Is the first watt what really counts?
Margaret von B.
Darthmouth, MA listening to wild variety of exotic, but not necessarily
expensive, audio gear and great music while learning how to set up a system.
Any system.
Some of the best sound I ever heard came from a very unlikely system
assembled and "tuned" by Leo. The speakers were ugly and a rather unusual
design
http://www.brentworth.com/type3.htm
but sounded great driven by this VV32B tube amp
http://www.artaudio.com/diavolo.html
The speakers were set up using Leo's "formula"
http://www.nsmaudio.com/brochures/stereosetup.html
Of course the front end was top notch with RPM2 table & arm/Lyra
cartridges/CAT preamp/Audio Logic tube DAC (IIRC).
Leo used to always say that it is the first watt that counts. If that is
wrong, more watts is just more wrong. He also used to say that in order to
produce great sound, it paid off to concentrate on that very first watt and
have speakers that could be driven "with a fart." We even jokingly called
the speakers Fartworths.
What do you tink of Leo's audio philosophy? I can testify that he sure made
it work for himself. Over the years I've noticed that his speaker placement
formula is extremely effective with a wide variety of speakers and rooms. It
is not exactly decorator friendly but who cares...right?
I'm also curious as to what kind of speakers you tube experts use with your
tube amps and whether they exhibit similar characteristics as the
Brentworths.
I really miss Leo.
Cheers,
Margaret
Phil Allison
"Margaret von B."
** = A fucking, criminal bitch.
......... Phil
Arny Krueger
news:40rfcnF...@individual.net
> "Margaret von B."
>
>
> ** = A fucking, criminal bitch.
>
Or, in gentler company, a virtual transvestite. ;-)
nyo...@peoplepc.com
If only the first watt counts it's becasue that's all you have.
Proper amplifiers produce only clean wattage until they clip.
If you have speakes that you like and can produce levels that are sufficient
for your needs, then your amplifer needs to prouduce whatever is neccessary
to drive them to that level, and do it without distortion. Assuming of
course, that you like accurate sound.
"Margaret von B." <margar...@satx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:d5_pf.3000$9e...@tornado.texas.rr.com...
Phil Allison
"Arny Krueger"
> "Margaret von B."
>>
>> ** = A fucking, criminal bitch.
>>
>
> Or, in gentler company, a virtual transvestite. ;-)
** Not another Ayn Marx !!!!
BTW
What is the " B " for ??
Von Braun - the rocket scientist ??
In which case it should be " Magrit " .
......... Phil
Richard Steinfeld
> The late Leo Massi was a friend of mine and I spent hours at his place in
> Darthmouth, MA listening to wild variety of exotic, but not necessarily
> expensive, audio gear and great music while learning how to set up a system.
> Any system.
> Leo used to always say that it is the first watt that counts. If that is
> wrong, more watts is just more wrong. He also used to say that in order to
> produce great sound, it paid off to concentrate on that very first watt and
> have speakers that could be driven "with a fart." We even jokingly called
> the speakers Fartworths.
>
> What do you tink of Leo's audio philosophy? I can testify that he sure made
> it work for himself. Over the years I've noticed that his speaker placement
> formula is extremely effective with a wide variety of speakers and rooms. It
> is not exactly decorator friendly but who cares...right?
>
>
I agree with the basic concept completely. To introduce myself, I'm a
classical instrumentalist with strong audio, musical instrument
technology, and recording industry background, as well graduate work in
music psychology. All of this will inform my answer:
I'm not sure one way or the other if the ramaining watts will be just as
bad or not, but when it comes to reproduction of classical music
performed on acoustical instruments, the reproduction qualities at the
lowest musical levels have long seemed the most critical to my own
general musical enjoyment. In these days of transistors, power comes
cheap so the big watts are no big deal: somebody or other will get them
pretty clean, too. They can be gotten, also, with valves, just with more
bucks and more heat (and more cost per killlowatt here in California).
(I think that you're beginning to surmise that your late friend Leo and
I would have had interesting discussions, right?)
I never met Paul Klipsch, but I've been intrigued by a statement that I
heard quoted a while back from one of his more dedicated dealers: "What
the world needs is a good one-watt amplifier." Around the same time, I
discovered that the sounds of his classic speakers would be radically
changed by the electronics. People, myself included, had pronounced his
speakers harsh, not realizing that the harshness was due to the amps. I
transformed the sound of one client's Klipsch Heresies by removing her
JVC receiver, and replacing it with a Alpine-era Luxman (the improvement
was startling). I removed another client's hefty 300-watt power amp and
left him with great-sounding La Scalas running off the headphone outputs
of his preamp. Opera on this system sounded beautiful, rich, full, big,
and clear (and I do not like most opera!).
So, yup: especially with efficient speakers, that first watt can sure be
important!
I would like to know more about your late friend's speaker placement
ideas. I have just brought home a pair of speaker curios and am in
scheming mode.
Richard Steinfeld
Phil Allison
"Richard Steinfeld" = " Richard Cranium "
> I removed another client's hefty 300-watt power amp and left him with
> great-sounding La Scalas running off the headphone outputs of his preamp.
> Opera on this system sounded beautiful, rich, full, big, and clear (and I
> do not like most opera!).
>
** Now I * HAVE * heard everything....
What a macaroon.
........ Phil
BobFli...@spam.com
wrote:
Man no kidding!!! Think it had the 200 ohm series resistors?
Those speakers should be driven with 100 watts! Real punch in the gut!
L...@nospam.com
wrote:
>The late Leo Massi was a friend of mine and I spent hours at his place in
>Darthmouth, MA listening to wild variety of exotic, but not necessarily
>expensive, audio gear and great music while learning how to set up a system.
>Any system.
>
>Some of the best sound I ever heard came from a very unlikely system
>assembled and "tuned" by Leo. The speakers were ugly and a rather unusual
>design
>
>http://www.brentworth.com/type3.htm
Talk about a scam!!! They go to great lengths to say how bad the multi-point
phase distortion is on a 3 way system, then they stick TWO drivers in the box,
each covering the same frequency's!!! But that's not all, folks, they then
give you an ELECTRONIC tone compensation circuit (Phase changing device for the
non-technical) to repair the poor frequency response!
BUT on the subject of single point source speakers, the best I heard were some
8" Kef 2-ways that I built in the 70s... but they had to be used near field.
I heard a great 3-way once, but only once... it sounded like a single speaker,
even from 3 feet away... it was quite unreal...
>but sounded great driven by this VV32B tube amp
>
>http://www.artaudio.com/diavolo.html
This is a truly wonderful amp... I WONDER how long it will take for the silver
connectors to get so corroded they no longer pass signal?! Something wrong
with gold??
>The speakers were set up using Leo's "formula"
>
>http://www.nsmaudio.com/brochures/stereosetup.html
>
>Of course the front end was top notch with RPM2 table & arm/Lyra
>cartridges/CAT preamp/Audio Logic tube DAC (IIRC).
I never tried a DAC with my turntable, maybe it would help...
>Leo used to always say that it is the first watt that counts.
Did he say the moon was trying to kill us? Actually it's the first few
milliwatts, the domain of the crossover notch... 'tis y I prefer A class.
> If that is
>wrong, more watts is just more wrong. He also used to say that in order to
>produce great sound, it paid off to concentrate on that very first watt and
>have speakers that could be driven "with a fart." We even jokingly called
>the speakers Fartworths.
I bet my 1/4" fart hole is louder then those speakers...
>What do you tink of Leo's audio philosophy?
He must have been a poet... I really tink so...
> I can testify that he sure made
>it work for himself. Over the years I've noticed that his speaker placement
>formula is extremely effective with a wide variety of speakers and rooms. It
>is not exactly decorator friendly but who cares...right?
I didn't see a formula there... speaker placement usually depends on SWMBO
laws... but I prefer to listen from inside the box...
>I'm also curious as to what kind of speakers you tube experts use with your
>tube amps and whether they exhibit similar characteristics as the
>Brentworths.
I prefer Altek VOT cabs with tube amps, because they ROCK OUT at 1 watt!
>I really miss Leo.
I shouldn't speak ill of the dead!! Sorry, just jesting! ( anyone named Leo has
to be cool!)
>Cheers,
>
>Margaret
>
>
Leo
Some people wear their heart on their sleeves
I wear my liver on my pant leg
nyo...@peoplepc.com
"Richard Steinfeld" <rgsteinBUT...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:43a8a0cd$0$95926$742e...@news.sonic.net...
Trevor Wilson
"Richard Steinfeld" <rgsteinBUT...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:43a8a0cd$0$95926$742e...@news.sonic.net...
**His quote was about a good FIVE Watt amplifier. Not altogether surprising,
since all his speakers were very efficient. Unfortunately, like most (all?)
horns, sacrifices were made to ensure efficiency and reasonable size.
Around the same time, I
> discovered that the sounds of his classic speakers would be radically
> changed by the electronics. People, myself included, had pronounced his
> speakers harsh, not realizing that the harshness was due to the amps. I
> transformed the sound of one client's Klipsch Heresies by removing her JVC
> receiver, and replacing it with a Alpine-era Luxman (the improvement was
> startling).
**Oh, I very much doubt that. The Heresy was, undoubtedly, a sonci disaster.
The worst speaker built by Klipsch. Which makes it a pretty horrible
sounding speaker, by any measure.
I removed another client's hefty 300-watt power amp and
> left him with great-sounding La Scalas running off the headphone outputs
> of his preamp. Opera on this system sounded beautiful, rich, full, big,
> and clear (and I do not like most opera!).
**Utter, banal nonsense. The La Scalas were deisgned as sound reinforcement
speakers. They had no real bottom end to speak of. Mids and highs were as
bad as the other Klipsch models of the time.
>
> So, yup: especially with efficient speakers, that first watt can sure be
> important!
**Indeed. But old Klipsch speakers were horrible sounding things. Efficient,
yes. But that's about it. Imaging was crap. Frequency response was
appalling. Not until the Forte' did Klipsch manage to build a speaker which
actually sounded quite decent.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Fred
<BobFli...@spam.com> wrote in message news:4qahq1t2miuv7pefi...@4ax.com...>> <nothing worth repeating>
>>
>>> I removed another client's hefty 300-watt power amp and left him with
>>> great-sounding La Scalas running off the headphone outputs of his preamp.
>>> Opera on this system sounded beautiful, rich, full, big, and clear (and I
>>> do not like most opera!).
>>
>>
>> <ditto>
>>
>>........ Phil
>>
>
> Man no kidding!!! Think it had the 200 ohm series resistors?
Doubt it, Bob. He did say it was the headphone outputs of the *preamp*.
Preamp headphone outputs are typically driven by a dedicated headphone
amp. And people who design headphone amps tend to worry more than
most about that first watt ;-)
> Those speakers should be driven with 100 watts! Real punch in the gut!
Hey, a stick of dynamite going off under my chair would be a 'Real punch
in the gut', too! But I doubt it'd add all that much to my enjoyment of a
great recording.
On the other hand, I haven't tried it, so I shouldn't knock it, I s'pose...
Fred
Richard Steinfeld
there. You do not know what you are talking about. For one thing, I did
not mention the particular device and the nature of its very strong
headphone amps; yet you jumped to attack and ridicule. It should be
obvious from my post that a person with exceptional experience has been
sharing some meaningful observations. You immediately jump into attack
mode before you comprehend who is talking and consider the details. Now,
think -- really think -- do you really know what the rated power is of
the headphone amps that I did not mention? What's the most powerful
headphone circuit that you ever heard of. Perhaps that's what I'm
talking about. (Note: these headphone amps happen to be as powerful as
most of the tube amps and receivers ever sold. Perhaps you should go
searching specs deeply before rushing to your keyboards of ridicule.
Your knowledge is really deficient, you know. However, I'll grant you
that I don't expect you to have memorized the specs of the preamp that I
mentioned -- but I do expect you to hold your minds open to the fact
that there's something here that you don't know.)
Having lurked awhile around these groups, I find the pugnaciousness
around here disgusting; it's a real turnoff. You guys seem to get off on
doing verbal combat; you'll even take on a person who indeed, has the
well-rounded experience encompassing the entire music reproduction
chain, including live instruments, with your blind bigotry. There are
very few people in the world who have my ability to correlate live
musical performance with reproduced sound. I am usually respected by
both audio and music professionals. I've been there.
Please explain why you are so devoted to the eternal food fight on this
board? What exactly do you get out of behaving this way? I mean it.
Let's have some answers. Phil: explain your behavior. Bob, what do you
have to say for yourself (begin by confessing your real name so I don't
judge you to be a coward).
It is doubtful that you can equal the following statement: you have
already heard my work. At least once in your life (and that would be
with very, very limited exposure), you have heard my contribution to a
recording coming from your own loudspeakers.
That's the difference.
Richard
Phil Allison
"Richard Steinfeld" = "Richard Cranium"
** A charlatan and a troll.
Not very funny.
....... Phil
Phil Allison
"Fred"
> Preamp headphone outputs are typically driven by a dedicated headphone
> amp. And people who design headphone amps tend to worry more than
> most about that first watt ;-)
** Headphones require only milliwatts.
Even 100 mW per earphone is completely deafening.
........ Phil
Phil Allison
"Trevor Wilson"
** How are your legs feeling - TW ???
........ Phil
Richard Steinfeld
The quote that I read was "one watt." It was in a little flyer. I forgot
to mention that I saw it myself. Perhaps that flyer did not circulate
where you are, in Australia. Before the salesman pulled the flyer out of
a folder, the he quoted from it. In fact, the staff quoted Paul Klipsch,
who would stop in when he was in the San Francisco Bay area. They heard
him say this with his own mouth.
What's significant is that we're talking about small amounts of raw
power, although, granted 5 watts is almost four times the power of 1
watt. Or is it eight (it's late and I'm getting foggy).
Please read what I write very carefully before you succumb to the
illness that infects this board: combat and the need to appear superior.
> Around the same time, I
>
>>discovered that the sounds of his classic speakers would be radically
>>changed by the electronics. People, myself included, had pronounced his
>>speakers harsh, not realizing that the harshness was due to the amps. I
>>transformed the sound of one client's Klipsch Heresies by removing her JVC
>>receiver, and replacing it with a Alpine-era Luxman (the improvement was
>>startling).
