ME 1500 v ME 850 ?
Peter Rainbird
second hand ME 1500 or ME 850 ? Are there demonstrable sound
differences ?
Trevor Wilson
"Peter Rainbird" <peter.r...@act.gov.au> wrote in message
news:ec549b61.04032...@posting.google.com...
> Quick question: In true antipodean jingoistic style, should I tempt a
> second hand ME 1500 or ME 850 ?
**It depends.
Are there demonstrable sound
> differences ?
**Absolutely. However, it depends on the speakers. Through (say) a pair of
Ambience Super Slims, the difference is barely noticeable. Through a pair of
Duntech Sovereigns, the difference is more like night and day. The
Sovereigns are VERY hungry speakers and can easily cope with the enormous
power of the ME1500.
Essentially, the ME850 is 2/3rds of an ME1500, but with a smaller (but
purely academic) power supply. Either amp can cope with *any* loudspeaker
ever made (or ever likely to be made). The only real difference, is the
extra Voltage output capability of the ME1500.
A point of caution, however:
The ME1500 is an old design (early models date back to 1985), which has gone
through several incantations over the years. The ME850 has only seen one
(major) change, in its history (the ME850 dates back to 1989). Very early
ME1500 amps may require substantial (and expensive) work to bring them up to
the most recent spec. At least one of the changes involves replacement of
the DC fans, with AC fans. This was done for enhanced reliability and
longevity. The upgrade is expensive (ca: $1500.00) and necessary, if the fan
or fan control system fails. AC fan models have experienced no known
failures. All ME850 models were fitted with AC fans. The only major change
to the ME850 was the change to an all alloy chassis, which coincided with
the fitting of a larger (2kVA - 2.5kVA) power transformer. The sound
difference was quite small, but the cosmetic upgrade was significant.
You should have either amp checked carefully by either ME Sound or myself,
so you know what you are buying. ME Sound may be able to track serial
numbers for you, to provide an indication of what age and status the amp is.
You should also verify that no incompetent techs have attempted service.
Some repair work I've seen on ME amplifiers is nothing short of abysmal. ME
amplifiers MUST be fitted with critically matched components, when serviced.
Many incompetent techs cannot be bothered. Some disable the protection
systems, rather than service the amps correctly. Again, a careful check can
bring any problems into focus.
I have a nice alloy chassis ME850 available, if that is what you require.
Either amplifier is a stunning product.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
newsreader
"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:4063fbf9$1...@news.comindico.com.au...
>
> The ME1500 is an old design (early models date back to 1985), which has
gone
> through several incantations over the years.
"incantations" ???
does this amplifier possess mystical properties ?
Trevor Wilson
"newsreader" <nos...@spamfree.com> wrote in message
news:UdV8c.3944$u%1.52...@news02.tsnz.net...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4063fbf9$1...@news.comindico.com.au...
> >
> > The ME1500 is an old design (early models date back to 1985), which has
> gone
> > through several incantations over the years.
>
> "incantations" ???
**Mea culpa. Make that incarnations.
>
> does this amplifier possess mystical properties ?
**Many feel it does.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
MDHJWH
Given TW's religious devotion to the brand it may well be the case for
him.........;~)
P31 ..............still TW.
Peter Rainbird
Trevor, Many thanks for a clear and helpful response. I will speak
with you directly re the 850. I have never owned a piece of ME
equipment. However, if the build quality of the 850 is as described,
the state of the parent company is somewhat academic. Case in point:
I have an Audio Innovations pre-amp (English tube). The company
disappeared but competent techs can always be found and I love the
sound of it (probably more fool me !) Peter
Trevor Wilson
"Peter Rainbird" <peter.r...@act.gov.au> wrote in message
news:ec549b61.04032...@posting.google.com...
>
> with you directly re the 850. I have never owned a piece of ME
> equipment. However, if the build quality of the 850 is as described,
> the state of the parent company is somewhat academic.
**It will not be a problem, anyway. Peter will be up and servicing products
very soon. Production will resume (albeit in a limited fashoin) before the
end of the year.
Case in point:
> I have an Audio Innovations pre-amp (English tube). The company
> disappeared but competent techs can always be found and I love the
> sound of it (probably more fool me !) Peter
**The AI preamp is not an ideal match for the ME850. The ME850 can be
modified to suit the compromises of your preamp, however.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Oat
> modified to suit the compromises of your preamp, however.
why? why's that? can the ME not go with a tube pre-amp?
