not a clue about brain surgery.
But I do know a few things about amplifiers.
So I do everyone a favour by saying that whenever
claims of superiority are made about amplifiers of one kind or another,
based on extended dissertations on topologies, then beware,
it could all be sales talk, and perhaps all inaccurate info,
if it could be refuted in part or as a whole.
Sorry to upset the cozy apple cart but some of the claims about amps
here are somewhat challengeable.
I repeat, let your ears be the judge.
> > and trying get my clients to see what I do under the bonnet
> > on my machines is a difficult challenge, becuase even the simplest
> > ideas about voltage, current, L, C, NFB, are very poorly understood.
> > Its like asking a sugeon to describe all the aspects of a new knew joint.
>
> Not exactly. It is however like asking a surgeon what the differences
> are between procedure "A" and procedure "B" and then asking about the
> benefits and risks associated with.
The depth of understanding of operation A or B is somewhat limited.But at least
nobody complains I never inform as well as I can,
when asked specific questions.
A lot of the answers are very long, and baffling to anyone untrained
in electronics. I do try to give explanations though.
Try going to rec.audio tubes and I have tried to post there 20 times a week,
answering questions about tube amp craft from all around the world.
When I have posted some novel circuit idea, as a new
thread, often I get no replies, because what I have said has strayed from the
majority's experiences of tube audio, which does not include design,
but does include tweaking and mods of well know amps of the past.
Much of what I have said there goes right over the heads of most readers.
Perhaps one or two might keep a few postings saved, so they can apply
the knowledge later when they build something for themselves.
Nobody seems to read postings from 3 days ago.
And most of the general public don't even know what a tube is,
let alone how it works.
Andy Warhole said you only ever get 15 minutes of real fame,
but here on the news groups, you are lucky to get 15 microseconds......
Seems like the world is headed for the instant fix for
becoming informed, and there ain't no such thing possible.
Books have almost become entirely redundant,
people expect an all wise answer from their screen,
rather from their ears, or their library,
and so I despair sometimes.
> > We are as consumers of medical expertise, quite untrained
> > medically,
>
> Absolutely. But if we ask we can become better informed. A surgeon who
> declines to explain a procedure to me is a surgeon who won't be cutting
> in to me.
But surgeons can say almost anything they like to placate you,and they know you are
pig ignorant. They often withold information,
knowing that what you don't know, won't hurt you.
If your condition is life threatening, then you takes your chances,
and argue about it later, if you live on.
Surgeons bury their mistakes, I have to live with mine.
> and only really know that the new knew joint will enable us
> > to walk and work free of pain, and have only a vague idea about the technical
> > aspects,
> > compared to the detailed knowledge
> > of the surgeon.
>
> Sure, but what is wrong with wanting to understand more and better? We
> do not need to aspire to the detailed knowledge of the surgeon nor the
> amp designer but we can sure hope to learn a little along the way.
You said it, learn a little, along the way.I try to provide all with that info.
> > It is similar to a decent sound system, it enables us to hear
> > music more clearly, if the builders of that gear did their homework well.
> > I have always welcomed questions from anyone,
> > but many folk will never quite understand all there is to know about the
> > workings of electronic gear, and the differences about applied feedback
> > stability isues, and most of the other stuff "discussed" here
> > at aus hi-fi.
>
> And the amp designer who wants to keep all of his secrets risks being
> branded a vendor of snake oil.
In order to never be branded a snake oil salesman,I have a website that allows
somebody to get a price on a tube amp
in one mouse click, and then there are pictures, and a whole bunch of circuits.
I even have all my best designs for output transformers.
I do get a few emails each week from people who really are trying to help themselves
by building their own amps.
These are doers, and achievers, and I have nore time for them
than the perpetual chat on some NGs.
People think I am mad to give such secrets out.
No, not mad, hopefully some bright keen person will make those
OPTs and then sell them back to me.
But there has not been any slightest sign that anything like that
is to happen. Its because it is so darn difficult to make a decent OPT.
People soon realise there is no future for profit in making world beating
designs, unless you have already earned a position in the hiereichy
of brandnames, over a long period, and by spending profits on
the right adverts in the right magazines, and bribing the right
reviewers. Compared to Bill Johnson at Audio Research,
I am just a street kid.
> > > > The funny thing is that you NEVER hear anyone proudly
> > > > claiming that they are building their tube amp to mimic the great sound
> > > > of solid state.
> > >
> > > **And your claims about your SS amps are?
Some folks think my tube amps do rather well against manywell known SS brands.