>
>
> **Oh, I very much doubt that. The Heresy was, undoubtedly, a sonci disaster.
> The worst speaker built by Klipsch. Which makes it a pretty horrible
> sounding speaker, by any measure.
>
I have yet to hear with my musician's ears a totally accurate
loudspeaker. The early Klipsches were bright: agreed. They could impart
tinniness. But disasters: not exactly. Depends on the music. And read
this carefully: it depends upon which loudpeakers were used in both the
studio control room as well as the speakers used during mix-down for the
particular recording, for the engineers will compensate the mix to sound
the way that the record producer and the performers want with the
loudspeakers that they've got, in the room where they are. There's no
such thing as a totally neutral reproduction chain no matter how good it
gets.
This is complicated, of course. We could fill entire large books with
discussions of speaker liniarity, etc., etc. I could write about
psychoacoustics (which I've studied at the graduate level). Not for
here. But in a certain type of environment, the brighness of Klipsh's
horns could be muted (as it was in this particular home). Note that I
did not say that the brightness was removed; just that it was brought
into a livable range. Now, could I live with this speaker myself? I
don't know because I haven't had that experience. But let's say that I'm
playing a lot of records that were mastered using AR-3s as monitors --
that material will sound painful over a Klipsch horn. To answer my own
question, I'll allow that it's probable that I would not want to live
with any Klipsch horn speaker. In fact, it's probable that I wouldn't
even want it in the house just for occasional fun.
> I removed another client's hefty 300-watt power amp and
>
>>left him with great-sounding La Scalas running off the headphone outputs
>>of his preamp. Opera on this system sounded beautiful, rich, full, big,
>>and clear (and I do not like most opera!).
>
>
> **Utter, banal nonsense. The La Scalas were deisgned as sound reinforcement
> speakers. They had no real bottom end to speak of. Mids and highs were as
> bad as the other Klipsch models of the time.
>
Whoah!
I forgot to mention that these La Scalas were located in high
asymetrical acoustical lofts at least 20 feet above the living room
floor, and were enclosed in outer baffles designed by the late Joe Minor
of Berkeley Custom Electronics. I don't expect you to know about Joe, so
I'll fill you in: Joe was both an electronics engineer as well as an
acoustics engineer. Joe's custom baffles substantially enlarged the
total size, and extended the bass range.
Please don't succumb to the illness going around this hospital: snap
judgement before understanding what's said or the context. My evaluation
was subjective, and I used subjective terms. More facts: there was no
deep bass in the program content that I wrote about, therefore the
presence or absence of that range is moot. The acoustics of the
listening environment imparted the effect of smoothing overall. I'm
talking psychoacoustics here, not measurement. In this environment, with
these electronics, the opera sounded awesome on these (modified) speakers.
Joe Minor was an early Klipsch dealer (no, not the same one who showed
me the 1-watt flyer). He liked jazz, and was partial to the Klipsh's
ability to carry the sizzle of cymbals, saxophones, and other horns. I
am a conservatory-trained instrumentalist, so yes, to me, solo violins
usually sounded strident over similar speakers (Klipshorns).
Subjectively, I'd say that these speakers tended to intensify any
metallic natural qualities in the instruments Notice that I said
"natural." In fact, the natural sound of a violin is somewhat harsh; the
player uses tricks to soften that sound. But if a person only listens to
reproduced sound, he will not know this. In fact, you have to be
familiar with a violin, literally up close and personal, to realize
this. Now, I'll venture that almost every "expert" on this board doesn't
have this experience. But there are many who, lacking the experience of
knowing intimately how live acoustical instruments sound, will make
pronouncements about the accuracy of a component's reproduction.
>
>>So, yup: especially with efficient speakers, that first watt can sure be
>>important!
>
>
> **Indeed. But old Klipsch speakers were horrible sounding things. Efficient,
> yes. But that's about it. Imaging was crap.
Agreed. But I was not talking about imaging. It didn't matter in this
instance. Frankly, I doubt that I'd enjoy living with any of these
speakers. Minor was the first to say that the Heresy did, indeed, break
the laws of good speaker designs, even Klipsh's own rules (why he named
it "heresy"). Nonetheless, at least in the right location, they could
sound better than they had any right to.
Since you are an audio professional, I'd like to remind you that,
hopefully, you've experienced a few times during your life, situations
in which speakers sounded much better than they should have. I have. Joe
did. I'll admit that I have been wrong in my life. It's a way that we
learn. My examples are like this.
There are some people on this board who will die before they admit that
there's something they don't know, while ridiculing others at the first
opportunity. Let's not fall into that trap. As professionals, the first
thing that we have to admit, even embrace, is that our experience
teaches us that we indeed do not know everything; that there are times
when we can't understand why things are sounding the way that they do,
and even that there are times in actual music when the laws of physics
are bent!
Frequency response was
> appalling. Not until the Forte' did Klipsch manage to build a speaker which
> actually sounded quite decent.
I might even agree with you. But, in truth, I think that we can agree
that there have been a number of different speakers out there that have
sounded good, even wonderful, all different, all in different ways, and
good and/or bad on different types of music and on different recordings.
There's no such thing as total reproduction accuracy. We've still got a
long way to go in the quest. Don't we?
Richard
Jon Yaeger
rgsteinBUT...@sonic.net wrote on 12/20/05 7:24 PM:
Since the ear hears logarithmically, a passage twice as loud as one
requiring 1 watt of power will need 10 watts.
So I would say that the statement is an over-simplification. But chances
are, if you do a great job with the first watt, you might get lucky with
some more . . . . .
Jon
Chris Hornbeck
<margar...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>Of course the front end was top notch
Numero uno. Always.
>Leo used to always say that it is the first watt that counts.
To flesh this out, let me introduce a concept from
audio production, the idea of "0 VU". This comes from
an earlier era, and is defined, literally, as the
reading on a particular kind of electromechanical
metering with its own carefully specified damping,
rise time, etc.
The usefulness of "0 VU" was/is in allowing mixing
engineers to move from source to source while maintaining
an audibly "constant" volume for listeners.
When we want to talk about monitoring or home
listening volumes, we need to start here, by defining
our own "0 VU". Studio monitoring 0 VU is classically
about 85 dB SPL at listening position, and this is
LOUD. Has'ta be 'cause you're listening for errors.
Home music reproduction varies around this number,
varying with all the factors we all deal with, but
personally, 85 dB SPL for 0 VU is just LOUD. Buy
a cheap Radio Shack SPL meter, measure your own
preferences, and decide for yourself.
Above this "0 VU" average level is some headroom
for peaks, conventionally taken as 20 dB or so in
professional use, which must be accomodated linearly.
Below this, the minimum linear range must be at least
60 dB to accomodate the most conservative modern
guesstimates. Red Book CD's, for example, are capable
of noise floors 75 dB below 0 VU; linearity remains
a possible issue even below that.
> If that is
>wrong, more watts is just more wrong. He also used to say that in order to
>produce great sound, it paid off to concentrate on that very first watt
So let's actually define our own range of actual "watts".
Let's first define our own local 0 VU. For example, let's
take a stereo pair of conventional speakers in a conventional
listening room, of 88 dB SPL/ 1W / 1M sensitivity, and to
generalize the case, assume nearfield monitoring at 1 meter.
For two uncorrelated sources, pressures add RMS, so two
speakers uncorrelated in our model make 91 dB SPL at our
ears at 1 watt (each). This is called +6 dB VU (relative to
our 85 dB SPL = 0 VU).
Peak volume requirements of +20dB VU (= 105 dB SPL) requires
105 - 91 - 3 dB = 11 dBW from each channel. Those still awake
will be surprised at what this translates to in simple "watts".
Even more interesting from a design POV is the more important
number of watts at -60 VU. The range down to here, and, almost
certainly lower, is where the music is.
>What do you think of Leo's audio philosophy?
The speaker positioning is booooooogus. Otherwise, yeah.
Or was that a different thread? Sorry, it's late.
Good fortune,
Chris Hornbeck
"Angels are, dreaming of you" - Sonic Youth
Andre Jute
Jon Yaeger wrote:
> Since the ear hears logarithmically, a passage twice as loud as one
> requiring 1 watt of power will need 10 watts.
"The myth of the watt" on my site is an article about what will be
perceived as twice as loud at any distance.
> So I would say that the statement is an over-simplification. But chances
> are, if you do a great job with the first watt, you might get lucky with
> some more . . . . .
This is a silicon-think fallacy. Real life amps don't quite work like
that. Posit an amp built to use with a 90dB/m speak. When you use it to
drive a 103dB/m speak it suddenly doesn't sound as sweet as the amp
built specifically to use with the more sensitive speaker. I've had
this experience many times.
Take an extreme example, my T199 Millennium End, which is SET capable
of 20-80W depending on how it is configured. I have long since stopped
using it at 80W, instead using it about 25W. It isn't just that I don't
need 80W even on panels, it is simply that it sounds better to me at
25W. The key to the 300B is that the first watt is so supremely linear
no matter how wretched the design. (In my opinion any 300B design that
hogs out more than 7W is reckless designing for higher power
necessarily demeans the first watt. In all my life I've seen only one
300B design, by a known fool and a "winder" whose degree and experience
was in political science, in which the first watt was clearly not
fabulous.)
It has long been known in the ultrafi community that when you choose
speakers that will require over a watt, and build big amps to
compensate, you *will* pay a price in sound quality. Sticking to SET,
the only tube I know with 300B quality is the 845 -- when very
conservatively designed to give under 20W. In fact, those SET/Horn guys
with long experience go further; they don't see the point of a bigger
tube than 2A3. The reason I started with 300B was that I was impressed
some little way with the transient overload argument and when I finally
shrugged that out of my system I had a very big investment in 300B
knowledge and experience and parts and, as we saw recently in exhanges
with Stevenson and Chriss, some of this stuff isn't in the textbook,
they are subtleties you learn by experience in your listening and on
the test bench; I didn't want to invest another ten years in 2A3.
One final point, already made several times in various ways by Patrick,
is that my T113 trioded Class A PP EL34 is such a superior amp because
it isn't really a 25W amp but a 10W amp.
You have to take some of this stuff on faith until you have the
experience. I didn't (you wouldn't really expect me to, would you?) but
now I wonder why I ever resisted. I don't actually expect that you will
take it on faith but in ten years, when you send a post precisely like
this one, I shall google up this one.
> Jon
In short, the first watt isn't the most important, it is everything
that is important. The guy who said a whole watt is overkill (which
made burst out laughing aloud in surprise at finding someone else who
knows what he is talking about), that only the first few milliwats
matter could even be nearer to the truth than me, but, regardless of
what I say, in the glass I am a *very* conservative designer.
Technically, after the first watt, because you're working on a slope,
the distortion increases disproportionately.
Somewhere I published power measurements I took on an amp driving a
Quad ESL which really opened my eyes.
Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review
Andre Jute
DIY audio. Nobody wants to hear about how little power is *really*
required. I once asked a fellow who had a masters in EE from Stanford
with wide-eyed assumed innocence if 2000W (which I once had for outdoor
parties, built for me in racks by a couple of chums from HP -- the
neighbours, half a mile away, finally went to court about my loud-fi
and because the piranhas in my pool ate their cat) would be enough; he
said that I was heading in the right direction. Nothing, absolutely
nothing, I have ever written has earned as much abuse as my "Myth of
the Watt" article
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/KISS%20102%20by%20Andre%20Jute.htm
I recommend a close reading of Chris's post below and that you do the
math with him.
Andre Jute
aka Guy Fawkes (retired)
Trevor Wilson
**I worked for the Australian Klipsch importer, back in the 1970s. I know
Klipsch speakers and a good deal about the company. I still speak with the
guys who spent time at PK's home and in his private 'plane. Their stories
are legend. He said 5 Watt.
Before the salesman pulled the flyer out of
> a folder, the he quoted from it. In fact, the staff quoted Paul Klipsch,
> who would stop in when he was in the San Francisco Bay area. They heard
> him say this with his own mouth.
>
> What's significant is that we're talking about small amounts of raw power,
> although, granted 5 watts is almost four times the power of 1 watt. Or is
> it eight (it's late and I'm getting foggy).
**Er, it's five times the power.
>
> Please read what I write very carefully before you succumb to the illness
> that infects this board: combat and the need to appear superior.
>
>> Around the same time, I
>>
>>>discovered that the sounds of his classic speakers would be radically
>>>changed by the electronics. People, myself included, had pronounced his
>>>speakers harsh, not realizing that the harshness was due to the amps. I
>>>transformed the sound of one client's Klipsch Heresies by removing her
>>>JVC receiver, and replacing it with a Alpine-era Luxman (the improvement
>>>was startling).
>>
>>
>> **Oh, I very much doubt that. The Heresy was, undoubtedly, a sonci
>> disaster. The worst speaker built by Klipsch. Which makes it a pretty
>> horrible sounding speaker, by any measure.
>>
>
> I have yet to hear with my musician's ears a totally accurate loudspeaker.
> The early Klipsches were bright: agreed. They could impart tinniness. But
> disasters: not exactly. Depends on the music.
**When I judge a loudspeaker, I use a wide range of different types of
music. The Heresy was incapable of accurate reproduction. It had a horrible,
rolled off LH response and a lumpy mid and HF response. Imaging was up to
the usual Klispch standards - horrible. Not surprising, given the type of
construction used.
And read
> this carefully: it depends upon which loudpeakers were used in both the
> studio control room as well as the speakers used during mix-down for the
> particular recording, for the engineers will compensate the mix to sound
> the way that the record producer and the performers want with the
> loudspeakers that they've got, in the room where they are. There's no such
> thing as a totally neutral reproduction chain no matter how good it gets.
**Duh. There's also not much point in starting with a totally terrible
speaker, before attempting eqalisation. Here in Australia, the importer
resorted to GIVING away a pair of Heresys with each pair of La Scalas
purchased. Anyone who listened to the Heresy would, invariably, buy
something else. Anything else.