Trevor Wilson
"Oat" <cyber...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:4462f9b2.04032...@posting.google.com...
> > **The AI preamp is not an ideal match for the ME850. The ME850 can be
> > modified to suit the compromises of your preamp, however.
>
> why? why's that? can the ME not go with a tube pre-amp?
**The ME550, ME750, ME850, ME1400 and ME1500 models were all designed with a
low input impedance. The recommended output impedance for the preamp is less
than 100 Ohms. Such a figure is easy to obtain with a SS preamp, but almost
impossible for a tube preamp. As a result, those ME models may be altered to
reflect a higher input impedance, if required. A small performance
degradation can be expected.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Adam F
voltage.
Don't panic ;)
Adam F
"Oat" <cyber...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:4462f9b2.04032...@posting.google.com...
Peter Rainbird
Trevor, The AI pre amp manual says, ' there are two toggle switches
on the rear panel. One controls the overall gain of the amplifier.
The lower gain setting may allow an increased range of operation for
the volume control with more sensitive power amplifiers. The higher
gain setting is for use with power amplifiers of the standard 775mV
(0db) input sensitivity for full output'
So....even though I have a touch of green bottle fever this Sunday
morning, would it be possible to match the 850 ?? Peter
Trevor Wilson
"Peter Rainbird" <peter.r...@act.gov.au> wrote in message
news:ec549b61.04032...@posting.google.com...
**It has little to do with sensitivity. As I stated before (don't read
Adam's stuff), it is all about input IMPEDANCE. The ME850 can be modified to
work with your preamp.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
MDHJWH
Snip<<<<<.....
> **The ME550, ME750, ME850, ME1400 and ME1500 models were all designed with a
> low input impedance. The recommended output impedance for the preamp is less
> than 100 Ohms. Such a figure is easy to obtain with a SS preamp, but almost
> impossible for a tube preamp. As a result, those ME models may be altered to
> reflect a higher input impedance, if required. A small performance
> degradation can be expected.
Recent encounters here in Tasmania has confirmed my experience over
the years that audio sales staff just go blank or vomit jibberish at
you if you ask them about recommened output/input impedances. Isn't it
time we sent them all back to school for training in the very basics
of electronics?
A M
Trevor Wilson
"MDHJWH" <mdh...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:808df0f8.04032...@posting.google.com...
**Not necessarily. They probably should not need to know this stuff, but it
would be helpful if they did. Manufacturers should be able to build products
with low output impedances. It just is not that difficult.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Adam F
MDHJWH
>
> **Not necessarily. They probably should not need to know this stuff, but it
> would be helpful if they did. Manufacturers should be able to build products
> with low output impedances. It just is not that difficult.
Sure, but don't some manufacturers, not to mention some of the truly
strange DIY jobs, insist on engineering high output impedences into
their little black boxes? Shouldnt' sales staff no what effect a
customer's existing high output impedence thingy will have with gear
they are trying to sell? After all some customers wouldn't even know
their pre-amp or whatever even had such a thing as output impedence.
A M P 31
Patrick Turner
MDHJWH wrote:
There is great ignorance about technical matters amoungst sales staff
and customers, who would be impudent about dissertations on impedance.
I know guys who have as much chance of ever understanding ohm's law as flying
to the moon by flapping their arms.
Sales staff are there to sell, not to be there to inform
at anything much beyond the technical capability of the customers, which
is mostly sfa.
A recent customer complained to me about the low input impedance of
an ME power amp, so he couldn't use his tubed pre, unless he
liked bass and treble free music, because apparently his pre has a high Ro.
The pre could have been altered to have a low Ro,
and the ability to drive into a low load, but he has a different solution
I won't mention.
The input impedance is often not just resistive, but there is shunt capacitance also,
and some SS amps have bandwidth limiting filters at before the input, and any
preamp with a highish Ro suffers.
But nearly every SS amp I have ever measured has a low output impedance,
usually less than 0.1 ohms, and thus giving the amp a more than adequate damping factor.
Most tube amps offer Ro which is also utterly adequate.
Some tube amps with little or no NFB have Ro above 1 ohm,
and I don't build any.
But I have heard some amps with Ro > 1ohm, and they sounded quite OK.
The very slight effect on the response over the band with a highish Ro
seems to be something most folks couldn't pick since the room
unflattens the response by an order of magnitude at least.
Nearly every power amp has above 10 kohms of Rin, with not too much
Cshunt, so any pre with Ro at least 1,000 ohms will put a full bandwidth into
the power amp.