But I did have a muso client once who was dissapointed when
a 35 watt UL amp started showing signs of trouble when
the volume level was painful to me.
He loves tubes, but can't pay the bucks for a decent amp.
I sure won't be able to ever please all the people all the time.
> > >
> > > > Which solid state would be meant????
> > > > ME??, Nelson Pass SE mosfet?, or one of mine?
> > > >
> > > > For an alternative to solid struggle,
> > > >
> > > > http://www.turneraudio.com.au
> > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > >
> > > **Now Patrick! Enough of your disingenuos comments about my commercial
> > > comments. Would you care to explain the above, in the same context?
> >
> > It is all self explanatory, and needs no further explanation
>
> Well treat us like the simple idiots you seem to consider us to be and
> make it clear as glass
I cannot and will not perpetually endeavour to argue anddispute all the claims made
repeatedly about amplifiers.
If you think I consider everyone here to be stupid
then you are wrong, and you have missed my entire point.
I see no reason to repeat the same arguments about the same audio amp issues
3 times a year, with the same contestants.
Its a waste of time, and I am darn busy, and it amazes me how some
do manage to put out so many posts on so many news groups.....
I will repeat, that many folks here think they know all about
amps, PCs, cars, women, beer, wine, footbrall,
you name it.
But in fact, the depth of the knowledge may not be so deep.
So when I see ridiculous claims and statements,
like folks trying to make SS amps sound like tube amps,
then what am I to think?
I would enchorage all readers to ask why is it so
about issues a bit more often
Patrick Turner.
Choky
--
Choky
Prodanovic Aleksandar
choky*remove*@eunet.yu
YU
remove *remove* to reply!!
===================
"Patrick Turner" <in...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:3C85F1DC...@turneraudio.com.au...
Trevor Wilson
>
> Trevor, I bear you no ill will, but before making indirect
> comments on the merits or otherwise of other people's
> designs, it does behove you to listen and seek out, even if
> you do have an impressive pedigree as a technician.
**I agree. I like to examine all aspects of a design, before I make too many
comments. My intitial (and subsequent) comments were confined to a request
for my thoughts on comparing an ME850 to the AKSA design. My comments stand.
The two products are fundamentally different and are aimed at different
users. Comparisons are pretty much a waste of time. I would be MUCH more
interested in comparing the AKSA with (say) the most recent Silicon Chip
design. Both are kit amplifiers and are similarly priced.
My
> sights are firmly set on the US kitset market, so
> indifferent press in Australia is not too worrying, but
> please, be aware that Australians are famous for seeking out
> what they perceive to be the negative aspects, and a little
> indulgence on your behalf about something you half know
> about is probably the wisest course.
**Probably. As I stated, I would be most interested in comparing an AKSA to
the Silicon Chip design. Perhaps and ME200 might be an interesting
comparison as well.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Trevor Wilson
>
>
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
> > "Patrick Turner" <in...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:3C84E6F0...@turneraudio.com.au...
> > >
>
> > > Most folks would not have any remote foggy idea
> > > global or local feedback.
> > > So preaching to the masses about the circuit topology
> > > does almost nothing.
> >
> > **I see. So your opinion is that people are stupid and don't want to
know?
> > Is that about it. I dunno about you Patrick, but when a client asks
explanations, as
> > far as possible. Unlike you, Patrick, I treat all my clients as though
they
> > have the ability to use their brains. In any case, there are a number of
> > technically capable people in this group. I have spoken with some of
them
> > personally.
>
> 99.5% of readers in the news group are technicallyincapable of any serious
> design of the simplest amp,
**I would be most interested in seeing your evidence to substantiate this
figure. For me, I would estimate that at least 30% of my clients require
some kind of explanation as to why the ME amplifier they are listening to,
sounds superior to Brand XYZ. I find that my training (some 30 years ago) in
'Technical Communication' has stood me in good stead. We were taught to
reduce technical concepts to their simplest levels and pass those concepts
to lay people. I enjoy doing it and I hope my clients learn a little about
the complexity of the products they own, or are considering purchasing.
> and trying get my clients to see what I do under the bonnet
> on my machines is a difficult challenge, because even the simplest
> ideas about voltage, current, L, C, NFB, are very poorly understood.
> Its like asking a sugeon to describe all the aspects of a new knew joint.
> We are as consumers of medical expertise, quite untrained
> medically, and only really know that the new knew joint will enable us
> to walk and work free of pain, and have only a vague idea about the
technical
> aspects,
> compared to the detailed knowledge
> of the surgeon.