>
> This is complicated, of course. We could fill entire large books with
> discussions of speaker liniarity, etc., etc. I could write about
> psychoacoustics (which I've studied at the graduate level). Not for here.
> But in a certain type of environment, the brighness of Klipsh's horns
> could be muted (as it was in this particular home).
**You keep bleating about "brightness". The HF driver (an Electro-Voice
compression driver) used in the Heresy (and all the other Klipsch speakers)
was severely attenuated beyond 17kHz. The Heresy is not just bright (in the
upper mid band), but has severe deficiencies in the bass (below 100Hz). VERY
severe.
Note that I
> did not say that the brightness was removed; just that it was brought into
> a livable range. Now, could I live with this speaker myself? I don't know
> because I haven't had that experience. But let's say that I'm playing a
> lot of records that were mastered using AR-3s as monitors --
> that material will sound painful over a Klipsch horn. To answer my own
> question, I'll allow that it's probable that I would not want to live with
> any Klipsch horn speaker. In fact, it's probable that I wouldn't even want
> it in the house just for occasional fun.
>
>> I removed another client's hefty 300-watt power amp and
>>
>>>left him with great-sounding La Scalas running off the headphone outputs
>>>of his preamp. Opera on this system sounded beautiful, rich, full, big,
>>>and clear (and I do not like most opera!).
>>
>>
>> **Utter, banal nonsense. The La Scalas were deisgned as sound
>> reinforcement speakers. They had no real bottom end to speak of. Mids and
>> highs were as bad as the other Klipsch models of the time.
>>
>
> Whoah!
> I forgot to mention that these La Scalas were located in high asymetrical
> acoustical lofts at least 20 feet above the living room floor, and were
> enclosed in outer baffles designed by the late Joe Minor of Berkeley
> Custom Electronics. I don't expect you to know about Joe, so I'll fill you
> in: Joe was both an electronics engineer as well as an acoustics engineer.
> Joe's custom baffles substantially enlarged the total size, and extended
> the bass range.
**I'd have to see the drawings, before I commented further. It seems that
they may have been far from standard La Scalas.
>
> Please don't succumb to the illness going around this hospital: snap
> judgement before understanding what's said or the context. My evaluation
> was subjective, and I used subjective terms. More facts: there was no deep
> bass in the program content that I wrote about, therefore the presence or
> absence of that range is moot. The acoustics of the listening environment
> imparted the effect of smoothing overall. I'm talking psychoacoustics
> here, not measurement. In this environment, with these electronics, the
> opera sounded awesome on these (modified) speakers.
>
> Joe Minor was an early Klipsch dealer (no, not the same one who showed me
> the 1-watt flyer). He liked jazz, and was partial to the Klipsh's ability
> to carry the sizzle of cymbals, saxophones, and other horns. I am a
> conservatory-trained instrumentalist, so yes, to me, solo violins usually
> sounded strident over similar speakers (Klipshorns). Subjectively, I'd say
> that these speakers tended to intensify any metallic natural qualities in
> the instruments Notice that I said "natural." In fact, the natural sound
> of a violin is somewhat harsh; the player uses tricks to soften that
> sound. But if a person only listens to reproduced sound, he will not know
> this. In fact, you have to be familiar with a violin, literally up close
> and personal, to realize this. Now, I'll venture that almost every
> "expert" on this board doesn't have this experience. But there are many
> who, lacking the experience of knowing intimately how live acoustical
> instruments sound, will make pronouncements about the accuracy of a
> component's reproduction.
**I still say: "Nonsense". Of course, I'd like to know if the preamp had
it's own dedicated headphone amplifier, with a sub-1 Ohm output impedance.
If not, then the sound would have been disasterous.
>>
>>>So, yup: especially with efficient speakers, that first watt can sure be
>>>important!
>>
>>
>> **Indeed. But old Klipsch speakers were horrible sounding things.
>> Efficient, yes. But that's about it. Imaging was crap.
>
> Agreed. But I was not talking about imaging.
**It's all part of the listening experience. For some, it is VERY important.
It didn't matter in this
> instance. Frankly, I doubt that I'd enjoy living with any of these
> speakers. Minor was the first to say that the Heresy did, indeed, break
> the laws of good speaker designs, even Klipsh's own rules (why he named it
> "heresy"). Nonetheless, at least in the right location, they could sound
> better than they had any right to.
**No.
>
> Since you are an audio professional, I'd like to remind you that,
> hopefully, you've experienced a few times during your life, situations in
> which speakers sounded much better than they should have. I have. Joe did.
> I'll admit that I have been wrong in my life. It's a way that we learn. My
> examples are like this.
**Sure. I've been wrong in the past too. I'm not wrong about the Heresy.
>
> There are some people on this board who will die before they admit that
> there's something they don't know, while ridiculing others at the first
> opportunity. Let's not fall into that trap. As professionals, the first
> thing that we have to admit, even embrace, is that our experience teaches
> us that we indeed do not know everything; that there are times when we
> can't understand why things are sounding the way that they do, and even
> that there are times in actual music when the laws of physics are bent!
**No.
>
> Frequency response was
>> appalling. Not until the Forte' did Klipsch manage to build a speaker
>> which actually sounded quite decent.
>
> I might even agree with you. But, in truth, I think that we can agree that
> there have been a number of different speakers out there that have sounded
> good, even wonderful, all different, all in different ways, and good
> and/or bad on different types of music and on different recordings.
> There's no such thing as total reproduction accuracy. We've still got a
> long way to go in the quest. Don't we?
**With loudspeakers? Probably not as much as you'd think. A pair of Quad
ESLs, for instance, can provide a startlingly life-like reproduction of
certain types of music. We need just scale that up.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Trevor Wilson
>
> "Trevor Wilson"
>
>
> ** How are your legs feeling - TW ???
**I can't feel any problems with my legs. I cracked a rib on Monday. Funny
how the body doesn't give a shit about minor aches and pains, when there are
more severe pain signals.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Andre Jute
Trevor Wilson wrote:
> "Richard Steinfeld" <rgsteinBUT...@sonic.net> wrote:
> > There's no such thing as total reproduction accuracy. We've still got a
> > long way to go in the quest. Don't we?
>
> **With loudspeakers? Probably not as much as you'd think. A pair of Quad
> ESLs, for instance, can provide a startlingly life-like reproduction of
> certain types of music. We need just scale that up.
> --
> Trevor Wilson
> www.rageaudio.com.au
Now you're talking, Trevor. Though one has to wonder if just scaling up
the ESL63 won't run into problems analogous to those discussed in this
thread? For instance, the point source not being quite so pointy if the
panel is made large enough to reach that audio Eldorado of false
dreams, 20Hz or, hell, go the whole hog to the lowest organ
fundamental, 16Hz.
Of course, one could argue that the power in the instrumental
fundamental is very low, that it is in fact suggested by the harmonics,
and decide the panel need only reach 32Hz but even that would be a
cumbersome panel.
Most owners of ESL63 agree that the cleanliness of its bass makes it
sound more impressive than it measures.
Of course, Peter Walker had *excellent* taste in music, so it is no
surprise that his masterpieces (57 and 63) match my taste perfectly.
Andre Jute
Tom Alaerts
> assembled and "tuned" by Leo. The speakers were ugly and a rather
> unusual design
>
> http://www.brentworth.com/type3.htm
While I have no problem with the fact that you really like these
speakers, they could indeed be excellent, I do have an issue with their
technical specs on the linked page:
Look at this:
- 20-20000 hz +- 3db
- 102 db/W at 1m
- 2 16cm speakers
This is so very impossible. According to their spec the speakers would
yield at least 99db at 20hz. With 2 16cm speakers? Dream on.
You would be hard-pressed to find a big PA woofer by Beyma or JBL or so
that will yield 99db at 40hz.
Tom
Phil Allison
"Tom Alaerts" .
>
>> http://www.brentworth.com/type3.htm
>
> While I have no problem with the fact that you really like these speakers,
> they could indeed be excellent, I do have an issue with their technical
> specs on the linked page:
> Look at this:
> - 20-20000 hz +- 3db
> - 102 db/W at 1m
> - 2 16cm speakers
>
> This is so very impossible.
** Speaker system specs have to be interpreted in the context of industry
norms - a very dodgy industry. The dB/W figure is nearly always measured in
the mid band with a band limited pink noise signal. The low end response may
well be tested "in room" with the box near a corner.
The "watt" is a nominal one, ie 2.83 volts of noise or sine wave at the
terminals. Since this system is quoted as being 4 ohms, non reactive, the
actual input power is 2 watts - or even a little more.
> According to their spec the speakers would yield at least 99db at 20hz.
> With 2 16cm speakers? Dream on.
** No problem at all - the cabinet is enormous at circa 100 litres
internal for such small drivers so the -3dB frequency can easily be circa
25 Hz.
> You would be hard-pressed to find a big PA woofer by Beyma or JBL or so
> that will yield 99db at 40hz.
** Absolute rot - such large and powerful drivers will deliver > 125 dB
SPL @ 40 Hz at 1 metre.
........ Phil
Tom Alaerts
> internal for such small drivers so the -3dB frequency can easily be
> circa 25 Hz.
Yes but not at at 99db for 1 W. That's physically near impossible with
small speajers.
My issue is the 20-20khz +-3db at 102db for 1W. That is not possible
with 2 16cm speakers.
>> You would be hard-pressed to find a big PA woofer by Beyma or JBL or so
>> that will yield 99db at 40hz.
>
>
> ** Absolute rot - such large and powerful drivers will deliver > 125
> dB SPL @ 40 Hz at 1 metre.
yes a big beyma can deliver high spl but you won't find a beyma that
can deliver 125db for 1W at 40hz. Maybe, just maybe 100db for 1W. Just
check their specs and model the behavior at low frequencies with
something like WinISD. Perhaps in a giant horn you can get a bit more
out of it.
It is in general very difficult to offer low frequency such as the 20hz
at -3db quoted and high sensitivity together. You can do 20hz with eg
good midsized scanspeakdrivers but these are not high sensitivity. You
can't have your cake and eat it too.
The above clarifies why I refute the claims of the box manufacturer.
Tom
Arny Krueger
> "Arny Krueger"
>> "Margaret von B."
>>> ** = A fucking, criminal bitch.
>> Or, in gentler company, a virtual transvestite. ;-)
> ** Not another Ayn Marx !!!!
AFAIK Ayn does not brag about her physique. Maggie claims to have "Double
D's". Maggie probably "has" the massive drooping gut and butt to match. But
of course she's imaginary so she can have *anything*. ;-)
> BTW
> What is the " B " for ??
Bustenhalter. German for bra.
Is there any chance that with a name like that, Maggie is not a troll? LOL!
Phil Allison
"Tom Alaerts"
** He snips it here, he snips it there, the scarlet Tom Snippernell snips
it everywhere.
>> ** No problem at all - the cabinet is enormous at circa 100 litres
>> internal for such small drivers so the -3dB frequency can easily be
>> circa 25 Hz.
>
> Yes but not at at 99db for 1 W. That's physically near impossible with
> small speajers.
** The power is two watts and the 99 dB is YOUR figure .
> My issue is the 20-20khz +-3db at 102db for 1W. That is not possible with
> 2 16cm speakers.
** Is 96 dB /W possible for one 16 cm speaker ?
If so, two in parallel will do 102 dB, on axis.
>>> You would be hard-pressed to find a big PA woofer by Beyma or JBL or so
>>> that will yield 99db at 40hz.
>>
>>
>> ** Absolute rot - such large and powerful drivers will deliver > 125 dB
>> SPL @ 40 Hz at 1 metre.
>
>
> yes a big beyma can deliver high spl but you won't find a beyma that can
> deliver 125db for 1W at 40hz. Maybe, just maybe 100db for 1W.
** Err - you just contradicted yourself.
As well as moving the goalposts about.
As well as IGNORING the important points I made.
The maker does not say his tests were done in an anechoic chamber - does
he ??
How many dBs does a room corner add at 25 Hz compared to anechoic ??????
........... Phil
Arny Krueger
news:43a93e53$0$10954$ba62...@news.skynet.be
>> Some of the best sound I ever heard came from a very
>> unlikely system assembled and "tuned" by Leo. The
>> speakers were ugly and a rather unusual design
>>
>> http://www.brentworth.com/type3.htm
>
> While I have no problem with the fact that you really
> like these speakers, they could indeed be excellent, I do
> have an issue with their technical specs on the linked
> page:
> Look at this:
> - 20-20000 hz +- 3db
> - 102 db/W at 1m
> - 2 16cm speakers
> This is so very impossible. According to their spec the
> speakers would yield at least 99db at 20hz. With 2 16cm
> speakers? Dream on.
16 cm = 6.3 inches.
100 liters = 3 cubic feet
While the box is oversized, I don't know of any 6.5 inch drivers that would
be flat down to 20 Hz even on an truely infinite baffle. For a 6.5" driver
to be flat down to 20 Hz would require a fairly heavy cone, and that would
play havoc with efficiency.
Furthermore, producing appreciable response at 20 Hz requires significant
air-moving capacity. Even if efficiency were not an issue, the requrements
for linear stroke would seem to exceed the current SOTA.
> You would be hard-pressed to find a big PA woofer by
> Beyma or JBL or so that will yield 99db at 40hz.
I think you mean 99 dB at 40 Hz with one watt drive. That's not exactly
mission impossible. It would just take a bigger box - probably a bit more
than 3 cubic feet. Maybe 5, off the top of my head.
Phil Allison
"Arny Krueger"
> While the box is oversized, I don't know of any 6.5 inch drivers that
> would be flat down to 20 Hz even on an truely infinite baffle.
** Huh - what specs are you reading ?
Where does it say "anechoic" or "sine wave tested " ????
The maker's figures come with no such explanations.
If he has used *octave band noise* to measure response and placed the
cabinet in the corner of a solid walled room the figures are not impossible.
Eg: The 102 dB figure is the best octave - likely the one from 1 to 2 kHz.
The 20Hz figure is simply the low edge of the band from 20Hz to 40Hz and he
has contrived to get many dB of room gain in that octave.