If the coupling cap on the output of a pre amp is 2 uF, then the LF pole is 8 Hz with 10k Rin.
If C-shunt is 500pF, then since pre Ro is 1,000 ohms, the HF pole
is 317 kHz.
Even if Cshunt was a massive 0.005 uF, the HF pole would be 31 kHz.
Patrick Turner.
Trevor Wilson
> "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:<4067...@news.comindico.com.au>...
> >
> > **Not necessarily. They probably should not need to know this stuff, but
it
> > would be helpful if they did. Manufacturers should be able to build
products
> > with low output impedances. It just is not that difficult.
>
> Sure, but don't some manufacturers, not to mention some of the truly
> strange DIY jobs, insist on engineering high output impedences into
> their little black boxes?
**Only through utter incompetence. It would be akin to designing a car to
run only on solid rubber tyres. Stupid. A low output impedance is not easy
to achieve, but is essential for a number of good engineering reasons.
Shouldnt' sales staff no what effect a
> customer's existing high output impedence thingy will have with gear
> they are trying to sell?
**Well, again, perhaps. It is also reasonable for sales staff to be able to
expect that the guy designing the equipment was not a complete moron. Only a
complete moron would design a preamp with a high output impedance. It is a
trivial exercise to design one with a low output impedance. The cost
difference (if any) is minimal.
After all some customers wouldn't even know
> their pre-amp or whatever even had such a thing as output impedence.
**Many do. Good manufacturers will list such figures.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Trevor Wilson
>
> **Only through utter incompetence. It would be akin to designing a car to
> run only on solid rubber tyres. Stupid. A low output impedance is not easy
> to achieve, but is essential for a number of good engineering reasons.
**Oops. Make that:
"A low output impedance _is_ easy to achieve, but is essential for a number
of good engineering reasons.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
John Stewart
Did anyone mention the ME 109? It was a real success during the
40's in the Third Reich. Cheers, John Stewart
Peter Rainbird
Trevor, I am interested but your responses seem a bit curt (not to
mention slightly confusing). So your response to my last question
(below), means what ? Does it mean ' It is second-hand, I won't
offer to assist you by telling you what the cost of modifying the ME
will be, I will give you limited information, and I maintain my high
handed view that if I am lucky, my crappy tube amp might just be able
to live alongside your esoteric ME amp if I give you lots of money to
perform a minor rejigging of the ME ??
'Nope. I traded it two weeks ago. It is an alloy chassis, toroidal
transformer model. Very nice condition. I am selling it for $3,600.00
plus
freight.'
Peter Rainbird
Canberra City
Ph: 62070995
-----Original Message-----
From: Trevor Wilson [mailto:tre...@rageaudio.com.au]
Sent: Wednesday, 31 March 2004 10:32 AM
To: Rainbird, Peter
Subject: Re: ME 850 and Audio Innovations pre
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rainbird, Peter" <Peter.R...@act.gov.au>
To: <in...@rageaudio.com.au>
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 10:01 AM
Subject: ME 850 and Audio Innovations pre
> Trevor, 'Just contacting you off-line re the 850. I received an
> email from someone who has tried the combo of my pre amp and the 850. He
> confirmed that he had to modify the 850 to suit.
Of course.
He has actually tracked
> down an ME 1400 which replaced the 850. I assume I would have to track
down
> a 1400 through the usual second hand places ?
Yep.
>
> Anyway, is the 850 you have brand new or is it the one listed under
> pre-owned equipment ? Obviously it all comes down to price........
Nope. I traded it two weeks ago. It is an alloy chassis, toroidal
transformer model. Very nice condition. I am selling it for $3,600.00
plus
freight.
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Peter Rainbird
Further to my previous message, Trevor gave me a conciliatory phone
call and very politely answered my questions. I appreciate his
passion for an Australian product. Peter
Phil Allison
"John Stewart" <jh.st...@sympatico.ca>
** The ME 262 stereo turbine powered model was a far better performer
;-)
............. Phil
Ian Mitchell
"Phil Allison" <phila...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:406a2865$0$16965$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Ah, but the earlier ME 110 was also stereo and far more reliable.
Phil Allison
"Ian Mitchell" <Ian.Mi...@citec.com.au>
> "Phil Allison" <phila...@optusnet.com.au> ...
> >
> > "John Stewart" <jh.st...@sympatico.ca>
> > >
> > > > Quick question: In true antipodean jingoistic style, should I tempt
a
> > > > second hand ME 1500 or ME 850 ? Are there demonstrable sound
> > > > differences ?