**I cannot strip my gearbox nor pull down my engine. I have made myself
reasonably in touch with the basic workings of my automobile, however. It
helps, when there is a problem. To regard clients and potential clients as
being technically illiterate, does them and you a disservice. However, I am
not here to tell you how to run your business. I know, for instance, that
people would probably want to know why an output transformer costs (say)
three times the price of an equivalently sized power transformer. You and I
know that interleaving is highly labour intensive and increases the cost and
size of an output transformer. Many novices, however, just think an
appropriately ratio'd single wound transformer will be adequate. Little
issues like this, should be spelled out to clients, if they seek the
knowledge.
> It is similar to a decent sound system, it enables us to hear
> music more clearly, if the builders of that gear did their homework well.
> I have always welcomed questions from anyone,
> but many folk will never quite understand all there is to know about the
> workings of electronic gear, and the differences about applied feedback
> stability isues, and most of the other stuff "discussed" here
> at aus hi-fi.
**Again, you are treating people like fools. I expect that if I have
inadequately explained a particular technical issue, that a question will be
asked. It is NOT the failing of the person asking the question. It is MY
failing, for not adequately explaining the answer.
>
> > > The funny thing is that you NEVER hear anyone proudly
> > > claiming that they are building their tube amp to mimic the great
sound
> > > of solid state.
> >
> > **And your claims about your SS amps are?
> >
> > > Which solid state would be meant????
> > > ME??, Nelson Pass SE mosfet?, or one of mine?
> > >
> > > For an alternative to solid struggle,
> > >
> > > http://www.turneraudio.com.au
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > **Now Patrick! Enough of your disingenuous comments about my commercial
> > comments. Would you care to explain the above, in the same context?
>
> It is all self explanatory, and needs no further explanation
**My point exactly. Pot, kettle, black.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
BB
is more appropriate, considering the AKSA only cost ~$500
I suspect that the AKSA would likely leave the others for dead, and
of course the fun of making the amp as well.
"Trevor Wilson" <rage...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:3c868280$0$18469$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Trevor Wilson
> I reckon compare the AKSA to similar priced Denon, Marantz, NAD, Rotel
> is more appropriate, considering the AKSA only cost ~$500
> I suspect that the AKSA would likely leave the others for dead, and
> of course the fun of making the amp as well.
>
**As well it should. $500.00 does not buy you:
*Power supply.
*Case.
*Fancy front panel.
*Labour to assemble.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Larry
Fully optioned AKSA kit = $674.20 (including shipping in Australia)
Toroidal transformers x 2 = $152 (excluding shipping in Australia)
Chasis (19" 3U enclosure) = $119
Others (RCA, Posts, IEC, LED, toggle, internal wires etc) >= $50
Total: $995.20
I am particularly interested in comparing AKSA to a push-pull tube amp (<
$5000). Tube sonics is the emphasis of AKSA.
I stay in Sydney. If you have interest in this, please email me privately
then we could organise a session. (Welcome to compare whatever amps you like
to compare, or just listen to AKSA). If there are enough interests, we could
do a pretty formal test.
Cheers,
Larry
"BB" <bb...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:newscache$k7sksg$0fn$1...@news.intrapower.com.au...
BB
Thanks
"Trevor Wilson" <rage...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:3c8487e3$0$18468$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "BB" <bb...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:newscache$d7phsg$d9b$1...@news.intrapower.com.au...
> > What about internal photo of ME850.
> >
>
> **Geez. I'll post one tomorrow.
>
>
> --
> Trevor Wilson
> www.rageaudio.com.au
>
>
remarkabel
Patrick Turner <in...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote:
These comments make everything you said much clearer. I fear I may have
gotten the wrong end of the stick and ended up giving you an undeserved
whack with it. For that I apologize. Your initial statements when read
literally did infer to me that the reason you did not want to discuss in
further detail was simply that you assumed we in the group were not
capable of comprehending what you may have to contribute.
Clearly I was the "blithering idiot" in this case... :-) Sorry....
cheers,
Mark
remarkabel
Patrick Turner <in...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote:
These comments make everything you said much clearer. I fear I may have
gotten the wrong end of the stick and ended up giving you an undeserved
whack with it. For that I apologize. Your initial statements when read
literally did infer to me that the reason you did not want to discuss in
further detail was simply that you assumed we in the group were not
capable of comprehending what you may have to contribute.
Clearly I was the "blithering idiot" in this case. Sorry....
cheers,
Mark