Also - it is general practice nowadays to describe the averaged and
smoothed graph produced by PC software as if IT represnts is the *actual*
response curve of the speaker.
Go ask Phil Vafiadis of "VAF Research" - he knows every measurement scam
!!
....... Phil
pf...@aol.com
> Even 100 mW per earphone is completely deafening.
Mpffffff.... Conventional dynamic phones, sure.
And electrostatics require?
I keep a pair of vintage Koss electrostatics. They take a bunch of
power if only because they have no external power-supply but are driven
only from the speaker outputs of the amplifier. To get a reasonable
volume from the phones takes about the same amount of power as to get a
reasonable amount of volume from the speakers, so lots of losses.
Not everything is as absolute as you would like it to be, Phil.
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Phil Allison
<pf...@aol.com = scumbag
> >** Headphones require only milliwatts.
>
>> Even 100 mW per earphone is completely deafening.
>
>
> Mpffffff.... Conventional dynamic phones, sure.
** Which is the context here - FUCKWIT !
The one you snipped like the criminal PIG you are.
> And electrostatics require?
** Not much more in terms actual milliwatts.
But the step up transformer needs to be driven from a power amp.
NOT ONE TINY THING to do with stereo headphone jack sockets.
......... Phil
pf...@aol.com
To the extent that one good clean watt will do some things very well,
the first watt is the most important. But even with sparrow-fart
efficient speakers, the headroom equations and actual physics will
require some power in many case to move sufficient quantity of air to
reproduce the full spectrum of sound at actual recorded volume.
I also believe that a carefully designed amplifier can produce clean
power from one watt to clipping, whatever those limits might be, 5, 50
or 500 watts.
Point being that a sparrow-fart amplifier coupled with sparrow-fart
speakers might sound lovely.... until it runs out of headroom. Define
your terms and the headroom you require and you will be fine. Like
speed, however, watts are expensive. How fast do you want to go?
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Arny Krueger
> "Arny Krueger"
>
>
>> While the box is oversized, I don't know of any 6.5 inch
>> drivers that would be flat down to 20 Hz even on an
>> truely infinite baffle.
>
>
> ** Huh - what specs are you reading ?
>
> Where does it say "anechoic" or "sine wave tested " ????
Good points Phil. It could be all specsmanship.
> The maker's figures come with no such explanations.
> If he has used *octave band noise* to measure response
> and placed the cabinet in the corner of a solid walled
> room the figures are not impossible.
Right, especially since that octave band could go up to 40 Hz.
> Eg: The 102 dB figure is the best octave - likely the
> one from 1 to 2 kHz. The 20Hz figure is simply the low
> edge of the band from 20Hz to 40Hz and he has contrived
> to get many dB of room gain in that octave.
That could work - if he were dishonest.
> Also - it is general practice nowadays to describe the
> averaged and smoothed graph produced by PC software as if
> IT represnts is the *actual* response curve of the
> speaker.
Oh, well!
> Go ask Phil Vafiadis of "VAF Research" - he knows
> every measurement scam !!
Is he still in business?
pf...@aol.com
The problem here is that you are relating real-world experiences with
real-world solutions and real-world results. Subjective/objective,
whatever, they are repeatable and verifiable, something anathema to
most of the spouting gods and goddesses herein.
My perception of the general situation here is that the self-styled
experts are so immersed in their positions and very
oh-so-carefully-constructed belief systems that they have mostly
forgotten first principles. Further, they know so much about so little
that any individual grounded in basic _general_ knowledge is a very
direct threat to them. They may have a great view from 20,000 feet and
be at the pinnacle of their intellectual powers, but that view is above
the clouds. They see nothing of the real world below.
If I may be so bold.
It is all about moving air.
Musical instruments, voices, or a combination thereof move air.
That moving air along with other natural artifacts (echos,
reverberation, stray noise, whatever) impinges on a microphone.
Within which are parts and pieces moved by the air, moved by the
instruments and/or voices.
Those movements are recorded either mechanically or electronically on
some medium, foil, vinyl, tape, bits, whatever.
At the other end, some combination of electronics attempts to reproduce
those movements in a speaker.
The speaker is designed to move air.
Good results are when the air moved by the speaker very closely
resembles the air as it was moved by the instruments and/or voices.
To the extent that they match, the results are good. Less and less good
as the match is poorer and poorer.
Quite obviously, air moved by a small group of instruments and/or solo
voice or instrument at low natural volume will require less moving air
at the other end for accurate reproduction. Full range orchestrations
at a much higher natural volume will require more moving air to
reproduce accurately. The job of the speakers is to be able to
reproduce the air movements across the full spectrum of what was
played. The job of the amplifier is to provide enough power for the
speakers to do so.
To the extent that the speakers are physically able (irrespective of
power delivered to them) to reproduce the full spectrum as-played, they
are good speakers. To the extent that they are limited, they are less
good. The less power they require _FOR FULL SPECTRUM REPRODUCTION_, the
better they are, of course. But if the greater efficiency reduces the
spectrum available, that becomes an issue.
To the extent that an amplifier is able to deliver the right kind of
power so that a full-spectrum speaker may move the air closely to what
was played, the system is a good one. To the extent that it cannot, it
is a bad one.
The best systems do both well. The speakers are designed to produce the
fullest spectrum possible with the least amount of power at the best
price possible. The amplifier will be designed to produce the cleanest
possible power for those speakers at the lowest price possible. So that
the entire system may move the air as closely as possible to what was
played, neither adding nor deleting any artifacts of any nature.
With me so far? These are first principles. But when dealing with
individuals so far from them, it's little steps for little feet.
So, to the extent that either speakers or electronics add artifacts
that are not as the original air was moved, to that extent, the
electronics miss the first principle. To the extent that they delete
artifacts, they are limited.
Sheesh... it ain't nohow so complicated as all that.
The laws of physics are pretty immutable at this level. Which is where
it gets into watts, headroom, and the eternal argument between them.
SET, PP, Tube, SS, it's all the same. Moving air accurately and in
sufficient physical volume to reproduce what was played at its natural
volume (as played). The rest is smoke and mirrors.
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Tom Alaerts
> kHz. The 20Hz figure is simply the low edge of the band from 20Hz to
> 40Hz and he has contrived to get many dB of room gain in that octave.
OK, I now understand what you originally meant.
I hadn't thought about the manufacturer putting the box in a corner for
measuring the bottom octave. I thought that such specs were always
measured in an anechoic room but what do I know.
Such a unethical practice.
Anyway, let's go back to his claims: 20hz - 20khz +-3db and efficiency
of 102db. Like you mention this can very well be at say 2khz. Still, in
order to reach the linearity quoted, if you input 1W to the speaker,
the total range of 20 to 20k should be delivered between 99 and 105 db
at 1m.
Let's say the manufacturer puts the speaker in a corner for measuring
the bottom octave. You asked me: how much room gain does a corner add.
I would have to look it up. Is it 6db? Then the speakers should still
reach 93db @ 1W @ 20hz to be inline with his claims. In my opinion this
still seems very difficult for a pair of 16 cm speakers.
Curious about your comments.
regards,
Tom
ps despite our discussion I can still imagine that the speaker would
sound heavenly.
pps for Mr. Krueger: I made the reference to big JBLs or Beymas to
indeed illustrate that you need very big speakers to reach the quoted
sensitivity in the low frequencies. Even so, I don't think there are
speakers on the market that, without putting the box in a corner, can
reach 99db/1W ar 20hz.
Arny Krueger
> Even so, I don't think there are speakers on
> the market that, without putting the box in a corner, can
> reach 99db/1W ar 20hz.
I think we (Tom, Phil, Arny) all agree that the cited speakers
http://www.brentworth.com/type3.htm
are unlikely to be clean reproducers of 20 Hz at 102 dB with just one watt
of power.
In short, the Brentworth Type 3s are far less than they may appear to be to
some, which is often the case with boutique products.
The OP, posting under the name "Margaret von B."is similarly less than "she"
appears to be.
It took me a little while to discern that by abbreviating "her" pseudo-name
from "Brustenhalter" to B., and by dropping her formerly frequent references
to her "Double-D's" she was aspiring to be taken seriously.
pf...@aol.com
Nor did Richard's post. See, Twit, I have seen some pretty powerful
headphone circuits in some not particularly rare pre-amps. At the time
that I remember them they were sold as "electrostatic compatible".
When you come across something outside your tiny range of experience,
shut up and sit on your fingers for 10 seconds. You might actually
learn something.
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Sander deWaal
>>http://www.artaudio.com/diavolo.html
>This is a truly wonderful amp... I WONDER how long it will take for the silver
>connectors to get so corroded they no longer pass signal?! Something wrong
>with gold??
Silver oxyd is a good conductor.
--
"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005
Jon Yaeger
nos...@wanadoo.nl wrote on 12/21/05 2:05 PM:
> L...@nospam.com said:
>
>>> http://www.artaudio.com/diavolo.html
>
>
>> This is a truly wonderful amp... I WONDER how long it will take for the
>> silver
>> connectors to get so corroded they no longer pass signal?! Something wrong
>> with gold??
>
>
> Silver oxyd is a good conductor.
Sander,
Do you mean silver oxide?
Corrosion on silver is typically a sulfide. I'd have to check my CRC to be
sure, but I suspect that the sulfide is a very poor conductor, if not an
insulator.
Jon
mick
<snip>
>
> Peak volume requirements of +20dB VU (= 105 dB SPL) requires 105 - 91 - 3
> dB = 11 dBW from each channel. Those still awake will be surprised at what
> this translates to in simple "watts".
>
Hope you have good quality flameproof clothing Chris... That is heresay
round here! (Apart from Andre {Hi Andre!}, of course, "minimal watts
theory" seems to have few supporters in this neck of the woods. I just
build tiny amps anyway!)
--
Mick
(no M$ software on here... :-) )
Web: http://www.nascom.info
Web: http://projectedsound.tk
pf...@aol.com
It is not silver oxide that is the problem, it is silver sulfide
(Ag2s), caused by the reaction of silver with sulphur in the air.
Silver sulphide is one of the least reactive of all the silver
compounds and a poor conductor as one might expect. Under some unusual
conditions, it can rectify at rF frequencies (like many other salts),
so it is a bad idea all around. Happily, it is not very mechanically
sound, so regular exercising of silver-content switches usually keeps
the current-path clear. It is when they are not exercise, or only
seldom do problems occur.
The closer you are to coal-fired plants or large cities, the more
sulphur will be in the air around you, and the faster silver will
tarnish. Fine silver (pure, or nearly so) will tarnish much more slowly
than coin (~90%, varies) or sterling silver (92.5%). This, in part, is
why some silver pieces have a fine-silver wash on the parts that might
contact food. But fine-silver is very soft, softer than copper and does
not work-harden well. So moving parts must be alloyed for hardness.
Then, they corrode.
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
mick
Hi Phil - still on form I see!
Quote: "I removed another client's hefty 300-watt power amp and left
him with great-sounding La Scalas running off the headphone outputs of his
preamp. Opera on this system sounded beautiful, rich, full, big, and clear
(and I do not like most opera!)."
No mention of the headphone *drive capability* of that preamp that I can
see, just that it had headphone outputs. Granted, I don't think most
people would consider driving speakers this way because they wouldn't
expect it to work!
mick
Not a cat in hell's.... <grin>
Sander deWaal
>>> This is a truly wonderful amp... I WONDER how long it will take for the
>>> silver
>>> connectors to get so corroded they no longer pass signal?! Something wrong
>>> with gold??
>> Silver oxyd is a good conductor.
>Sander,
>Do you mean silver oxide?
Yep.
>Corrosion on silver is typically a sulfide. I'd have to check my CRC to be
>sure, but I suspect that the sulfide is a very poor conductor, if not an
>insulator.
You are right.
Peter Wieck just posted an excellent summary on this subject.
My apologies for muddying the waters.
BobFli...@spam.com
<rgsteinBUT...@sonic.net> wrote:
>BobFli...@spam.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 11:46:15 +1100, "Phil Allison" <phila...@tpg.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Richard Steinfeld" = " Richard Cranium "
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I removed another client's hefty 300-watt power amp and left him with
>>>>great-sounding La Scalas running off the headphone outputs of his preamp.
>>>>Opera on this system sounded beautiful, rich, full, big, and clear (and I
>>>>do not like most opera!).
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>** Now I * HAVE * heard everything....
>>>
>>> What a macaroon.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>........ Phil
>>>
>>
>>
>> Man no kidding!!! Think it had the 200 ohm series resistors?
>>
>> Those speakers should be driven with 100 watts! Real punch in the gut!
>>
>You make grand pronouncements based on no experience. You were not
>there. You do not know what you are talking about. For one thing, I did
>not mention the particular device and the nature of its very strong
>headphone amps; yet you jumped to attack and ridicule. It should be
>obvious from my post that a person with exceptional experience has been
>sharing some meaningful observations. You immediately jump into attack
>mode before you comprehend who is talking and consider the details. Now,
>think -- really think -- do you really know what the rated power is of
>the headphone amps that I did not mention?
Well dude, maybe you should have mentioned it! Most headphone amps can't drive
speakers because of poor Z matching.
> What's the most powerful
>headphone circuit that you ever heard of. Perhaps that's what I'm
>talking about. (Note: these headphone amps happen to be as powerful as
>most of the tube amps and receivers ever sold. Perhaps you should go
>searching specs deeply before rushing to your keyboards of ridicule.
Specs? Of what? You never mentioned any brand name or model number! Now go back
up and read what you just wrote... oh never mind, I'll quote you:
>For one thing, I did
>not mention the particular device and the nature of its very strong
>headphone amps;
and:
>Now,
>think -- really think -- do you really know what the rated power is of
>the headphone amps that I did not mention?
Now, think, really think, what specs should I look up?
>Your knowledge is really deficient, you know.
Really? You know what I know? You know who I am? You know what I do? I can tell
you one thing, I can read better then you! And I generally remember what I wrote
in the last paragraph, before I call someone stupid because I forgot what I said
two minutes ago!
> However, I'll grant you
>that I don't expect you to have memorized the specs of the preamp that I
>mentioned -- but I do expect you to hold your minds open to the fact
>that there's something here that you don't know.)