> > >
> > > Did anyone mention the ME 109? It was a real success during the
> > > 40's in the Third Reich. Cheers, John Stewart
> > >
> > >
>
> >
> >
> > ** The ME 262 stereo turbine powered model was a far better performer
> > ;-)
> >
> > ............. Phil
> >
> >
>
> Ah, but the earlier ME 110 was also stereo and far more reliable.
>
>
** Nah, the ME 110 was easily blown away by any old Hurricane.
............ Phil
Trevor Wilson
**I seem to recall that the Hurricane could outmanoeuvre the 109. Not bad
for fabric-covered timber.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Ian Mitchell
Most fabric/timber fighter aircraft could outmanoeuvre it, they just
couldn't catch it or run from it.
Trevor Wilson
"Ian Mitchell" <Ian.Mi...@citec.com.au> wrote in message
news:w%sac.1001$IH5....@news.optus.net.au...
**Apparently the Hurricane just kept turning, until it came in behind the
109.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Phil Allison
"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:406a5575$1...@news.comindico.com.au...
>
** That was true at altitudes below about 7000 feet - Hurricane pilots
would attempt to draw ME109s down to that height prior to dealing with them.
One famous Battle of Britain pilot (Ginger Lacey) destroyed some 20 ME
109s while flying a Hurricane - 3 of them without even firing a shot.
............ Phil
Phil Allison
"Ian Mitchell" <Ian.Mi...@citec.com.au> wrote in message...
> > "Phil Allison" <phila...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> > >
> > > ** Nah, the ME 110 was easily blown away by any old Hurricane.
> >
> > **I seem to recall that the Hurricane could outmanoeuvre the 109. Not
bad
> > for fabric-covered timber.
>
> Most fabric/timber fighter aircraft could outmanoeuvre it, they just
> couldn't catch it or run from it.
** The Hurricane was made with an all metal frame and only the very early
examples had fabric covered wings. The Hurricane 1, as used in the Battle
of Britain, had stressed metal wings and a 3 blade variable pitch prop.
At low altitudes the top speeds of the Hurricane and the ME 109 were
similar, the Hurricane had the advantage in high G manoeuvres due to it
larger wing area and the destabilising behaviour of the leading edge wing
slats on the ME 109.
.............. Phil
Iain Chalmers
"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> **I seem to recall that the Hurricane could outmanoeuvre the 109. Not bad
> for fabric-covered timber.
So is that MDF, chipboard, or real solid timber? :-)
Have you ever seen a Pitts Special up close? Its a "modern" aerobatic
plane (and I suspect can outmanouver a hummingbird!), but from sitting
inside one, you could easily be confused for thinking it is just a big
model aeroplane... Curved timber struts covered in painted canvas - I
swear I'd made exactly the same design with balsa and tissue paper when
I was a kid...
big
(Where "modern" in this case means its still in production now. It was
still winning international aerobatics championships as recently at the
mid seventies...)
--
"A magazine here has a bunch of bonobo's in the zoo and a bunch of
market analysts from major banks picking stocks weekly. So far the
bonobo's are turning in a profit and the analysts lose money. The
banks haven't made the logical step yet." - Lieven Marchand in SDM
Trevor Wilson
"Iain Chalmers" <big...@mightymedia.com.au> wrote in message
news:bigiain-6DDF29...@news.fu-berlin.de...
> In article <406a5575$1...@news.comindico.com.au>,
> "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
> > **I seem to recall that the Hurricane could outmanoeuvre the 109. Not
bad
> > for fabric-covered timber.
>
> So is that MDF, chipboard, or real solid timber? :-)
**Real timber of course. Chipboard and MDF has no strength.
>
> Have you ever seen a Pitts Special up close? Its a "modern" aerobatic
> plane (and I suspect can outmanouver a hummingbird!), but from sitting
> inside one, you could easily be confused for thinking it is just a big
> model aeroplane... Curved timber struts covered in painted canvas - I
> swear I'd made exactly the same design with balsa and tissue paper when
> I was a kid...
>
> big
>
> (Where "modern" in this case means its still in production now. It was
> still winning international aerobatics championships as recently at the
> mid seventies...)
**Cool.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Patrick Turner
John Stewart wrote:
But after the war the allies allowed Meshershmidts with the wings clipped
off, took out the V12,
and installed a motor mower two stroke, and
vundadaval! a two seater three wheeler car that threatened nobody.
Certainly not a Mack Truck.
Patrick Turner.