One thing I do know is that LeScalas Are not the best speakers! And specs are
only important to the uneducated!
>Having lurked awhile around these groups, I find the pugnaciousness
>around here disgusting; it's a real turnoff. You guys seem to get off on
>doing verbal combat; you'll even take on a person who indeed, has the
>well-rounded experience encompassing the entire music reproduction
>chain, including live instruments, with your blind bigotry.
How about we mention your blind bigotry, Howie?
>There are
>very few people in the world who have my ability to correlate live
>musical performance with reproduced sound. I am usually respected by
>both audio and music professionals. I've been there.
Oh I didn't know you were so P P P professional, Howie! Your modesty overwhelms
me!
>Please explain why you are so devoted to the eternal food fight on this
>board? What exactly do you get out of behaving this way? I mean it.
>Let's have some answers. Phil: explain your behavior.
Hey I'm not Phil, don't blame his behavior on me! Phil is a real terror, but
he's probably forgotten more then you'll ever know about audio! And he never
forgets!
> Bob, what do you
>have to say for yourself (begin by confessing your real name so I don't
>judge you to be a coward).
My real name is Bob Flint, like everyone here knows, Howie. It's in my label,
can't you see?
>It is doubtful that you can equal the following statement: you have
>already heard my work. At least once in your life (and that would be
>with very, very limited exposure), you have heard my contribution to a
>recording coming from your own loudspeakers.
Hey, maybe you were recording through one of the many amplifiers I've designed
and built and installed in various recording studios! You never know, Howie!
>That's the difference.
Really? So you're really Britny Spears?
>Richard
Anyway, chill man, next time be more clear!
And hey - it's only news net!
BobFli...@spam.com
>>** Headphones require only milliwatts.
>
>> Even 100 mW per earphone is completely deafening.
>
>
>Mpffffff.... Conventional dynamic phones, sure.
>
>And electrostatics require?
>
>I keep a pair of vintage Koss electrostatics. They take a bunch of
>power if only because they have no external power-supply but are driven
>only from the speaker outputs of the amplifier. To get a reasonable
>volume from the phones takes about the same amount of power as to get a
>reasonable amount of volume from the speakers, so lots of losses.
You don't have a clue!! The 'power' required is to run the step up circuit for
the high voltage the electrostatics require! And it's not 'power' they want,
it's higher voltage from a speaker line, as opposed to the limited voltage
available from a headphone jack.
This has NOTHING to do with high Z phone jacks!
I happen to have a pair of electrostats too! They consume mere milliwatts! And
mine have a switch to use either the sound source OR the power supply to run
them. Once charged up, they can run a few minutes with no power supply and the
switch in the power position, proving they don't require lots of power, just a
good cap charge.
And they have NOTHING to do with the subject of the post, which was :
"Guess the circuit of my headphone powered full stack or I'll call you stupid"!
Bob
Technologist
pf...@aol.com
Certainly not 'for real' in any case.
Nor does it understand what was actually written by Richard either.
Hey, Twit, your alter-ego is showing?
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Phil Allison
<pf...@aol.com>
>
> >NOT ONE TINY THING to do with stereo headphone jack sockets.
>
> Nor did Richard's post.
** BULLSHIT.
Wieck - you are a CRIMINAL and a damn LIAR .
.......... Phil
Phil Allison
"mick"
Phil Allison burbled:
>>
>> <pf...@aol.com = scumbag
>>
>>> >** Headphones require only milliwatts.
>>>
>>>> Even 100 mW per earphone is completely deafening.
>>>
>>>
>>> Mpffffff.... Conventional dynamic phones, sure.
>>
>>
>> ** Which is the context here - FUCKWIT !
>>
>> The one you snipped like the criminal PIG you are.
>>
>>
>>> And electrostatics require?
>>
>>
>> ** Not much more in terms actual milliwatts.
>>
>> But the step up transformer needs to be driven from a power amp.
>>
>>
>> NOT ONE TINY THING to do with stereo headphone jack sockets.
>>
>
> Hi Phil - still on form I see!
>
> Quote: "I removed another client's hefty 300-watt power amp and left
> him with great-sounding La Scalas running off the headphone outputs of his
> preamp. Opera on this system sounded beautiful, rich, full, big, and clear
> (and I do not like most opera!)."
>
> No mention of the headphone *drive capability* of that preamp that I can
> see, just that it had headphone outputs. Granted, I don't think most
> people would consider driving speakers this way because they wouldn't
> expect it to work!
>
** Precisely.
That post by Richard Cranium was asinine.
A are all his mad posts.
........... Phil
Phil Allison
<pf...@aol.com>
** = A fuckwit and a damn LIAR .
A geriatric radio restorer who has sniffed far too much shellac.
....... Phil
Phil Allison
"Sander deWaal">
> Silver oxyd is a good conductor.
** It is not a "good conductor" and it never exists on the surface of silver
metal at room temps.
The black corrosion on silver is silver sulphate - an insulator.
Been all through this MAD SCAM a couple of years back on aus.hi-fi.
........ Phil
Phil Allison
"Arny Krueger"
> "Phil Allison"
>>
>>
>>> While the box is oversized, I don't know of any 6.5 inch
>>> drivers that would be flat down to 20 Hz even on an
>>> truely infinite baffle.
>>
>>
>> ** Huh - what specs are you reading ?
>>
>> Where does it say "anechoic" or "sine wave tested " ????
>
> Good points Phil. It could be all specsmanship.
>
>> The maker's figures come with no such explanations.
>
>> If he has used *octave band noise* to measure response
>> and placed the cabinet in the corner of a solid walled
>> room the figures are not impossible.
>
> Right, especially since that octave band could go up to 40 Hz.
>
>> Eg: The 102 dB figure is the best octave - likely the
>> one from 1 to 2 kHz. The 20Hz figure is simply the low
>> edge of the band from 20Hz to 40Hz and he has contrived
>> to get many dB of room gain in that octave.
>
> That could work - if he were dishonest.
** Speaker tests done "in house " are done in ordinary rooms using one of
the popular PC based audio analysis packages.
It would be *dopey * to pick a bad room or poor location for bass response
when doing a test to be used for promotional purposes.
Lots and lots of *creativity* goes into producing that *lovely smooth
curve * - despite how the speaker really is - not because of it.
>> Also - it is general practice nowadays to describe the
>> averaged and smoothed graph produced by PC software as if
>> IT represnts is the *actual* response curve of the
>> speaker.
>
> Oh, well!
>
>> Go ask Phil Vafiadis of "VAF Research" - he knows
>> every measurement scam !!
>
> Is he still in business?
>
** Naturally - he is a master of scams.
Got a PhD in it I think.......
....... Phil
Jon Yaeger
at fiu...@yahoo.com wrote on 12/21/05 2:11 AM:
> Okay, Jon, let's keep this nice.
>
> Jon Yaeger wrote:
>
>> Since the ear hears logarithmically, a passage twice as loud as one
>> requiring 1 watt of power will need 10 watts.
>
> "The myth of the watt" on my site is an article about what will be
> perceived as twice as loud at any distance.
>
>> So I would say that the statement is an over-simplification. But chances
>> are, if you do a great job with the first watt, you might get lucky with
>> some more . . . . .
>
> This is a silicon-think fallacy. Real life amps don't quite work like
> that. Posit an amp built to use with a 90dB/m speak. When you use it to
> drive a 103dB/m speak it suddenly doesn't sound as sweet as the amp
> built specifically to use with the more sensitive speaker. I've had
> this experience many times.
>
> Take an extreme example, my T199 Millennium End, which is SET capable
> of 20-80W depending on how it is configured. I have long since stopped
> using it at 80W, instead using it about 25W. It isn't just that I don't
> need 80W even on panels, it is simply that it sounds better to me at
> 25W. The key to the 300B is that the first watt is so supremely linear
> no matter how wretched the design. (In my opinion any 300B design that
> hogs out more than 7W is reckless designing for higher power
> necessarily demeans the first watt. In all my life I've seen only one
> 300B design, by a known fool and a "winder" whose degree and experience
> was in political science, in which the first watt was clearly not
> fabulous.)
>
> It has long been known in the ultrafi community that when you choose
> speakers that will require over a watt, and build big amps to
> compensate, you *will* pay a price in sound quality. Sticking to SET,
> the only tube I know with 300B quality is the 845 -- when very
> conservatively designed to give under 20W. In fact, those SET/Horn guys
> with long experience go further; they don't see the point of a bigger
> tube than 2A3. The reason I started with 300B was that I was impressed
> some little way with the transient overload argument and when I finally
> shrugged that out of my system I had a very big investment in 300B
> knowledge and experience and parts and, as we saw recently in exhanges
> with Stevenson and Chriss, some of this stuff isn't in the textbook,
> they are subtleties you learn by experience in your listening and on
> the test bench; I didn't want to invest another ten years in 2A3.
>
> One final point, already made several times in various ways by Patrick,
> is that my T113 trioded Class A PP EL34 is such a superior amp because
> it isn't really a 25W amp but a 10W amp.
>
> You have to take some of this stuff on faith until you have the
> experience. I didn't (you wouldn't really expect me to, would you?) but
> now I wonder why I ever resisted. I don't actually expect that you will
> take it on faith but in ten years, when you send a post precisely like
> this one, I shall google up this one.
>
>> Jon
>
> In short, the first watt isn't the most important, it is everything
> that is important. The guy who said a whole watt is overkill (which
> made burst out laughing aloud in surprise at finding someone else who
> knows what he is talking about), that only the first few milliwats
> matter could even be nearer to the truth than me, but, regardless of
> what I say, in the glass I am a *very* conservative designer.
>
> Technically, after the first watt, because you're working on a slope,
> the distortion increases disproportionately.
>
> Somewhere I published power measurements I took on an amp driving a
> Quad ESL which really opened my eyes.
>
> Andre Jute
> Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
> wonderfully well written and reasoned information
> for the tube audio constructor"
> John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
> "an unbelievably comprehensive web site
> containing vital gems of wisdom"
> Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review
Andre,
Thank you for taking the time to reply. And so nicely . . . .
You are (logically & anecdotally) correct that there is no guarantee that an
amp that sounds great at one watt will also sound great at higher outputs.
What I meant to convey is that if someone takes due diligence to design a
wonderful one watt amp, there are techniques, parts, & care used that would
likely play well in a higher power product. But that is not necessarily so.
I see tube design as a series of rings, overlapping one another. The
challenge is to maximize the surface area where all of the rings converge.
Thanks for sharing.
Jon
>
Andre Jute
Yo, Mick, I don't think anyone even wants to discuss *calculating*
actually required power sensibly except Chris; this part of thread is
just you, him and me.
You sig reminds me. I was disposing of a Mac Quadra 840AV that we used
to make music videos in the days when it was the only computer with
S-Video ports and the necessary software; it was the most expensive Mac
Apple ever offered. I thought of you and your computer collection, then
I lifted it up and wondered if you'd want to pay the carriage when you
can probably get one free in England for asking at any ad agency. I
gave it to a little girl instead and her father came with a *large* van
to pick it up. With the peripherals (drives, modems, laser printers,
21in Trinitron screen, second 13in Trini for colour-matching and
dialogue boxes, TV for monitoring video output, scanner that weighed
over a 100lbs by itself, custom speakers, all kinds of stuff) and
accompanying software in slipboxes that filled several cartons (eight
shelf-feet of software), the lot filled up three quarters of the van.
Christ, was I glad when I saw how much it was that I didn't have to pay
carriage to England... The poor father, a hard man in his youth, a navy
commando and now captain of a game fisherman out of a nearby port
(funniest guy in the yacht club, too), had broken his ribs a few weeks
before in a sporting accident but still insisted on helping carry all
that stuff. He was looking a bit pale by the time we finished.
Great to see you still around. Instead, may I send you a pair of WE417A
to build a potato amp or to use as high-current (20mA plus) drivers?
(Or just to fondle, of course, if you're into tube molestation.) Drop
me an address to my fiultra mailbox.
Andre Jute
Jon Yaeger
I was disposing of a Mac Quadra 840AV that we used
> to make music videos in the days when it was the only computer with
> S-Video ports and the necessary software; it was the most expensive Mac
> Apple ever offered.
Don't forget the Lisa. The retail on that unit was $10K, IIRC.
I used to be an Apple Dealer.
I don't know shit about tubes, but I can troubleshoot Apple gear to the
component level . . . . . .
Jon
Phil Allison
"Tom Alaerts
>>
>> Eg: The 102 dB figure is the best octave - likely the one from 1 to 2
>> kHz. The 20Hz figure is simply the low edge of the band from 20Hz to 40Hz
>> and he has contrived to get many dB of room gain in that octave.
>
> OK, I now understand what you originally meant.
> I hadn't thought about the manufacturer putting the box in a corner for
> measuring the bottom octave. I thought that such specs were always
> measured in an anechoic room but what do I know.
> Such a unethical practice.
>
> Anyway, let's go back to his claims: 20hz - 20khz +-3db and efficiency of
> 102db. Like you mention this can very well be at say 2khz. Still, in order
> to reach the linearity quoted, if you input 1W to the speaker, the total
> range of 20 to 20k should be delivered between 99 and 105 db at 1m.
>
** You are not being nearly devious enough nor are you familiar with the PC
based tests methods being used today.
If the *best* pink noise octave is that from 1 to 2 kHz and it produces 102
dB / *nominal watt* then the result for the octave from 20 to 40 Hz can be
96 dB and still be within the 6 dB corridor specified.
Allow 8 dB for room gain in the corner where the room has standing wave at
circa 40 Hz and the corresponding anechoic figure would be only 88 dB in
that same low octave. Easily achieved with two small woofers in parallel.
With a pure 20 Hz a sine wave for the test, there may be practically nothing
coming out at all.
> Let's say the manufacturer puts the speaker in a corner for measuring the
> bottom octave. You asked me: how much room gain does a corner add. I would
> have to look it up. Is it 6db?
** Rooms built from concrete or brick have strong low frequency standing
waves - easy enough to pick one that enhances the flagging anechoic bass
response of a small speaker.
> Then the speakers should still reach 93db @ 1W @ 20hz to be inline with
> his claims.
** There is NO claim that sine wave tests were done and such testing is
practically unheard of these days.
The response figures published for the Type III are almost meaningless.
The averaged, band limited pink noise and noise burst methods used today
were originally intended to be used to characterise a reverberant room's
acoustics.
They reveal NOTHING about the sound quality of a hi-fi speaker.
And speaker makers LOVE it that way.
......... Phil
pf...@aol.com
God help us all, Twit.
Silver Sulphate (Ag2SO4) is a photochemically reactive material in two
common forms depending on the exposure to light during formation.
Orange or white, most typically sold as a white powder ~68.9 +/-%
silver. NOT black. As to its conductivity, not normally when in a dry
state.
Silver Sulphide (Ag2S) is what is formed by the normal corrosion of
silver at room temperature. It is black. IT is a partial insulator, in
some conditions it can rectify at rF frequencies and it is mechanically
weak.
Once again, shut up and sit on your hands for 10 seconds. You might
Phil Allison
Pooh Bear
Andre Jute wrote:
> Technically, after the first watt, because you're working on a slope,
> the distortion increases disproportionately.
Only with tubes.
Good solid state amplifiers have essentially constant linearity until clipping
point.
Graham
Andre Jute
Jon Yaeger wrote:
> Andre wrote:
>
>
> I was disposing of a Mac Quadra 840AV that we used
> > to make music videos in the days when it was the only computer with
> > S-Video ports and the necessary software; it was the most expensive Mac
> > Apple ever offered.
>
>
> Don't forget the Lisa. The retail on that unit was $10K, IIRC.
Yeah, I wondered about saying "second most expensive" but a fellow I
know who still has a Lisa in use was most likely asleep so I couldn't
call to ask him if the Lisa was actually a "Macintosh" or just an
Apple. On the day after the 840AV was officially pronounced dead by
Apple, who lost money on every one they sold, I called a distributor in
England and tried to buy three. He let me have one as a favour. All the
designers who wouldn't pay for it when it new, waiting for the price to
drop, on that day panicked and started phoning around to get one before
the stock ran out. It was quite literally the only computer you could
buy off the shelf, short of dedicated and custom machines which started
at about hundred grand for the shaky ones, which would do that sort of
work. Now that sort of video/music work is a commonplace, given away
free with the most basic Mac.
> I used to be an Apple Dealer.
>
> I don't know shit about tubes, but I can troubleshoot Apple gear to the
> component level . . . . . .
Jon, my dear old friend, how insincere do I need to be to persuade you
to move to nearby?
> Jon
Andre Jute
Jon Yaeger
at fiu...@yahoo.com wrote on 12/21/05 9:58 PM:
Actually, I'd be happy to help you with Apple stuff anytime. And I won't
even give you any shit about it.
; -)
Andre Jute
So what, if their first watt sounds like shit because of the excessive
NFB used to straighten them out to marginal acceptibility for fashion
victims?
Where do you get the fucking cheek from to come into a tube conference
and demand we use some piece of silicon shit as a reference?
Andre Jute
Pooh Bear
Andre Jute wrote:
> Pooh Bear wrote:
> > Andre Jute wrote:
> >
> > > Technically, after the first watt, because you're working on a slope,
> > > the distortion increases disproportionately.
> >
> > Only with tubes.
> >
> > Good solid state amplifiers have essentially constant linearity until clipping
> > point.
> >
> > Graham
>
> So what, if their first watt sounds like shit because of the excessive
> NFB used to straighten them out to marginal acceptibility for fashion
> victims?
Your fallacious presumption.
> Where do you get the fucking cheek from to come into a tube conference
> and demand we use some piece of silicon shit as a reference?
It's not a conference. It's Usenet.
I can come and go as I please.
Now stop whining like a baby who's lost its dummy.
Graham
Richard Steinfeld
> And they have NOTHING to do with the subject of the post, which was :
>
> "Guess the circuit of my headphone powered full stack or I'll call you stupid"!
>
> Bob
> Technologist
And who exactly said this?
Richard
Trevor Wilson
"Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:43AA13FB...@hotmail.com...
**Not quite, Graham. You're making two faulty assumptions:
* That all SS amps are built the same way.
* That all tube amps are built the same way.
Some tube amps are linear, almost to clip point.
Some SS amps exhibit a gradually rising distortion, with increasing power.
A tube amp with lots of Global NFB will exhibit remarkably similar
characteristics to the average SS amp.
A SS amp with Zero Global NFB will exhibit remarkably similar
characteristics to many Triode amps.
This is the whole problem with the SS vs. tube debate. Proponents on each
side continue to promulgate the false idea that one technology or the other
has some kind of advantages, based on what is commonly done.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Phil Allison
"Richard Steinfeld"
** No-one, but seeing it is Christmas you must be aware " it is the
thought that counts ".
........ Phil
Arny Krueger
message news:43ab...@news.comindico.com.au
> "Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com>
> wrote in message news:43AA13FB...@hotmail.com...
>>
>> Andre Jute wrote:
>>> Technically, after the first watt, because you're
>>> working on a slope, the distortion increases
>>> disproportionately.
>> Only with tubes.
>> Good solid state amplifiers have essentially constant
>> linearity until clipping
>> point.
> **Not quite, Graham. You're making two faulty assumptions:
>
> * That all SS amps are built the same way.
Doesn't follow. Graham's comment relates to performance, not construction or
design.
> * That all tube amps are built the same way.
I think Graham's saying that the the characteristics of tubes dominate tubed
amps to a far greated degree.
> Some tube amps are linear, almost to clip point.
AFAIK there are no tubed amps that even come close to being as linear as
even a mediocre SS amp.
> Some SS amps exhibit a gradually rising distortion, with
> increasing power.
In some sense, they all do.
> A tube amp with lots of Global NFB will exhibit
> remarkably similar characteristics to the average SS amp.
NFB tends to mostly work in a similar fashion whether its local or global.
> A SS amp with Zero Global NFB will exhibit remarkably
> similar characteristics to many Triode amps.
See above.
> This is the whole problem with the SS vs. tube debate.
There are other significant problems, as well.
> Proponents on each side continue to promulgate the false
> idea that one technology or the other has some kind of
> advantages, based on what is commonly done.
The facts about the superior technical performance and sonic accurcy of SS
amps have never had a legitimate challenge. The only leg that the tubies
have to stand on is basically "I like what I like and there is no fact or
logical argument that will change me"
Trevor Wilson
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:ALOdnbmwzuQ...@comcast.com...
> "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in
> message news:43ab...@news.comindico.com.au
>> "Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote in message news:43AA13FB...@hotmail.com...
>>>
>>> Andre Jute wrote:
>
>>>> Technically, after the first watt, because you're
>>>> working on a slope, the distortion increases
>>>> disproportionately.
>
>>> Only with tubes.
>
>>> Good solid state amplifiers have essentially constant
>>> linearity until clipping
>>> point.
>
>> **Not quite, Graham. You're making two faulty assumptions:
>>
>> * That all SS amps are built the same way.
>
> Doesn't follow. Graham's comment relates to performance, not construction
> or design.
**Make that: "That all SS amps are designed the same way."
>
>> * That all tube amps are built the same way.
>
> I think Graham's saying that the the characteristics of tubes dominate
> tubed amps to a far greated degree.
**I disagree. The most dominant 'feature' of tube amps is the output
transformer (if present). Without it, a tube amplifier can provide
performance very similar to a SS amp.
>
>> Some tube amps are linear, almost to clip point.
>
> AFAIK there are no tubed amps that even come close to being as linear as
> even a mediocre SS amp.
**I have one on the bench as we speak. An Audio research VT100.
>
>> Some SS amps exhibit a gradually rising distortion, with
>> increasing power.
>
> In some sense, they all do.
**Not so much.
>
>> A tube amp with lots of Global NFB will exhibit
>> remarkably similar characteristics to the average SS amp.
>
> NFB tends to mostly work in a similar fashion whether its local or global.
**Nope. There are several fundamental differences.
>
>> A SS amp with Zero Global NFB will exhibit remarkably
>> similar characteristics to many Triode amps.
>
> See above.
>
>> This is the whole problem with the SS vs. tube debate.
>
> There are other significant problems, as well.
>
>> Proponents on each side continue to promulgate the false
>> idea that one technology or the other has some kind of
>> advantages, based on what is commonly done.
>
> The facts about the superior technical performance and sonic accurcy of SS
> amps have never had a legitimate challenge. The only leg that the tubies
> have to stand on is basically "I like what I like and there is no fact or
> logical argument that will change me"
**And there is a major part of the problem. Tube amps can be built with
exemplary performance. It's just an expensive exercise, compared with an SS
amp. I measured and listened to a lot of amps. Tube amps are amongst the
best and worst I've experienced. Ditto with SS amps.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Arny Krueger
message news:43ab...@news.comindico.com.au
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:ALOdnbmwzuQ...@comcast.com...
>> "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote
>> in message news:43ab...@news.comindico.com.au
>>> * That all tube amps are built the same way.
>> I think Graham's saying that the the characteristics of
>> tubes dominate tubed amps to a far greated degree.
> **I disagree. The most dominant 'feature' of tube amps is
> the output transformer (if present). Without it, a tube
> amplifier can provide performance very similar to a SS
> amp.
AFAIK, such an amp has never been commercialized. I'm familiar with the
performance of OPT tubed amps, and while they can have better FR and low
source impedance, some of them don't.
>>> Some tube amps are linear, almost to clip point.
>>
>> AFAIK there are no tubed amps that even come close to
>> being as linear as even a mediocre SS amp.
>
> **I have one on the bench as we speak. An Audio research
> VT100.
Do tell. For example, does it have 0.005% THD at 20 Hz up to half power?
Kalman Rubinson
wrote:
>AFAIK, such an amp has never been commercialized.
Futterman?
Kal
Trevor Wilson
> "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in
> message news:43ab...@news.comindico.com.au
>> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
>> news:ALOdnbmwzuQ...@comcast.com...
>>> "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>> in message news:43ab...@news.comindico.com.au
>
>>>> * That all tube amps are built the same way.
>
>>> I think Graham's saying that the the characteristics of
>>> tubes dominate tubed amps to a far greated degree.
>
>> **I disagree. The most dominant 'feature' of tube amps is
>> the output transformer (if present). Without it, a tube
>> amplifier can provide performance very similar to a SS
>> amp.
>
> AFAIK, such an amp has never been commercialized.
**I've seen and heard a few. They were commercial designs. Given a benign
load, they were capable of life-like reproduction.
I'm familiar with the
> performance of OPT tubed amps, and while they can have better FR and low
> source impedance, some of them don't.
>
>>>> Some tube amps are linear, almost to clip point.
>>>
>>> AFAIK there are no tubed amps that even come close to
>>> being as linear as even a mediocre SS amp.
>>
>> **I have one on the bench as we speak. An Audio research
>> VT100.
>
> Do tell. For example, does it have 0.005% THD at 20 Hz up to half power?
**Nope, but It's problems are beyond the limits of audibility. 0.005% THD
could be argued to be overkill for human hearing. 0.1% is probably adequate.
The VT100 easily meets this spec. BTW: The matching preamp (which I am also
examining) EASILY meets the most stringent parameters pertaining to high
fidelity.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Margaret von B.
> "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in
> message news:43ab...@news.comindico.com.au
>> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
>> news:ALOdnbmwzuQ...@comcast.com...
>>> "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>> in message news:43ab...@news.comindico.com.au
>
>>>> * That all tube amps are built the same way.
>
>>> I think Graham's saying that the the characteristics of
>>> tubes dominate tubed amps to a far greated degree.
>
>> **I disagree. The most dominant 'feature' of tube amps is
>> the output transformer (if present). Without it, a tube
>> amplifier can provide performance very similar to a SS
>> amp.
>
> AFAIK, such an amp has never been commercialized. I'm familiar with the
> performance of OPT tubed amps,
OPT? A new type of amp?
L...@nospam.com
>Created alias? It sure smells like it, even from down under to the USA.
>
>
>Certainly not 'for real' in any case.
>
>Nor does it understand what was actually written by Richard either.
>Hey, Twit, your alter-ego is showing?
>
>Peter Wieck
>Wyncote, PA
Hey SHIT-FOR-BRAINS!
You snipped this...
>
>You don't have a clue!! The 'power' required is to run the step up circuit for
>the high voltage the electrostatics require! And it's not 'power' they want,
>it's higher voltage from a speaker line, as opposed to the limited voltage
>available from a headphone jack.
>
>This has NOTHING to do with high Z phone jacks!
>
>I happen to have a pair of electrostats too! They consume mere milliwatts! And
>mine have a switch to use either the sound source OR the power supply to run
>them. Once charged up, they can run a few minutes with no power supply and the
>switch in the power position, proving they don't require lots of power, just a
>good cap charge.
>
>And they have NOTHING to do with the subject of the post, which was :
>
>"Guess the circuit of my headphone powered full stack or I'll call you stupid"!
>
>Bob
>Technologist
Now fuck off!!!
Stewart Pinkerton
>
>Pooh Bear wrote:
>> Andre Jute wrote:
>>
>> > Technically, after the first watt, because you're working on a slope,
>> > the distortion increases disproportionately.
>>
>> Only with tubes.
>>
>> Good solid state amplifiers have essentially constant linearity until clipping
>> point.
>>
>> Graham
>
>So what, if their first watt sounds like shit because of the excessive
>NFB used to straighten them out to marginal acceptibility for fashion
>victims?
However, that first watt does no such thing in a typical SS amp, nor
would NFB have anything to do with it. Please try to avoid technical
discussions on subjects about which you know next to nothing.
>Where do you get the fucking cheek from to come into a tube conference
>and demand we use some piece of silicon shit as a reference?
Simple - a reference should be the best possible device. A reference
amplifier should have wide dynamic range and high linearity - which
means SS. That's *real* ultrafidelity................
And of course, having such a reference allows you to tune your tube
amp to have whatever distinctive sound you personally prefer. You'll
always have the basically linear SS reference available for
comparison, to check what you have lost in fidelity to gain that
preferred 'tube' sound.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Stewart Pinkerton
OutPut Transformerless. Lots of output tubes in parallel, no iron.
Very expensive, very high output impedance, famously unreliable.
Sander deWaal
>>> AFAIK, such an amp has never been commercialized. I'm familiar with the
>>> performance of OPT tubed amps,
>>OPT? A new type of amp?
>OutPut Transformerless. Lots of output tubes in parallel, no iron.
>Very expensive, very high output impedance, famously unreliable.
And known to the rest of the world as "OTL".
--
"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005
Andre Jute
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
Some dumbo wrote:
> >>> **I disagree. The most dominant 'feature' of tube amps is
> >>> the output transformer (if present). Without it, a tube
> >>> amplifier can provide performance very similar to a SS
> >>> amp.
Someone else wrote:
> >> AFAIK, such an amp has never been commercialized. I'm familiar with the
> >> performance of OPT tubed amps,
Margaret von B then makes a joke:
> >OPT? A new type of amp?
Stewart Pinkerton once more displays his humorless ignorance:
> OutPut Transformerless. Lots of output tubes in parallel, no iron.
> Very expensive, very high output impedance, famously unreliable.
Actually, Stewie, OPT stands for OutPut Transformer. Please try to
avoid technical
discussions on subjects about which you know next to nothing. (1)
Output TransformerLess amplifiers are shorthanded as OTL. Please try
to avoid technical
discussions on subjects about which you know next to nothing. (1)
> --
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Andre Jute
(1) Now where have we heard those words before? Why, they're the mantra
of Stewart Pinkerton himself.
Margaret von B.
"Sander deWaal" <nos...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:or6oq19c3gjq3dtio...@4ax.com...
> Stewart Pinkerton <pat...@dircon.co.uk> said:
>
>>>> AFAIK, such an amp has never been commercialized. I'm familiar with the
>>>> performance of OPT tubed amps,
>
>>>OPT? A new type of amp?
>
>>OutPut Transformerless. Lots of output tubes in parallel, no iron.
>>Very expensive, very high output impedance, famously unreliable.
>
>
> And known to the rest of the world as "OTL".
>
I dunno Sander. Considering Arnii's apparent close association and
familiarity -even per Google- with numerous acronyms such as SWMTWMS, NABMLA
and so forth, I think you should just comply with his superior knowledge.
:-)
Cheers,
Margaret
RapidRonnie
pf...@aol.com wrote:
> Margaret:
>
> To the extent that one good clean watt will do some things very well,
> the first watt is the most important. But even with sparrow-fart
> efficient speakers, the headroom equations and actual physics will
> require some power in many case to move sufficient quantity of air to
> reproduce the full spectrum of sound at actual recorded volume.
>
> I also believe that a carefully designed amplifier can produce clean
> power from one watt to clipping, whatever those limits might be, 5, 50
> or 500 watts.
My brother is a DSP engineer who has worked on a lot of surveillance
RF systems. As he says, "Even though we can now obtain a usable signal
from beneath the observable noise floor, the noise floor always sets
the ultimate limit on usable dynamic range in all practical
situations."
A corollary to this is that while it's possible to build amplifiers
that deliver excellent fidelity above their Class A power point, the
Class A power point always determines the capacity of quality output
available. A 300 watt Class A amplifier such as the larger Krell units
will invariably deliver better low level performance than a 300 watt
McIntosh, or Crown, amplifier.
Paul Klipsch and many others believed that from 5 to 25 watts was
fully adequate for home use in the late 1950s. But houses were smaller,
and no one expected hard rock, rap, or other such things to be anything
anyone wouold ever want to listen to.
My belief is no one amplifier is suited to all sorts of speakers and
applications.
Phil Allison
"RapidRonnie"
** I know why this fool is called "Rapid".
> My brother is a DSP engineer who has worked on a lot of surveillance
> RF systems. As he says, "Even though we can now obtain a usable signal
> from beneath the observable noise floor, the noise floor always sets
> the ultimate limit on usable dynamic range in all practical
> situations."
** How completely irrelevant and *pathetic* to post fake quotes from an
anonymous relative.
> A corollary to this is that while it's possible to build amplifiers
> that deliver excellent fidelity above their Class A power point, the
> Class A power point always determines the capacity of quality output
> available.
** That is no corollary WHATSOEVER - you wanker !!.
> A 300 watt Class A amplifier such as the larger Krell units
> will invariably deliver better low level performance than a 300 watt
> McIntosh, or Crown, amplifier.
** Huh - based solely on your asinine & false "corollary " ??
> Paul Klipsch and many others believed that from 5 to 25 watts was
> fully adequate for home use in the late 1950s. But houses were smaller,
> and no one expected hard rock, rap, or other such things to be anything
> anyone wouold ever want to listen to.
** High power, low efficiency speakers did not exist in the 1950s.
Nor did the inane HT craze.
......... Phil
pf...@aol.com
Take no notice of the Wizard of Oz fulminating from his dung-heap. He
is a fraud and a charlatan gifted with idiot-savant powers towards a
single end of dubious utility and negligible value.
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Phil Allison
Bret Ludwig
Phil Allison wrote:
> "RapidRonnie"
>
> ** I know why this fool is called "Rapid".
>
> > My brother is a DSP engineer who has worked on a lot of surveillance
> > RF systems. As he says, "Even though we can now obtain a usable signal
> > from beneath the observable noise floor, the noise floor always sets
> > the ultimate limit on usable dynamic range in all practical
> > situations."
>
>
> ** How completely irrelevant and *pathetic* to post fake quotes from an
> anonymous relative.
>
>
> > A corollary to this is that while it's possible to build amplifiers
> > that deliver excellent fidelity above their Class A power point, the
> > Class A power point always determines the capacity of quality output
> > available.
>
>
> ** That is no corollary WHATSOEVER - you wanker !!.
Fuck you and the menstruating mare you rode in on, Allison, you
cocksucker. You think we were all what ran down the crack of Margaret's
ass when Jute got finished with her??? Where the fuck did you learn to
act like that!??
(ROTFLMAO....;-) )>
Ether
Run for the hills, Jon! Andre just wants you to re-enact Bareback
Mountain with him.
--E
Bret Ludwig
Richard Steinfeld wrote:
>> never met Paul Klipsch, but I've been intrigued by a statement that I
heard quoted a while back from one of his more dedicated dealers: "What
the world needs is a good one-watt amplifier." Around the same time, I
discovered that the sounds of his classic speakers would be radically
changed by the electronics. People, myself included, had pronounced his
speakers harsh, not realizing that the harshness was due to the amps. I
transformed the sound of one client's Klipsch Heresies by removing her
JVC receiver, and replacing it with a Alpine-era Luxman (the
improvement
was startling). I removed another client's hefty 300-watt power amp and
left him with great-sounding La Scalas running off the headphone
outputs
of his preamp. Opera on this system sounded beautiful, rich, full, big,
and clear (and I do not like most opera!).
So, yup: especially with efficient speakers, that first watt can sure
be
important!<<
Actually he did say "five watt amplifier", but nonetheless you have
the correct idea. More than one very knowledgeable old time audio
person has said thet the best power amp McIntosh ever built, was the
headphone amp in their tuner preamps and integrateds.
The "classic Klipsches" are the Klipschorn proper, the La Scala and
the Belle Klipsch. They differ only in their bass section, which is
their reason for existence. The Heresy and Cornwall, his "junior
classics" were never as good and are of historical interest only.
The best demo for Klipsch eficiency ever was using a crystal radio to
drive one directly, with no amplification or power whatever, only a
good matching transformer off the detector. To get any noticeable
volume, you had to be within a few miles of a 50 kW am daytimer and
have a good earth ground and a longwire antenna. Back when AM stations
actually broadcast music, and moreover didn't compress the shit out of
it, this sold more than a couple of them.
You could also use a transistor radio's earphone output, but while the
volume was impressive, the sound was not.
What the Klipsches had in spades for efficiency, they lost in sound
quality especially in the treble because the midrange and treble
drivers were phenolic diaphragm affairs that sounded pretty good by
1955 standards but not by today's. Of course you could, and people do,
replace the midrange and treble sections with better horn drivers and
the resulting modified speakers are remarkably excellent. Still huge
and expensive.
Most of the hatred directed against Klipschhorns in the solid state
era has been the cause not of the mediocre phenolic horns, but low
level grunge and roughness from amps with the shitty first watt, Class
AB and B (usually, not always, solid state) high power high feedback
designs.
If the amp is designed so that distortion is low before feedback is
applied, it may have the good first watt. but if that was the case, it
wouldn't need the feedback in the first place. So it's a circular
argument as to whether feedback is bad in and of itself or just a
failed patch for bad design in the first place.
Oh and by the way, Allison, you are still a no good son of a bitch, as
you well know.
Phil Allison
"Bret Ludwig"
>
> Oh and by the way, Allison, you are still a no good son of a bitch, as
> you well know.
>
** Scum of the planet child killers beat a path to this Brat Ludwig psycho's
door - just so to have someone to snigger at.
........ Phil
Bret Ludwig
Jon Yaeger wrote:
> Andre wrote:
>
>
> I was disposing of a Mac Quadra 840AV that we used
> > to make music videos in the days when it was the only computer with
> > S-Video ports and the necessary software; it was the most expensive Mac
> > Apple ever offered.
Your memory fails you. That honor falls to the IIcx.
>
>
> Don't forget the Lisa. The retail on that unit was $10K, IIRC.
>
> I used to be an Apple Dealer.
I worked for several. The Lisa predated the Mac but used the same 68K
Mot CPU and had a similar, but incompatible, OS. Several thousand were
buried in the desert when they proved unsaleable, but then they
realized with new firmware and a modified board it could become a Mac,
and they called the molested Lisa a Mac XL.
You could also bugger one into thinking it was a Sun workstation.
>
> I don't know shit about tubes,
(I was going to be kind enough noyt to bring this up....)
but I can troubleshoot Apple gear to the
> component level . . . . . .
Probably up until the Mac SE or SE/30 you could, although official
chip level troubleshooting support ended with the Apple IIGS.
Jon Yaeger
Ludwig at bret...@yahoo.com wrote on 12/24/05 12:22 AM:
You can bullshit me with you knowledge of tubes, Ludwig, but Apple is going
to a little tougher . . .
AFAIK the Lisa never emulated a Sun workstation, but Sun Remarketing sold
the parts to turn a Lisa into a Mac XL. Hence your confusion.
I've repaired Xserve & G4 units to the component level, using SMT
workstations, signature analyzers, and techniques I've developed over the
years. I don't get any help whatsoever from Apple, and certainly no
schematics.
Jon
Bret Ludwig
Trevor Wilson wrote:
<<snip>>
>
> **Oh, I very much doubt that. The Heresy was, undoubtedly, a sonci disaster.
> The worst speaker built by Klipsch. Which makes it a pretty horrible
> sounding speaker, by any measure.
Most speakers back then were horrible. Klipsch's were less horrible
than many.
>
> I removed another client's hefty 300-watt power amp and
> > left him with great-sounding La Scalas running off the headphone outputs
> > of his preamp. Opera on this system sounded beautiful, rich, full, big,
> > and clear (and I do not like most opera!).
>
> **Utter, banal nonsense. The La Scalas were deisgned as sound reinforcement
> speakers. They had no real bottom end to speak of. Mids and highs were as
> bad as the other Klipsch models of the time.
>
No. They were designed for both home and public space use. They still
do a good job as compared to today's sound reinforcement designs of
comparable efficiency.
The La Scala was (is) in essence a mini K-horn with its own wall. They
are identical except for the bass section and sound the same except the
K-horn has over a fourth or fifth lower bass extension WHEN in an
optimum room. The midbass on any Klipsch classic speaker is very good.
Few dispute this. The midrange is strident and brittle by modern
standards. The treble is flaky, rough, and as someone said drops off
the very top abruptly although most males over 40 won't hear the
difference unless they are gay like Allison and have avoided guns, loud
cars and hard rock all their life.
The Klipsch midrange and treble were not disgusting by vintage
standards. The upper midrange at louder volumes is in fact better than
most JBL horns, and better than the vaunted Altec coaxials, especially
before the Mantaray horn. But patient Klipsch modifiers replacing the
midrange and treble drivers and upgrading the crossovers have produced
speakers no less efficient, but comparable in sound to the
Vandersteens, Thiels, and Wilsons even, that the audio salon fairies
worship. If you have not heard these, you are not competent to judge
the basic engineering of Paul Klipsch, which has held up pretty well.
Bret Ludwig
Apple used to have two quasi-official EOL supporters, Sun
Remarketing-who despite their name never sold Sun equipment-and
Pre-Owned Electronics. The XLs were sold as such by Apple dealers
either as factory depot or field conversions of dealer Lisas. After the
XL was offiicially obsolete SunRem got hold of the kits. They also had
a kit to make an Apple ][ into a IIgs, and a bunch of other weird
swaps. I knew a guy who would call SunRem _every week_ on their 800
line and pretend he really thought they _were_ Sun Microsystems or a
vendor thereof. Not sure why.
Making a Lisa/XL emulate a Sun was strictly a bootleg swap. By the
time the Lisa/XL was cheaply available the Suns were already running
the 68030 and SPARC was on the horizon. A much more popular activity
was buggering Amigas and Atari STs into Hackintoshes using the Mac
ROMs. Apple didn't like it but as long as you used real Apple ROMs it
was legal. Of course, no one did. We all burned Mac IIx boot ROMs for
hackers-it was $50 and they supply the blank ICs. Toward the end of the
Amiga era there was a board called an Emplant that ran off a virtual
ROM image, so you used a program to download a ROM image on a SE or
IIx, copied it to a PC formatted floppy, read it on an Amiga with a PC
drive, and ran it under AmigaDOS. No burner needed. A similar device
called Daydream did the same for 68040 NeXT hardware.
Apple DID allow a few interesting things out, such as the ADB bus
analyzer card and software and the Smalltalk system that effectively
made a SE or Plus (forget which) into a near-clone of the Xerox Star.
>
> I've repaired Xserve & G4 units to the component level, using SMT
> workstations, signature analyzers, and techniques I've developed over the
> years. I don't get any help whatsoever from Apple, and certainly no
> schematics.
"Signature analyzers"-that's a term I haven't heard in years, nay,
decades. I doubt too many people know what they were! But the question
is, where do you get Apple ASICs-most everything on Apple logic boards
was proprietary, or at least what went out, especially video and ADB
interfaces and NuBus bridges (suspiciously, things subject to ESD....)
You should have written a book. At one tiome it would have been a
bestseller. Now, no one cares.
Trevor Wilson
"Bret Ludwig" <bret...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135403408.6...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
> <<snip>>
>
>>
>> **Oh, I very much doubt that. The Heresy was, undoubtedly, a sonci
>> disaster.
>> The worst speaker built by Klipsch. Which makes it a pretty horrible
>> sounding speaker, by any measure.
>
>
> Most speakers back then were horrible. Klipsch's were less horrible
> than many.
**Well, yes. However, compared to 'proper' designs, they were horrible.
>>
>> I removed another client's hefty 300-watt power amp and
>> > left him with great-sounding La Scalas running off the headphone
>> > outputs
>> > of his preamp. Opera on this system sounded beautiful, rich, full, big,
>> > and clear (and I do not like most opera!).
>>
>> **Utter, banal nonsense. The La Scalas were deisgned as sound
>> reinforcement
>> speakers. They had no real bottom end to speak of. Mids and highs were as
>> bad as the other Klipsch models of the time.
>>
>
> No.
**Yes.
> They were designed for both home and public space use.
**No. They were designed for sound reinforcement. Many were used and sold
for home use. In fact, here in Australia, they were taxed at the lower, pro
audio rate. Most of the other Klipsch models were taxed at the higher,
domestic rate. To gain the appropriate tax rate, appropriate proof had to be
supplied by Klipsch USA.
They still
> do a good job as compared to today's sound reinforcement designs of
> comparable efficiency.
**For sound reinforcement, certainly. The laws of physics have not been
repealed and a horn is a horn is a horn. Not many changes have occured in
the last 80 years.
>
> The La Scala was (is) in essence a mini K-horn with its own wall.
**No. The drivers were the same (like most Klipsch models), but the
enclosure was fundamentally different. Bass cutoff occured at high(ish)
frequencies, whereas the Klipschorn was only limited by room dimensions. The
possibility of 20Hz cutoff was possbile.
They
> are identical except for the bass section and sound the same except the
> K-horn has over a fourth or fifth lower bass extension WHEN in an
> optimum room.
**IOW: They sound fundamentally different. One has bass, the other does not.
The midbass on any Klipsch classic speaker is very good.
> Few dispute this. The midrange is strident and brittle by modern
> standards.
**That is what I said. Sonically, they suck. Big time. The Heresy is wost of
all.
The treble is flaky, rough, and as someone said drops off
> the very top abruptly although most males over 40 won't hear the
> difference unless they are gay like Allison and have avoided guns, loud
> cars and hard rock all their life.
**Allison is gay? Allison is gay, because he allegedly avoided guns? Are you
suggesting that homosexuals don't use guns? Colour me confused.
>
> The Klipsch midrange and treble were not disgusting by vintage
> standards.
**Those drivers were used by Klipsch for DECADES. While the rest of the
audio world used improved technology for their drive units, Klipsch
persevered with crappy, out of date drivers. When they FIRST came out, the
Klipsch was an excellent product. No doubt about it. However, since the
drive units (and crossovers) enjoyed no significant upgrades for decades,
they were showing their age by the early 1970s.
The upper midrange at louder volumes is in fact better than
> most JBL horns, and better than the vaunted Altec coaxials, especially
> before the Mantaray horn.
**The mid horn used in the Klipsch speakers of the time is utterly horrible,
by modern (>1975) standards. Klipsch tried to run it too low as well.
But patient Klipsch modifiers replacing the
> midrange and treble drivers and upgrading the crossovers have produced
> speakers no less efficient, but comparable in sound to the
> Vandersteens, Thiels, and Wilsons even, that the audio salon fairies
> worship.
**Hang on a sec: We're talking about Klipsch speakers, not something else.
The enclosure was fine in the Klipsch products. The use of plywood was a
good idea. Tough, strong, lightweight enclosures, which would outlast any
chipboard enclosure. Easy.
If you have not heard these, you are not competent to judge
> the basic engineering of Paul Klipsch, which has held up pretty well.
**The basic engineering of Paul Klipsch is not under dispute. PK advanced
the state of the art. What PK did not do was to keep his drivers up to date.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:
>
>pf...@aol.com wrote:
>> Margaret:
>>
>> To the extent that one good clean watt will do some things very well,
>> the first watt is the most important. But even with sparrow-fart
>> efficient speakers, the headroom equations and actual physics will
>> require some power in many case to move sufficient quantity of air to
>> reproduce the full spectrum of sound at actual recorded volume.
>>
>> I also believe that a carefully designed amplifier can produce clean
>> power from one watt to clipping, whatever those limits might be, 5, 50
>> or 500 watts.
>
> My brother is a DSP engineer who has worked on a lot of surveillance
>RF systems. As he says, "Even though we can now obtain a usable signal
>from beneath the observable noise floor, the noise floor always sets
>the ultimate limit on usable dynamic range in all practical
>situations."
>
> A corollary to this is that while it's possible to build amplifiers
>that deliver excellent fidelity above their Class A power point, the
>Class A power point always determines the capacity of quality output
>available.
That's absolute rubbish. Modern Class AB amps are sonically
indistinguishable from otherwise similar Class A amps.
>A 300 watt Class A amplifier such as the larger Krell units
>will invariably deliver better low level performance than a 300 watt
>McIntosh, or Crown, amplifier.
No, it won't.
> Paul Klipsch and many others believed that from 5 to 25 watts was
>fully adequate for home use in the late 1950s. But houses were smaller,
>and no one expected hard rock, rap, or other such things to be anything
>anyone wouold ever want to listen to.
Actually, it was mostly because speakers were much bigger and more
efficient in the '50s, because most audiophiles only had one, and it
could be a massive corner-mounted reflex or horn without dominating
the room.
> My belief is no one amplifier is suited to all sorts of speakers and
>applications.
A good 60-watter will however come very close, and is very easy to
implement.................
Stewart Pinkerton
>
>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>Some dumbo wrote:
>> >>> **I disagree. The most dominant 'feature' of tube amps is
>> >>> the output transformer (if present). Without it, a tube
>> >>> amplifier can provide performance very similar to a SS
>> >>> amp.
Actually, that was a perfectly correct comment, only a dumbo like you
would not recognise it as such.
>Someone else wrote:
>> >> AFAIK, such an amp has never been commercialized. I'm familiar with the
>> >> performance of OPT tubed amps,
>
>Margaret von B then makes a joke:
>> >OPT? A new type of amp?
>
>Stewart Pinkerton once more displays his humorless ignorance:
>> OutPut Transformerless. Lots of output tubes in parallel, no iron.
>> Very expensive, very high output impedance, famously unreliable.
>
>Actually, Stewie, OPT stands for OutPut Transformer. Please try to
>avoid technical
>discussions on subjects about which you know next to nothing. (1)
Actually Andy, you just betray your technical ignorance yet again.
Both OTL and OPT are used to describe iron-free amps.
>Output TransformerLess amplifiers are shorthanded as OTL. Please try
>to avoid technical
>discussions on subjects about which you know next to nothing. (1)
Oh dear, the 'great author' reduced to parroting the words of others.
OTOH, nothing new there...................
Bret Ludwig
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
<<snip>>
>
> > Paul Klipsch and many others believed that from 5 to 25 watts was
> >fully adequate for home use in the late 1950s. But houses were smaller,
> >and no one expected hard rock, rap, or other such things to be anything
> >anyone wouold ever want to listen to.
>
> Actually, it was mostly because speakers were much bigger and more
> efficient in the '50s, because most audiophiles only had one, and it
> could be a massive corner-mounted reflex or horn without dominating
> the room.
People took their audio more seriously then, too.
If you want first rate sound, big efficient speakers are de rigeur.
The small speaker big amp paradigm does not work and belongs on the ash
heap of history with other failed ideas.
> > My belief is no one amplifier is suited to all sorts of speakers and
> >applications.
>
> A good 60-watter will however come very close, and is very easy to
> implement.................
Given a good 400-500 volt B+ supply and a good output transformer and
a good pair of tubes, yes it is.
Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:
>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
><<snip>>
>>
>> > Paul Klipsch and many others believed that from 5 to 25 watts was
>> >fully adequate for home use in the late 1950s. But houses were smaller,
>> >and no one expected hard rock, rap, or other such things to be anything
>> >anyone wouold ever want to listen to.
>>
>> Actually, it was mostly because speakers were much bigger and more
>> efficient in the '50s, because most audiophiles only had one, and it
>> could be a massive corner-mounted reflex or horn without dominating
>> the room.
>
> People took their audio more seriously then, too.
>
> If you want first rate sound, big efficient speakers are de rigeur.
>The small speaker big amp paradigm does not work and belongs on the ash
>heap of history with other failed ideas.
Utter rubbish! There are many *extremely* serious audiophiles who feel
that the small/medium size full-range speaker, which of necessity is
inefficient and requires a big amplifier for big SPLs, provides the
very best available sound quality. Think B&W N800, Avalon Eidolon etc.
The paradigm most certainly does work, and despite the blinkered views
of most RATs, it is the horn speaker and single-ended tubed amp that
are actually buried deep in the ash heap of history. Not 'failed'
ideas per se, simply rendered obsolete by progress.
>> > My belief is no one amplifier is suited to all sorts of speakers and
>> >applications.
>>
>> A good 60-watter will however come very close, and is very easy to
>> implement.................
>
> Given a good 400-500 volt B+ supply and a good output transformer and
>a good pair of tubes, yes it is.
Indeed, it's *possible* to make a tubed amp which can just about match
the performance of a half-decent SS amp - but why bother? Getting back
to the ash heap of history again.................
Bret Ludwig
wrote:
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
><<snip>>
>> > Paul Klipsch and many others believed that from 5 to 25 watts was
>> >fully adequate for home use in the late 1950s. But houses were smaller,
>> >and no one expected hard rock, rap, or other such things to be anything
>> >anyone wouold ever want to listen to.
>> Actually, it was mostly because speakers were much bigger and more
>> efficient in the '50s, because most audiophiles only had one, and it
>> could be a massive corner-mounted reflex or horn without dominating
>> the room.
> People took their audio more seriously then, too.
> If you want first rate sound, big efficient speakers are de rigeur.
>The small speaker big amp paradigm does not work and belongs on the ash
>heap of history with other failed ideas.
Utter rubbish! There are many *extremely* serious audiophiles who feel
that the small/medium size full-range speaker, which of necessity is
inefficient and requires a big amplifier for big SPLs, provides the
very best available sound quality. Think B&W N800, Avalon Eidolon etc.
The paradigm most certainly does work, and despite the blinkered views
of most RATs, it is the horn speaker and single-ended tubed amp that
are actually buried deep in the ash heap of history. Not 'failed'
ideas per se, simply rendered obsolete by progress.
Single ended triodes were never mainstream hi-fi technology anywhere.
SET in the modern sense is a modern Japanese affectation adopted by
well-meaning but electronically incompetent East Coast and Northwest
Pacific trendy yuppie enclaves partly because the poorly transliterated
Japanese propaganda resonated with them and partly because they had the
understanding of electronic circuits of a fourth-grader in 1937 reading
Hugo Gernsback's "Short Wave Craft" magazine. Let's not associate SET
amps with horn speaker technology.
Horn speakers as commercially marketed in the US were very successful
for a long time. There were roughly two "camps", one of high quality
horn driver makers packaging their products for affluent home buyers,
and one of dedicated engineers in low-wage Southern areas endeavoring
to build the most perfected cabinet designs and using cheap drivers,
both to keep build cost down and because they were mostly interested in
seeing how good they could make a cheap speaker from an intellectual
point of view. For the most part the latter 'camp' had one camper, Paul
Klipsch. He was in effect an independently wealthy eccentric and, like
Hartley Peavey, loved playing the benevolent plantation owner.
The small full range speaker, "which is of necessity inefficient", is
the choice only of dilettantes or those who want bigger and better but
who face wife, landlord, or budget issues. A good big one will beat a
good little one every time. That's why a blueprinted smallblock Chevy
will run longer than a BMW engine of the same power output- it's 5.7
liters or 350 CID as opposed to 3.0 or something like that. The little
speaker has it's place. But that is not in the dedicated listening room
of the dedicated two-channel listener who wants seamless full range.
You are exactly right in saying the tube amp can be built to the
standard of blameless performance just as can the solid state amp. The
reason some of us do, we think it's fun. You certainly may disagree.
The tube amp will be easier for the hobbyist to fix as long as the
tubes are avauilable, and the tubes will be available as long as a
customer base exists. Most solid state power amps require factory
support or a curvetracer, a lot of patience, and a big pile of ungraded
semi's to fix.
Chris Hornbeck
<chrishornbe...@att.net> wrote:
>Peak volume requirements of +20dB VU (= 105 dB SPL) requires
>105 - 91 - 3 dB = 11 dBW from each channel. Those still awake
>will be surprised at what this translates to in simple "watts".
Which is wrong, but nobody cares what crap I post
anyway. Gonna fire my editor. Soon. I promise.
Actually, +20 VU = 105 dB SPL at listening position
requires +17 VU = 102 dB SPL from each speaker. (They add RMS).
For 88dB SPL/ 1W/ 1M nominal speakers, 102 dB SPL
is +14 dBW.
For those unfamiliar with log's, +14 dB is a factor of
about 25 for power. IOW's, 25 watts.
For home listening, and without your drunk friends getting
the police knocking on your suburban door, this might be taken
as a conservative maximum working volume. Too loud for me by
at maybe 10 dB, but *your* 0 VU _will_ vary. YMWV, too!
Measure twice; cut once.
All good fortune, Shaloam Aleichem, and pardon my
phonetic spelling,
Chris Hornbeck